Friday, August 31, 2007

18 wheels and a dozen...Jose's?

My apologies to Kathy Mattea for the title.

Mexican big rigs are set to start rolling across the border into the U.S.A. this weekend.

That's right, MEXICAN tractor trailers.

For those of you with BDS who think that we at Wake Up America are absolutely in love with George W. Bush and can see no wrong in him, this is one of those instances where I take GREAT pride in showing you how wrong you are.

Because I personally am bent all out of shape over this, and have been as it's been developing.

Let's set the background just a bit with a visit to Worldnet Daily back in July:

Docs reveal plan for Mexican trucks in U.S.
Internal e-mails belie public statement, suggest aim to expand quietly

Posted: July 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006

Despite claims to the contrary, a planned Midwest "inland port" with a Mexican customs office will not be restricted to railroad traffic, according to internal documents obtained by WorldNetDaily.

As WND has reported, Kansas City SmartPort plans to utilize deep-sea Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to unload containers from China and the Far East as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement super-highway plan.

The plan would include the hotly contested allowance of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads, WND has reported, but Tasha Hammes of the Kansas City Area Development Council has insisted the port will be restricted to railroad traffic.

I personally first mentioned the SPP back in January, here on this blogsite:

Talk radio is abuzz with calls for a Presidential pardon for the two border control agents who have been convicted of shooting this drug smuggler. I fully agree with this call for action by our President. The American people have no interest, by and large, in this on the sly agreement that we have with the Mexicans to create a North American Alliance like the European Union. The President is sitting back and ignoring the problem because he doesn't want to upset the Mexican government and damage relations in building the SPP. TOUGH SHIT.

Why isn't the dinosaur media all over this? It's the ONE thing the Bush administration has come up with that they're in favor of.

We need to win in the Middle East. Burn that into your minds, into your hearts. Failure to do so will result in problems the like of which we have never seen in this country. However, we also need to ensure that we don't hand ourselves, our nation, over into a situation that would change it in OTHER ways by creating a North American Continental governmental authority.

Right now, the SPP isn't in the forefront of "newsworthy" items. You have to dig for information on it, other than the official government site found here.

I also mentioned it here on one spree and I worked on together in February:

Not much is being said about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, signed on March 23, 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and the United States. As G. Gordon Liddy says, it came in under the radar. Seemingly harmless at a casual glance, what this does is begin an elimination of the borders between the U.S.A and our neighbors to the north and South, Canada and Mexico.

Sound familiar?

Europe has already done something similar to this, calling it the European Union, with the introduction of the Euro as a form of currency tradable across the continent amongst its member nations. Are we ready for the Amerio? I don't think so.

Well folks, it's here. Not with grand political speeches, not with thunderous fanfare, not with days of ceremonies celebrating and leaders congratulating themselves and each other on a "job well done." No. Our southern most border is about to disintegrate with the sounds of shifting gears and rubber on the road.

And I would dare say the majority of the American people don't even realize it yet.

Don't believe me? Think I'm talking out of my head? Listen to G. Gordon Liddy's interview with Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa, and then Liddy's interview with Dr. Jerome R. Corsi.

Need more? Are you starting to get irate yet? You SHOULD be mad as HELL. From WorldNetDaily today.

Hoffa: Mexican trucks are disaster for U.S.
'This is a conspiracy of big business. They want to erase the borders'

Posted: August 31, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

A test program being launched by the Bush Administration to allow what could be thousands of Mexican trucks and their drivers unrestricted access to U.S. highways will be a "disaster," according to the chief of the Teamsters.

James Hoffa, whose union is working in court to halt the scheduled launch of the trucking test program this weekend, told G. Gordon Liddy on his radio talk show that the Mexican trucks and drivers will endanger U.S. lives, damage U.S. jobs, pollute the U.S. environment and benefit no one but big business.

"They want to make it so there's no regulation. You get in your truck in Monterey, Mexico, and drive to Montreal. You'd have to be on speed to do it," Hoffa said.

What can be done about this? Still checking on that, but we WILL be following this as it develops and trying to find a way to stop it.

Oh, and a special note for those of you with BDS who think that we are blind and can't think for ourselves and we're lost in LOVE with George W. and everything he does; while I am personally not yet ready to jump in with others following this issue to call for impeachment of the President (and yes, this actually COULD be an impeachable offense, unlike all this tripe that is spouted about impeachment over the war), I can't say that I'm far from thinking that way...

Watch yourselves on the road this weekend, folks, especially those of you in Texas and along the Mexican border. The highways are about to get a lot more dangerous.

Just a little heads up and a wake up call for those of you who have been asleep at the wheel from...

An American Fighting Man


Sunday, August 26, 2007

Maybe He Saw the Thing on the Wing?

Great old classic Twilight Zone episode, wasn't it? You remember, the one with William Shatner on the aiplane, and he saw the thing out on the plane's wing?

Probably NOT the case with this obviously upset young man in this incident:

Psycho tries to open jet door in air


Sunday, August 26th 2007, 4:00 AM

Quick-thinking passengers and crew members managed to subdue a deranged man who tried to open an airplane door thousands of feet in the air on a flight to New York yesterday.

"There was a lot of panic," said passenger Bobby Vigil, who sat next to the man for most of the flight and later helped restrain him with duct tape and seat belts. "He tried to open the back door of the plane. He really wanted out at 30,000 feet."

Port Authority police met Frontier Airlines Flight 514 from Denver when it landed safely at LaGuardia Airport shortly before 6 a.m. After determining the culprit was emotionally disturbed, they took him to Elmhurst Hospital Center, Port Authority spokesman Pasquale DiFulco said. He was not charged.


Vigil said the crazed man was bouncing up and down in his seat for most of the flight, clutching several boarding passes and kicking the row in front of him.

"He was playing with his hair, picking at his face and counting his fingers," said Vigil, 45, of Estes Park, Colo. "I thought he was anxious to get home or something."


"I heard the flight attendant say, 'Help me!'" Vigil said. A struggle broke out, and Vigil and two other male passengers rushed over to help the attendant restrain the passenger.

"We taped him up in an 'X' pattern," said Vigil. "He wouldn't stay still or cooperate."

The man, whose name was not released, attempted to bite the tape off his hands and feet. Extension belts were used to keep him in place as the plane prepared to land, Vigil said.

My questions here are these (if you read me regularly, you KNOW I have them) "Was there no indication BEFORE this man got on the plane? Was he acting normally prior to the flight? If there were indications that he was disturbed prior to the flight, why was he allowed on board to begin with?

Or maybe he DID see Shatner's wing rider...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Underestimating Southern Demeanor

John Wayne wasn't a Southerner, but he had a firm grasp on the mindset of BEING from the south in some cases. "Talk low, talk slow, and don't talk too much."

In the generations following the Civil War (I'll refrain from calling it the War of Northern Aggression for this piece, but make no mistake about my feelings on the matter as both a Southerner AND a historian) the South has endured the hateful punishment of the Reconstruction era, repressive industrial practices that deliberately left the South agrarian during the turning of the last century up until the middle of the century, depictions of Southerners as uneducated, unsophisticated, and unintelligent by Hollywood (The Beverly Hillbillies and the more recent modern version of The Dukes of Hazard come to mind).

From Wikipedia (I know it's generally not considered a refereed source, but for general information, sometimes it's a great place to look for things):

The Culture of the Southern United States or Southern Culture is a subculture of the United States that has resulted from the blending of a heavy amount of rural Scot-Irish culture, the culture of African slaves, Native American culture, and to a lesser degree that of French and Spanish colonists. Southerners have a unique shared history, which includes remembrance of difficult times such as the institution of slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Great Depression, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement, and more recent events or tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.

The South also hosts a vibrant African American subculture, a sense of rural isolation, and a strong regional identity. It has also developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music, bluegrass, southern gospel, rock and roll, blues and jazz), and cuisine. This unique cultural and historical blend has caused many scholars such as sociologist John Shelton Reed to speculate that Southerners are a separate ethnic group.

The largest group of Southerners are primarily the descendants of the Celtic immigrants who moved to the South in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to an 1860 census, "three-quarters of white Southerners had surnames that were Scottish, Irish or Welsh in origin." 250,000 settled in the USA between 1717 and 1770 alone. They were often called "crackers" [2] by English neighbors. As one wrote, "I should explain… what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascals on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode." Most had previously lived in Scotland, usually in the Lowlands and Scottish Border Country. The "Celtic Thesis" of Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney holds that they were basically Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all Celtic groups (Scots Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. Author James Webb uses this thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits of the Scots-Irish, loyalty to kin, mistrust of governmental authority, and military readiness, "helped shape the American identity," and indeed, these features commonly seen in the South have long been woven into fabric of American society and policy.

The other primary population group in the South is made up of the African-American descendants of the slaves brought into the South. African-Americans comprise the United States' second-largest racial minority, accounting for 12.1 percent of the total population according to the 2000 census. Despite Jim Crow era outflow to the North (see Great Migration (African American)) the majority of the black population remains concentrated in the southern states, and have transmitted their foods, music (see "negro spirituals"), art, and charismatic brand of Christianity to white Southerners, and the rest of the nation.

There has been much criticism over the years by both Southerners and Northerners alike of the negative stereotypes of southerners (especially those of the Appalachian regions) depicted in the media and in the general attitudes of some people from other regions. Critics argue that in this age of "political correctness" and sensitivity (especially taught in American schools since the 1990's) that the people of the southern United States are today one of the few groups that can be openly and "safely" ridiculed and discriminated against[citation needed]. This is primarily due, critics point out, to other Americans' lack of knowledge of the region and because of hostile feelings and prejudices in response to the south's history of poor education (in some areas) and racial problems. Offensive terms such as "redneck" and "hillbilly" are often used to pervasively blanket the entire region.

It is this mindset that seems to have shrouded Fred Thompson during the first stages of what is likely to be his bid for the White House. Critics, especially Northern critics, have labeled him as "slow, unfocused, and gloomy." Is it gloomy to present the reality of things to the American people rather than doing the standard dance of rhetoric? I think not, and in Jonathan Martin's Fred: Sober and Serious, I find that I'm not alone in thinking so.

Fred: Sober and Serious

INDIANAPOLIS — Fred Thompson thinks the country faces a tough road ahead and he's not glossing over the problems we face. In fact, he's anxious to outline the daunting litany and appears to be basing his forthcoming campaign on the assumption that his party shares the same outlook.

In a 25-minute after-dinner speech to attendees of the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference here, Thompson offered a stark assessment of what he described as America's perilous condition.

"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."

There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better it's going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").

And Thompson's tonic for these thorny matters?

Well, befitting his still not yet being a formal candidate he didn't have specific solutions. Instead he returned to what he calls "first principles."

"I don't think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are outmoded documents," Thompson declared, finally giving the crowd something to clap about after the gloomy bill of particulars was laid out. Federalism or devolving power to the states would help, he said. Also, the rule of law, the market economy, respect for private property, free trade and competition came in for praise — hardly dangerous ground among conservative activists.

Perhaps recognizing that all his rhetoric was depressing a crowd that given him a loud and extended welcome, Thompson said it was very much possible for things to turn around. "We know how to do that, we've done it so many times before," he reminded.

We do know how, and yes, we have done it before.

In my mind, Fred Thompson's greatest opponent will not be Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. The greatest challenge will be in fighting Southern stereotyping. Fortunately, there seem to be enough educated people stepping up to the plate from other sections of the country to help fight this.

And I think we can surpass it, and Fred Thompson can win the Presidency.

Just the thoughts of a modern Southerner (and fellow Tennessean) who also happens to be...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, August 25, 2007

Alert the CDC, there's a STUPID VIRUS outbreak!

[UPDATE 1752 CST] It has come to my attention (sorry Bob, so sorry, really, I truly am) that one should avoid eating or drinking when reading this. (REALLY am sorry, Bob, hope that doesn't scald).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled tomfoolery.


Martin Lewis must come from a loving family. A family that loves Martin and Lewis, that is, since their offspring must have been named for Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis.

What bothers me most is that the man is serious in what he suggests. I can't even begin to describe the way my brain began spasming, convulsing, and shaking in utter incomprehensible disbelief at the information my eyes were sending to it.

First I laughed.

Then I reread it and laughed some more.

Somewhere in the raucous laughter and gasping for air, from some corner in my mind's deep dark recesses (and my mind is a scary place to be, folks, let me tell you), I could hear the voice of Mr. T saying "I PITY the fool."

Which of course made me laugh all the harder.

OH, what did I read that sent me into such fits of laughter?

That would be Martin Lewis' (God the NAME ITSELF just ASKS for laughter, doesn't it?) column at Huffington Post.


Make sure you proceed cautiously over the next few moments in reading JUST A SAMPLING of what the clown prince of slapstick suggests...

General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming"

General Peter Pace
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
400 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-0400

Dear General Pace,

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.


Ok, fit of laughter over.

Let's be clear about something here.

The President is the top of the chain of command for ALL branches of the military.


The President is not SUBJECT to UCMJ (for those of you who don't know because you haven't been in the military or just don't know because, well, you just don't know, that stands for Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Let me say this one more time, and I want it to be put forth as matter of public record MY OWN response to Martin Lewis' suggestion.

Here it is.



Ok, I'm out of breath...

Someone notify the Centers for Disease Control before this virus reaches pandemic proportions?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

(oh my stars and garters that's just funny)


Friday, August 24, 2007

A little blue Kool-aide for the Senator from Virginia, please

Or maybe he prefers pink.

In a move that flies in the face of recommendations by OTHER senators and members of Congress, from both parties, who have visited Iraq, Virginia's John Warner has returned and is suggesting that our troops be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas.

Warner's Call for Withdrawal Met by Plea for Patience (Update1)

By Edwin Chen and William Roberts

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Warner, an influential Republican on defense matters, urged President George W. Bush to announce by Sept. 15 a plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, a suggestion the administration rejected.

Yesterday's statement by Warner, a five-term Virginia senator, combined with a new report by U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded Iraq's political leaders still can't govern effectively, will add fuel to the debate over the war when Congress returns from recess next month.

``We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action,'' Warner, who returned from Iraq last week and met with top administration officials yesterday, said during a news conference at the Capitol.

Political and foreign-policy analysts said Warner's remarks will increase Republican defections to oppose the war even if it is unlikely to change the president's mind.

For Republicans who may be on the fence, ``it's really nice to have some highly respected, senior, conservative senator go out on a limb,'' said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Still, he said, it won't be sufficient opposition to force Bush's hand. ``The president doesn't want Iraq lost on his watch,'' Cook said.

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten his history, and doesn't remember that OUR OWN nation went through first the Articles of Confederation and THEN the Constitution when our nation was forming out of the ashes of colonization.

Brian Baird offers a very different outlook in his piece in the Seattle Times:

Our troops have earned more time

By Brian Baird

Special to The Times

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.

Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.

I have a brilliant idea! Why don't we ask all the nay sayers and surrender mongers to do simply this: sit back and wait for General Petraeus to make his report next month and discuss it OBJECTIVELY. Think they'll go for it? Of course not, they're already foaming at the mouth and gnawing at the bit trying to discredit the man even before he makes his opening statements.

Food for thought, don't you think?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Placing a price tag on freedom

At what cost freedom? Can the cost be measured in dollars and cents? Or is the measure of the worth of freedom something intangible, something unseen, untouched, unable to bartered or traded?

One of our commenters stated the other day that too much money had been wasted on the war, the troops worked for him, and he demands they be brought home.

Obviously this individual has never read the Constitution of the United States of America, for he doesn't understand that as a private citizen, he IS NOT A MEMBER of the CHAIN OF COMMAND structure for the military.

By that token, neither is any member of either the House or the Senate.

That being said, the New York Sun has an article today that those who are so terribly disturbed about the state of the government under the control of the Bush administration will likely blanch at reading.

Incredible Shrinking Deficit, II
New York Sun Editorial
August 24, 2007

2004: $413 billion
2005: $318 billion
2006: $248 billion
2007: $158 billion

Close readers of this column may recall the top three numbers in the list above from our editorial of July 12, "Incredible Shrinking Deficit." It commented on the mid-session review released by President Bush's Office of Management and Budget, which projected the fourth number, the 2007 federal budget deficit, at $205 billion. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released its own updated estimate for 2007, $158 billion, a deficit even smaller than the White House's July figure. The CBO yesterday also released its latest estimate of the 2007 deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, allowing us to update another list of deficit numbers:

2004: 3.6%
2005: 2.6%
2006: 1.9%
2007: 1.2%

The CBO's estimate of the 2007 deficit at 1.2% of GDP is significantly lower than the White House's July estimate of 1.5% of GDP, which we used back in the July 12 editorial, and well below the 40-year average of 2.4%. In other words, the case is stronger than ever that President Bush's tax cuts, rather than creating a budget deficit, are fueling economic growth that is swelling federal revenues and shrinking the deficit.

Democrats, naturally, are already coming up with ways to discredit this, but the numbers are there, in black and white. Watch the next few days as they begin spluttering and foaming at the mouth finding other things to vilify the administration for. Mayhap some of the things that they'll bring up will be valid. Lord knows I'd love to see our borders secured. But on this one? They may as well be coyotes yapping and whining at the full moon.

Just remember this. These numbers come from a time when there have been tax CUTS. What do the Democrats want to do to your taxes? They want to raise them.

Something to think about.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Fickle Irony, thy Name is Webb...

It's an amazing thing how our pasts come back to bite us so soundly right square on the ass sometimes. Lord knows I've had things enough from my past come back to haunt my nightmares often enough, things I would have preferred left in the past, buried, forgotten, tucked away safely in their own little compartments where they could do no harm.

The truth of the matter is, the more things we do in the public eye, the more there is to come back to catch us at a later date. And when we say things or do things for no other reason than out of mere political motivation, things done simply to be in contrast with the opposing side, we make of ourselves hypocrites.

Witness the following, and bear ye witness to exactly the sort of political pandering and hypocrisy of which I speak:

The Corner

Friday, August 24, 2007

"The Aftermath of Saigon's Fall Is Rarely Dealt With At All." [Byron York]

An analysis of Vietnam strikingly similar to what we're hearing today, beginning with a discussion of Congress' 1975 decision to cut funding to the South Vietnamese:

This Congress was elected in November 1974, only months after Nixon's resignation, and it was dominated by a fresh group of antiwar Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Congress was to vote down a supplemental appropriation for the beleaguered South Vietnamese that would have provided $800 million in military aid, including much-needed ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies.

This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust their military defenses.

Read the full article here. The author of this article, not the one today, but the original article? Why that would be none other than Senator James Webb of Virginia. That's right, the same Senator James Webb of Virginia who refused to shake hands with President Bush and berated him about bringing home the troops.

It's almost as if the man was trained under the direct tutelage of a certain Senator from New York who has no political bearing of her own other than to go whichever way the polls lean. Mayhap they're related, for surely this must be some sort of genetic anomaly that causes these people to act as if they have no conscience, no honor, and certainly no valor.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, August 23, 2007

Just when you thought it was as dumb as it could get...

I tend not to read certain magazines because I know ahead of time that their slant and my beliefs are going to clash violently.

That being said.

I could NOT believe my eyes when I saw this one:

Why America's Pullout From Vietnam Worked
The truth behind Bush's mangling of Cold War history.

By Michael Hirsh
Updated: 12:10 p.m. CT Aug 23, 2007

Aug. 23, 2007 - The Soviet Union was in its final days of existence when I visited Vietnam in late December of 1991. The cold war was about to end forever with the collapse of one of the two adversaries that had kept it going for 40-odd years. A lot had changed in Vietnam, too, I discovered during my trip. The coziness between Moscow and Hanoi, once comrades within the Soviet bloc, had curdled into mutual hatred. Throughout the country, but especially in the North, the Vietnamese had come to despise the large resident Russian population for its cheap spending habits and arrogance. Visiting Americans, by contrast, were welcomed with smiles (“Russians with dollars,” we were called.) On the day I visited the old U.S. Embassy in Saigon—the where some of those iconic photos symbolizing American defeat were taken—I discovered government workmen removing a plaque that once commemorated the North’s victory over the “U.S. imperialists.” In the waning days of that epochal year, 1991, the propaganda against American involvement in Southeast Asia was suddenly no longer politically correct. Hanoi’s new message: Yankee Come Back (and bring your investment dollars). Today Vietnam remains nominally communist, but Hanoi knows it is an ideological relic surrounded by Asian capitalist tigers, all of them U.S. allies or dependents (one reason Vietnam was so eager to have Bush visit last November: it wants to be part of that club). The cold war dominoes did fall—but the opposite way.

I'm sure all those killed after the fall of Saigon would love to read this happy happy report. I'm sure that all those out there who SERVED in the Nam are overjoyed to know that they went and served so that this analysis could be made. I'm sure that every GI who bought it in the Nam would be ecstatic to know what Michael Hirsh has to say about Vietnam today.

Vietnam was faced with a choice a few years back, not so long ago at all. Turn to capitalistic economics or die out. They chose not to die out. It wasn't because they suddenly love us, it's because they need our cash. Soviet Russia is no more.


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Here we go again...


Arizona School Suspends 13-Year-Old Boy for Drawing Gun

MESA, Arizona — Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.

The boy's parents said the drawing was a harmless doodle and school officials overreacted.

"The school made him feel like he committed a crime. They are doing more damage than good," said the boy's mother, Paula Mosteller.

The drawing did not show blood, bullets, injuries or target any human, the parents said. And the East Valley Tribune reported that the boy said he did not intend for the picture to be a threat.

Administrators of Payne Junior High in nearby Chandler suspended the boy on Monday for five days but later reduced it to three days.

Don't let them draw farm animals, either. There's no TELLING what they might have on their minds. Why, they might even imagine having fried chicken if they draw poultry. OR WORSE YET! For the love of PEACE don't let them draw any PIGS! We might offend some members of that peace loving religion that doesn't eat pork...


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


A House Divided...

George Will sees us at a point similar to Germany in 1918 in his column regarding the pending report by Gen. Petraeus scheduled for next month.

I'm not so sure.

What September Won't Settle

By George F. Will
Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A19

Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.

After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.

The Weimar Republic was fragile; America's domestic tranquility is not. Still, remember the bitterness stirred by the accusatory question "Who lost China?" and corrosive suspicions that the fruits of victory in Europe had been squandered by Americans of bad character or bad motives at Yalta.

So, consider this: When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his report on the war, his Washington audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.

Read the full article here.

I can understand the Weimar analogy. I really can.

Personally I'm not quite so optimistic.

Already the media and the Pelosi/Reid crowd are doing their best to kill the messenger before he even arrives. In my mind there is only one reason for them to do so; they have to discredit him before he makes his presentation because they know the positive nature of what his report is going to be.

Hence my not seeing us in a situation so similar to the Weimar scenario.

I see us more back where we were in the 1840's, prior to the Compromise of 1850, the difference being that this time westward expansion, industrialization, and slavery are not the issues. North and South were divided camps then, Left and Right are divided camps today. This time, however, we have no Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, or Daniel Webster to offer forth any sort of compromise, rather we have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and last but certainly not least Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

See any hope for compromise out of that crowd? Or do you see further polarization of the American people, polarization that puts us in dire straights on the road to armed confrontations between the two camps in the streets?

God help us all if we break down into another civil war in this nation.

God help the world if we do...

This time there WILL BE NO winners.

Unless you're a Jihadist, waiting for this to happen to our nation so that you and your "brothers" can come in and establish Sharia law out of the rubble.

Time to open your eyes, sleepyheads.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Wednesday, August 22, 2007

What size shoe phone do you wear, sir?

Americans love spies.

That's right. We do.

Americans have a love affair with espionage. We love spies. Bauer, Bond, Flint (for those of you old enough to remember him), Ryan, Bourne.

Maxwell Smart.

We watch movies, we watch television, we read books.

Suddenly we're armchair intel and counter intel masters.

We're also armchair quarterbacks for football, armchair managers for baseball teams, armchair coaches for basketball teams, and armchair referees/umpires for all three of the afore mentioned.

That's the problem with too many Americans. The armchair. We sit in them sponging in whatever is on the idiot box and thinking we're better at strategy on the field than Peyton Manning, smarter than the President (um, ok, I might be tempted to give you that one some days), and more cunning than Robin Hood (the Flynn version, Costner was good, but he wasn't as swashbuckling).

I have a point here, and it is this. The average American is woefully inadequate for the field of espionage. We take what we are spoon fed by the dinosaur media every night and think that we are better qualified to interpret policy issues based on biased coverage of what is going on overseas rather than relying on those who make careers out of interpreting data and information.

The following is from an interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

Transcript: Debate on the foreign intelligence surveillance act
By Chris Roberts / ©El Paso Times
Article Launched: 08/22/2007 01:05:57 AM MDT

The following is the transcript of a question and answer session with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.
Question: How much has President Bush or members of his administration formed your response to the FISA debate?

Answer: Not at all. When I came back in, remember my previous assignment was director of the NSA, so this was an area I have known a little bit about. So I came back in. I was nominated the first week of January. The administration had made a decision to put the terrorist surveillance program into the FISA court. I think that happened the 7th of Jan. So as I come in the door and I'm prepping for the hearings, this sort of all happened. So the first thing I want to know is what's this program and what's the background and I was pretty surprised at what I learned. First off, the issue was the technology had changed and we had worked ourselves into a position that we were focusing on foreign terrorist communications, and this was a terrorist foreigner in a foreign country. The issue was international communications are on a wire so all of a sudden we were in a position because of the wording in the law that we had to have a warrant to do that. So the most important thing to capture is that it's a foreigner in a foreign country, required to get a warrant. Now if it were wireless, we would not be required to get a warrant. Plus we were limited in what we were doing to terrorism only and the last time I checked we had a mission called foreign
intelligence, which should be construed to mean anything of a foreign intelligence interest, North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, weapons of mass destruction proliferation, military development and it goes on and on and on. So when I engaged with the administration, I said we've gotten ourselves into a position here where we need to clarify, so the FISA issue had been debated and legislation had been passed in the house in 2006, did not pass the Senate. Two bills were introduced in the Senate, I don't know if it was co-sponsorship or two different bills, but Sen. (Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.) had a bill and Sen. Specter had a bill and it may have been the same bill, I don't know, but the point is a lot of debate, a lot of dialogue. So, it was submitted to the FISA court and the first ruling in the FISA court was what we needed to do we could do with an approval process that was at a summary level and that was OK, we stayed in business and we're doing our mission. Well in the FISA process, you may or may not be aware ...

Q: When you say summary level, do you mean the FISA court?

A: The FISA court. The FISA court ruled presented the program to them and they said the program is what you say it is and it's appropriate and it's legitimate, it's not an issue and was had approval. But the FISA process has a renewal. It comes up every so many days and there are 11 FISA judges. So the second judge looked at the same data and said well wait a minute I interpret the law, which is the FISA law, differently. And it came down to, if it's on a wire and it's foreign in a foreign country, you have to have a warrant and so we found ourselves in a position of actually losing ground because it was the first review was less capability, we got a stay and that took us to the 31st of May. After the 31st of May we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability. And meantime, the community, before I came back, had been working on a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorist threat to the homeland. And the key elements of the terrorist threat to the homeland, there were four key elements, a resilient determined adversary with senior leadership willing to die for the cause, requiring a place to train and develop, think of it as safe haven, they had discovered that in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now the Pakistani government is pushing and pressing and attempting to do something about it, but by and large they have areas of safe haven. So leadership that can adapt, safe haven, intermediate leadership, these are think of them as trainers, facilitators, operational control guys. And the fourth part is recruits. They have them, they've taken them. This area is referred to as the FATA, federally administered tribal areas, they have the recruits and now the objective is to get them into the United States for mass casualties to conduct terrorist operations to achieve mass casualties. All of those four parts have been carried out except the fourth. They have em, but they haven't been successful. One of the major tools for us to keep them out is the FISA program, a significant tool and we're going the wrong direction. So, for me it was extremis to start talking not only to the administration, but to members of the hill. So from June until the bill was passed, I think I talked to probably 260 members, senators and congressmen. We submitted the bill in April, had an open hearing 1 May, we had a closed hearing in May, I don't remember the exact date. Chairman (U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas) had two hearings and I had a chance to brief the judiciary committee in the house, the intelligence committee in the house and I just mentioned the Senate, did not brief the full judiciary committee in the Senate, but I did meet with Sen. (Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.) and Sen. (Arlen Specter, R-Pa.), and I did have an opportunity on the Senate side, they have a tradition there of every quarter they invite the director of national intelligence in to talk to them update them on topics of interest. And that happened in (June 27). Well what they wanted to hear about was Iraq and Afghanistan and for whatever reason, I'm giving them my review and they ask questions in the order in which they arrive in the room. The second question was on FISA, so it gave me an opportunity to, here I am worrying about this problem and I have 41 senators and I said several things. The current threat is increasing, I'm worried about it. Our capability is decreasing and let me explain the problem.

Q: Can't you get the warrant after the fact?

A: The issue is volume and time. Think about foreign intelligence. What it presented me with an opportunity is to make the case for something current, but what I was really also trying to put a strong emphasis on is the need to do foreign intelligence in any context. My argument was that the intelligence community should not be restricted when we are conducting foreign surveillance against a foreigner in a foreign country, just by dint of the fact that it happened to touch a wire. We haven't done that in wireless for years.

Read the entire article here.

How many of us out there knew even a small percentage of that? I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable in matters of intelligence and what not, and I learned quite a bit in reading that interview.

Think about that, folks, next time the dinosaur media starts telling you what to think in their oh so subtle (not) ways.

Meanwhile, I've gotta run for now.

My shoe phone is ringing...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Monday, August 20, 2007

I suppose they'll blame Bush for this, too...

[Update 8:15 pm CST]

This just in at Operation Iraqi Freedom:


Aug. 20, 2007
Release A070820a

Coalition Forces Kill Eight, Detain Three, Capturing a Special Groups Leader and Smuggler of Iranian Weapons

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces captured a weapons smuggler and Special Groups extremist leader before dawn Monday near Qasirin, north of Baghdad.

Coalition Forces conducted a raid targeting this known weapons distributor and Special Groups leader. The captured weapons facilitator was responsible for the storage and distribution of Iranian weapons. Coalition Forces intelligence suggests the weapons facilitator has traveled to and from Iran numerous times and is responsible for smuggling and distributing deadly explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). The target was also responsible for the distribution of those weapons to Special Groups operating throughout the Baghdad area and was connected to a very large network of weapons facilitators and Special Groups associates. The weapons smuggler is believed to have had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force...

I believe you and courtneyme had dissenting points of view earlier, John?


How long have we been warning that this sort of thing was going to happen? How long have people who study and analyze things been saying to you "Iran is preparing to do something."


I DO hate to do the "I told you so" thing, but sometimes, dammit, you just have to so that you can make a point.

Kurds flee homes as Iran shells villages in Iraq

· Guerrillas in clashes with Revolutionary Guards
· Conflict threatens stability of Kurdistan region

Michael Howard in Irbil
Monday August 20, 2007
The Guardian

Iraqi Kurdish officials expressed deepening concern yesterday at an upsurge in fierce clashes between Kurdish guerrillas and Iranian forces in the remote border area of north-east Iraq, where Tehran has recently deployed thousands of Revolutionary Guards.

Jabar Yawar, a deputy minister in the Kurdistan regional government, said four days of intermittent shelling by Iranian forces had hit mountain villages high up on the Iraqi side of the border, wounding two women, destroying livestock and property, and displacing about 1,000 people from their homes. Mr Yawer said there had also been intense fighting on the Iraqi border between Iranian forces and guerrillas of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), an armed Iranian Kurdish group that is stepping up its campaign for Kurdish rights against the theocratic regime in Tehran.

On Saturday the Iranian news agency Mehr said an Iranian army helicopter which crashed killing six Republican Guard members had been engaged in a military operation against PJAK. Iranian officials said the helicopter had crashed into the side of a mountain during bad weather in northern Iraq. PJAK sources said the helicopter had been destroyed after it attempted to land in a clearing mined by guerrillas. The PJAK sources claimed its guerrillas had also killed at least five other Iranian soldiers, and a local pro-regime chief, Hussein Bapir.

"If this escalates it could pose a real threat to the Kurdistan region, which is Iraq's most stable area," said Mr Yawar, who said he expected the Iraqi government and US officials in Iraq to make a formal protest to Tehran about the "blatant violation of Iraqi sovereignty".

HOW MUCH MORE CLEARLY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SHOWN that Iran is just ITCHING to get into the mix with us?

More as it develops.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Dogging the Bounty Hunter

I've never met Duane Chapman, but I respect the man. For those of you who don't know who Duane Chapman is, he's better known as Dog the Bounty Hunter.

Dog has what you might call a speckled past. By his own admission, he spent the first 25 years of his life on "the wrong side of the law." After a life changing event upon his release from prison, he turned himself around and now devotes his life to bringing in fugitives, helping them, and fighting the growing problem of methamphetamines in Hawaii.

And the Dog needs our help.

The Chapman family are facing a legal battle with OUR OWN GOVERNMENT regarding the 2003 apprehension of fugitive Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir, who was on the run from charges of serial rape. The Chapmans picked him up in Mexico and returned him to Santa Barbara, California, for trial (he was convicted of 86 counts of rape).

This is where things got sticky for Dog and family. Mexico filed charges against them, which have now, finally, been dropped. The problem that remains NOW is that OUR OWN GOVERNMENT has charges against them.

Our government files charges against someone who was bringing a criminal back to OUR justice system?

Where, I ask you, is the justice in that?

Click this link and get the details, and sign the petition to keep the Dog free.

He's a GOOD Dog.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, August 19, 2007

Like a pack of rabid dogs...

What do you do with a rabid dog? You put it down.

It's an amazing thing how that some in this country behave with the characteristics of animals, especially those infected with rabies.

It infuriates me that people can NOT let those in our government who are TRYING to do their jobs DO them.

Political Rabies...

The Founders Had an Idea for Handling Alberto Gonzales

Published: August 19, 2007

William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s disgraced secretary of war, is experiencing a revival. Impeached in 1876 for taking bribes, he has become the inspiration for a movement to remove Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from office. Impeachment is usually thought of as limited to presidents, but the Constitution not only allows the impeachment of Cabinet members, in Belknap’s case, it was actually done.

Impeaching Mr. Gonzales has moved beyond the hypothetical, now that Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, and five other prosecutors-turned-representatives have introduced a resolution to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Congress is wary, and not only because of post-Clinton impeachment hangover. The grounds set out in the Constitution are vague, and the Democrats do not want to be seen as overreaching.

Members of Congress should keep in mind, however, that the founders gave them the impeachment power for a reason — and Mr. Gonzales’s malfeasance is just the sort they were worried about.

The Constitution provides for impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Not a clear formula, but it wasn’t meant to be. Impeachment, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, cannot be “tied down” by “strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense” by the House, or “in the construction of it” by the Senate.

Since when is firing someone "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?" If this is going to be the case, EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY will be able to sue or bring cases against anyone who has ever fired them.

Political Rabies.

And it's infecting the Democrats to the point of insanity.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Tuesday, August 14, 2007

A Phoenix Rises in Zion

Breaking news, we will be watching this in the days to come.

Personally, and this is MY opinion, this is fantastic news for Israel.

Netanyahu sweeps Israel's Likud race

JERUSALEM - Benjamin Netanyahu easily defeated a radical Jewish settler in the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party on Tuesday, a party official said, boosting his ambitions to reclaim the country's premiership.

While Netanyahu's victory had been all but assured, a strong showing by challenger Moshe Feiglin could have shored up Israel's extreme right and hurt Netanyahu's efforts to rehabilitate Likud after it was trounced in national elections last year. Recent polls have crowned Netanyahu, Likud's leader since late 2005, as the front-runner for Israel's top job.

With more than 80 percent of the primary votes tallied, Netanyahu was out way ahead with 73 percent to Feiglin's 22 percent, party executive director Gad Arieli said. World Likud Party Chairman Danny Danon trailed with 4 percent. Final results were expected early Wednesday.

In his victory speech, Netanyahu made it clear that the race was a dress rehearsal for a much bigger contest.

"Tonight the internal contest ended, and as of tomorrow, we will focus our efforts on bringing a new leadership to Israel," Netanyahu told dozens of cheering supporters in Tel Aviv.

A telegenic politician and self-described hawk, the M.I.T.-educated Netanyahu speaks flawless, American-accented English. He's tough on defense issues and hands-off on the economy, but in recent months has been trying to position himself in the political center to try to lure moderate voters.

"It's clear that Netanyahu is a right-wing man, but a right-wing man who is always winking at the center," political commentator Hanan Crystal said Tuesday.

I am going to predict that there is going to be a firestorm of protestation and "slamming" from the dinosaur media. I predict that the dinosaur media will dig up every bit of dirt that they can to try to discredit Netanyahu as much as they can here in the U.S. I predict much grumbling from the United Nations.

I also am going to predict that Iran is going to start being far more cautious in how they go about things in the near future...

More to come as this develops.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Monday, August 13, 2007

The Fourth Branch of Government?

Let's see.

There is the Executive Branch, that's the President and the Presidential staff.

The Legislative Branch, that would be the House and the Senate.

The Judicial Branch, that would be the Supreme Court and the U.S. District Courts.

I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out when the ACLU became a branch of government that needed to be "briefed" on ANY thing.

ACLU Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Requesting A Meeting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (8/13/2007)

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Today, my staff was briefed by the Justice Department regarding guidelines to institute the new foreign to domestic wiretapping authority Congress granted to you this month by The Protect America Act.

Regrettably, my colleagues reported that they learned virtually nothing new about how you intend to use the broad new authority to intercept emails and phone calls when one party is in the U.S., or how those U.S. people will be protected from unwarranted government intrusion. With so much at stake, the public needs to have a fuller understanding of what its Justice Department will be doing with its most private communications.

WHAT in the bloody blue Hades is the government doing "briefing" the ACLU on anything? Where any of you briefed, as citizens? Was the ACLJ briefed as well? I very seriously doubt it. So where does the ACLU get off on getting preferential treatment when they aren't even a governmental organization?

Let me ask that another way.

WHERE in the HELL does the ACLU get off on having to be briefed on a DAMNED thing the government does?

Let me educate some of you who don't know this about the "noble" ACLU.

This comes from World Net Daily, published in 2004, and the contents, if you care to research them, are all a matter of public record.

Constitutionally Speaking
Devvy Kidd

ACLU fulfilling communist agenda

Posted: December 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Every day, the headlines scream with some new threat from the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe it's important to look behind the curtain and discover the origins of groups and organizations to better understand their activities.

The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."

Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. To deny the ACLU's founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth.

For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under "freedom of speech and expression," and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.

Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Perhaps it's time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union instead of their disingenuous "civil rights" stage name.

FIGHT these people, folks. They have NOTHING in mind that makes life better for you as private citizens.

How do I fight them, you ask? I have an answer for that. It's called the ACLJ, the American Center for Law and Justice. Check'em out, become a member, and make your voice count.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, August 12, 2007

"why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings"

I have long maintained that reporters and news journalists should do one thing: present information without putting their opinions into it.

All too often, in my opinion, news journalists and reporters allow their own personal biases and their egos to creep into their writing or reporting, using their medium to sway public opinion.

Swaying opinion is not the job of the media.

The job of the media is to report the facts as they become available.

How many people out there realize, just for instance, that the Spanish-American War at the turn of the twentieth century was media driven? The New York Journal created the war with their "reporting" and sent our nation into war with the Kingdom of Spain.

Have things really changed so much over the past century? It doesn't seem to be the case. "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it." We are a nation doomed. Why? Because we still allow ourselves to fall victim to "yellow journalism."

Isn't it HOT outside today? I was just outside a bit ago and saw a dog looking at a cat WISHING it was cool enough that he could chase it. Anywhere you go in the continental United States today you'll find one common thing going on: it's damned hot outside. The news is FULL of stories about the heat, about global warming, about the high temperatures, so forth and so on.

Global warming.

I'm going to let you all in on a little secret, something that you may not realize because the media CERTAINLY seems to have overlooked it. Ready? This is startling and may shock you, so brace yourself. It's AUGUST. It's the middle of SUMMER. OF COURSE it's going to be hot. I hear people my age saying all the time "I don't remember it being this damned hot when I was younger." Of course you don't, when you were younger you could handle the heat better and didn't give two hoots in hell whether it was hot or not you were going to do what you were going to do and that was that.

But the media and certain of our politicians are in a virtual FEEDING frenzy trying to convince you that YOU are the reason that things are getting hotter.

Now, before you start rolling your eyes at me, I will confess that I do believe that there is such a thing as global warming. I also believe in another concept called global cooling. Why? Ask any GOOD geologist or paleontologist and he'll tell you why. The Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Let me give you two PRIME examples, and I'll put them into concepts that the general public can relate to.

Remember the Jurassic Park movies? Scientists had used genetic engineering to recreate dinosaurs. Do dinosaurs live where it's cool? No, so the dinosaurs had to be created on islands along the equator. The equator is the middle of the earth, from north to south, and the place where the planet is closest to the sun. Why did they choose the equator? Why not, oh, say, the Everglades? The southern tip of Florida, hot as it is in the summer, is not close enough to the temperature of the earth at the time OF the dinosaurs.

Remember the movie Ice Age? My kids loved that movie. Ask yourself this, though. Can you imagine saber tooth tigers or wooly mammoths vacationing in Hawaii? Cancun? I don't think so. Why? Too damned hot. They were creatures best fitted for cold weather.

Periods of global warming, periods of global cooling. How many of you know that Mars is undergoing global warming as well? Both Earth and Mars are coming out of ice ages, ours being what is called a "little ice age."

We, humans, have less impact on this than the alarmists would have you believe, and any time something comes out contrary to what the left wishes to spoon feed you, it's attacked.

From Newsweek: (Via memeorandum)

Greenhouse Simplicities

By Robert J. Samuelson

Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.

If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

So Samuelson knows better than scientists.


HE ADMITS BIAS in the opening statement of his article. That is a presentation of the facts?

Here is a bit FROM that "misleading" article.

The Truth About Denial

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine

By Sharon Begley

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Honestly I fail to see what Samuelson is whining about in his article. It seems to me that the original article was written with enough leftist slant that nothing further needed to be said to claim the opposite of what the article seems, at first glance, to discuss.

Yellow journalism at it's finest, I tell you. I'm sure Al Gore is sitting somewhere in one of his big ass houses, riding in an SUV, or flying around in a private jet somewhere feeling very proud indeed.

We're an arrogant lot, and sometimes we have to have that pointed out to us. We may take offense at it when it happens, but by God that doesn't make it any less true. Here's one such instance of it being pointed out. I happen to very much agree.

Mark Steyn: Warm-mongers and cheeseburger imperialists

Syndicated columnist

Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.

And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow named Steve McIntyre of labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.


As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then-famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth. This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. Which may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

Having said all of that, I'll say this, leaving this posting with the source of my title for this piece. Lewis Carroll was an amazing wordsmith, and could show us through his writings how words can be used to manipulate, to compel, and to convince. If you remember reading Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, or watching the Disneyized version Alice in Wonderland, you'll immediately recognize the source of my title for today. If not, for the sheer amusement of reading the works of one of the great masters, I'm including The Walrus and the Carpenter:

The Walrus and The Carpenter

Lewis Carroll

(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

Don't be oysters, people.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Friday, August 10, 2007

Newark Executions Update

We first brought you this story here.

There is breaking news in this case, and if this doesn't just SCREAM for our borders to be secured and for a roundup of illegals in this country to start, I don't know what does.

Hat tip to Allahpundit at Hot Air for this.

Man Charged in Newark Deaths Pleads Not Guilty

Published: August 10, 2007

NEWARK, Aug. 10 — A third suspect, identified as a teenager, has been arrested in the execution-style slayings of three students here Saturday night, the authorities said.

The two others charged so far are a 28-year-old construction worker and a 15 year old.

The construction worker, Jose Carranza, is an illegal immigrant from Peru who now also faces an order of detention against him by federal authorities, his lawyer and judicial officials said today.

Mr. Carranza pleaded not guilty to the murder and other charges at an arraignment this morning where family members of the victims, Mayor Cory A. Booker, the Essex County Sheriff and Prosecutor, and his own mother and brother packed the courtroom.


Mr. Carranza, with previous arrests on charges of aggravated assault and rape, was scheduled to be arraigned this morning. “Our work is only just starting,” said Garry F. McCarthy, the city’s police director. “We only got 40 percent of them.”

Investigators said that the surviving victim, Natasha Aeriel, answering questions in between periods of sedation at University Hospital, identified Mr. Carranza from mug shots.

Mr. Booker praised Ms. Aeriel, 19, who was shot in the head, for her “incredible courage.”

The girl Carranza is charged with raping is five years old. FIVE YEARS OLD.

Those of you with small children, I want you to take a moment and look over at them. Young. Innocent. If they're anything like my own seven year old daughter, full of curiousity and impish mischief. BUT NOT OLD ENOUGH TO EXPERIENCE ANY SORT OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

WHAT KIND of SICK, DISGUSTING ANIMAL rapes a five year old?

I'm not much of one for politicizing things such as crime, but this is one of those rare exceptions that arises and demands to be held out as an example.

Mr. President, SECURE OUR BORDERS. It IS possible to round up the illegals in this country AND SEND THEM PACKING.

How much more do our citizens have to take before something is done?

Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families who have been so brutally violated by these animals.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


A little something from email:


Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me. But, back during the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work. And then again in 1954, Pre sident Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called "Operation "Wetback" so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 years, but they deported them! Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they can sure do it today!! If you have doubts about the accuracy of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself. Reminder. Don't forget to pay your taxes... 12 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

Operation Wetback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Wetback was a 1954 project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about 1.2 million illegal immigrants from ... - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

The Border | 1953 Operation Wetback

What resulted was Operation Wetback, devised in 1954 under the supervision of new commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, Gen. ... - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico ..

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona , the roundup of aliens ... - 74k - Cached - Similar pages

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, August 9, 2007

We could REALLY USE that Gore effect right about now...

It's damned hot, people.

Damned hot.

We really, really need brother Al to come home to TN and give us a talk on global warming, because we could certainly use the snow right about now...

Hat tip to Michael Asher at DailyTech for this one:

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 9, 2007 11:49 AM

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.


NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

He closes this article stating that he doesn't think the media will give it proper attention.

That's ok, amigo, we'll help you get the word out.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Kicking Ass in Afghanistan

Usually others handle the news from the Middle East concerning our troops and their victories there.

I wanted this one.

My first reaction was "HELL YEAH!"

My second was "WHOOO WAHHHH!"

I think that when you read this, you'll understand why.

Hat tip to Sweetness & Light for this one:

Taliban launch frontal attack on base

By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 7, 2:43 PM ET

GHAZNI, Afghanistan - A group of 75 Taliban militants tried to overrun a U.S.-led coalition base in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, a rare frontal attack that left more than 20 militants dead, the coalition said in a statement.

The insurgents attacked Firebase Anaconda from three sides, using gunfire, grenades and 107 mm rockets, the coalition said. A joint Afghan-U.S. force repelled the attack with mortars, machine guns and air support.

"Almost two dozen insurgents were confirmed killed in the attack," the statement said. Two girls and two Afghan soldiers were wounded during the fight in Uruzgan province, it said.

A firebase like Anaconda is usually a remote outpost staffed by as few as several dozen soldiers.

"The inability of the insurgent forces to inflict any severe damage on Firebase Anaconda, while being simultaneously decimated in the process, should be a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of their fighters," said Army Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman.

A direct attack on a U.S. or NATO base by insurgents on foot is relatively rare. More often insurgents fire rockets at bases and flee. Military officials say that Taliban fighters know they can't match Western militaries in a heads-up battle, which leads the insurgents to more often rely on roadside and suicide bombs.


Don't you know the AP was going into meltdown for having to report this?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sowing the seeds of dissent

It has been said repeatedly since WUA was launched, by myself as well as others, that a great deal of the leftinistra mindset and attitude can be traced directly back to Soviet doctrine that called for spreading discontent, dissent, and mistrust from within the populace of the United States. In my column
Just when you thought it was safe to go back onto the playground... and An American Communist: Hillary Clinton & The Democrats, we both cited examples of how the left takes their cue from communist doctrine.

And yet people read such as those two examples and pass them off as being "conspiracy theorist."

Would the admissions of a former KGB operator help to make it more convincing?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Propaganda Redux
Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During last week's two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged "the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism" and vowed to follow Winston Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.


Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman--the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.


The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the Boot."

Chilling, no?

Does it better explain Bush Derangement Syndrome?

To those of you who have been, or still ARE, the puppets whose strings are pulled by your communist puppet masters, can you see, a little more clearly, why we so calmly tell you that you are being duped by failed Soviet doctrine?

What more can we do here other than to present to you the truth as we uncover it, to convince you, the American people, that you are being played by forces foreign to our nation, people who have no interest in our national interests, groups who would loving nothing more than to see our culture, our way of life, our FREEDOM, destroyed and swept aside?

Go read the article in full. It's very fascinating and revealing, and it mirrors so MUCH of what I personally have researched and studied through the years myself.

Democrats, if there is any patriotic spirit to you at all, you need to seriously, SERIOUSLY, reevaluate those at the head of your party. Republicans, I'll say this to you as well; remain vigilant.

Marxist-Leninist communism failed once. We DO NOT need to try to revisit it here in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man