Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Appeals Court Tosses NYC Gun Industry Suit

A Federal Appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by New York City against the firearms industry. The reason for the suit? Firearms can find their way into the black market.
I think I'm going to see if I can get some sort of lawsuit going against Chrysler Corporation, because there's the distinct possibility that my pickup could be stolen and wind up in a chop shop, the parts being sold from there, having been procured by illegal means. Maybe I'll sue Panasonic, as well, since my TV could be stolen and resold by people using nefarious means to get rid of it.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

How a suit against the gun industry made it's way into the court system on the grounds that firearms can be obtained illegally makes equally as little sense, if it comes down to it, in my opinion. And yet that's just what happened in a case brought by New York City against the gun industry.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. A federal judge had allowed the lawsuit to proceed, though it had not yet reached trial.

New York is one of several cities that had sued gun makers. It said the industry violated public nuisance law by failing to take reasonable steps to stop widespread access to illegal firearms.

The lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

I can hear the conversation now, can't you? "Hey, Bubba, run down there to the pawn shop and pick a couple of .38's up, will ya? We're going to need them to knock off the corner liquor store this weekend."

According to the Department of Justice, a very small percentage of guns used in crimes came from legal purchases:

*According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
o a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
o a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
o family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

* During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
* On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
* Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

I very seriously doubt that those numbers have changed that significantly in ten years time. There is a concerted effort in this country to rid the citizenry of the right to bear arms. These groups and individuals involved in this movement will attempt legal action in the most frivolous and outrageous ways in the attempt to undermine the second amendment rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America as set forth by the founders of this nation.

I can't help but wonder if they would approach with the same zeal a movement to eliminate the fifth amendment, or perhaps the ninth.

I know that the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is probably one of the most frequently used in discussions regarding gun control. There's a reason for that; a firearm is not a sentient being, nor is it a creature of flesh and blood. A firearm is an inanimate object. There is no instance of a firearm rising of it's own volition and discharging it's ammunition against anyone.

Homicide is a uniquely human activity, as is any crime.

And it doesn't always involve the use of firearms.

If cities like New York are serious about preventing crime, it should look at other means than trying to sue the gun industry. Kennesaw, Georgia, is often used as an example of how a municipality can institute a program that makes a positive impact on crime. Unfortunately, that "inconvenient truth" doesn't play into the anti-gun agenda.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Is Hillary Inhaling?

I have a very, very serious question to ask. Let me preface it with this: it has been proven that the use of marijuana affects memory. The more mary jane used, the more the memory is affected.
Now for my question. Does Hillary Clinton prefer a Colombian crop, Jamaican, or some of that sticky California stuff? (Note, I'm going by hearsay, of course, as I actually have NO experience with this least, not that I can remember...).

Or maybe she just likes to slide the blade into Bill's back at every opportunity and give just the right twist while coming across as trying to blame Bush for things?

This is reminiscent of the story she told about the uninsured woman who died after giving birth in Ohio because she couldn't get medical care during her pregnancy, who turned out to not only to have been insured but to have been under the care of a doctor her entire pregnancy and had never been denied treatment.

Maybe it's something stronger than mary jane?

The newest "twist of the blade" comes in the form of a story about a plant in Indiana that was bought out by a Chinese corporation and subsequently closed by them, with Hillary laying the blame for the closure at the feet of President Bush.

If she were president, she says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband.

And again we find the guiding hand of that eminent globalist George Soros. Coincidence? I think not. I don't believe in coincidence. Neither, it seems, do voters in Indiana, some of whom have been writing the newspapers in letters to the editor to call Senator Clinton's hand on yet another "caught with egg on her face" moment where she's being less than truthful.

A lot less than truthful.

Or maybe that's just the way she remembers it? If that's the case, can we possibly be looking at the legalization of marijuana under Hillary Clinton if she's elected President?

Just a thought.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Berkeley College Republicans Stand Up to Code Pink

What do you call a group of middle aged, frumpy, America-hating, United States military despising women on the left coast? Why, you call them Code Pink, of course.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Code Pink, as you will recall, is the group who, with the graces of and the full support of, and cooperative participation of the Berkeley City Counsel stage protests in front of the United States Marine Corps recruiting station IN Berkeley, California. They have an ongoing permit to stage their protests, city parking made available in front of the Marine station for their activities, and generally go around making general fools of themselves by protesting in their pink outfits and running off potential recruits for the Corps.

They claim this is an exercise of their First Amendment Rights.

This is what the First Amendment has to say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I can take their argument that they're within the bounds of the First Amendment. But they'd better be ready to put up or shut up, because once again, they're being challenged on the same grounds upon which they base their own argument; the right to freedom of speech. Melanie Morgan and Move America Forward have already had their counter-protests in Berkeley. Now the Berkeley College Republicans are setting up as a counter to Code Pink by applying for permits giving them the same access to protest in favor of the Corps.

Working with Councilmember Kriss Worthington, the group is asking for sound waiver permits and a parking spot reservation outside the center on Wednesdays from 12 to 4 p.m., the same time Code Pink protests outside the center, said Kimberly Wagner, activism chair for the Berkeley College Republicans.

"(Code Pink's) claim is that they're protecting free speech," she said. "I kind of don't feel they are, they are inhibiting the recruitment center in general. It's important that they are not unopposed, that there are people willing to fight them. Even though it's Berkeley, the liberal center of America, there will be people (opposed)."

Worthington is working to have the item appear on an agenda in May.

Outstanding. This Army vet thinks that these kids are doing a great thing in making a patriotic stand against a group that does not realize (or maybe they do realize and don't care) the propaganda feed that they are handing to our enemies every time they stroll their fat asses out into the streets in their pink teeshirts chanting and demonstrating against our military.


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama on Wright: Does Anyone Else Smell...Something?

If you haven't been living under a rock or off on safari in Africa you know who Jeremiah Wright is by now. God knows we've seen enough of him on television, heard him on radio, and there are no telling how many countless youtube and other vid sites of him by now.

After (how many does this make now, discounting Hannity's first revelations about Wright last year?) weeks of listening to Wright "God Damn"ing America, Barack Hussein Obama (yes, I'm going to use his middle name, it's his damned name, isn't it? if he doesn't like it, he should change it to Harold or something like that. No more bullshit over that, either) has finally publicly denounced the former pastor in Winston-Salem, North-Carolina.

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

His strong words come just six weeks after Obama delivered a sweeping speech on race in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member. After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago made three public appearances in four days to defend himself.

Does anyone else smell horse shit here? Obama attends Wright's church for what, twenty years, doesn't say anything negative about Wright's stand on things, which unless he was sleeping he's sure to have picked up on, unless he's CLUELESS, in which case we have to wonder if he's competent enough to be in the positions he's in both as Senator and as Presidential candidate.

Horse shit. He's outraged? OUTRAGED? I'm outraged that there are people out there who are buying this load of second rate manure that isn't fit for composting, let alone for good fertilizer. There is one reason Obama is making this stand, and one reason only: Political Expedience. That's it, nothing else. He hasn't tossed Wright under the bus, he's drop kicked him for distance and is hoping he lands far enough away that the taint and stink is gone.

Guess what, Barry H. Obama (sounds kind of Irish if you use it the way he preferred to be called before entering politics, doesn't it?), there are some of us out here who are paying attention, some of us out here aren't the mindless hordes fainting and fawning over your every empty word, listening to you prattle on about change and hope and all this empty hot air that comes out of your well groomed, ivy-league prepared lawyer's glib tongued mouth.

We are not impressed.

For over a year we have watched Obama rise like a freshly prepared bread dough waiting for the oven, but just like that bread dough, if you poke a hole in it, the air is going to come out and you're going to be left with nothing but the outer skin. THAT is your Rock Star Presidential Candidate, America. That's Barack Obama. No substance, nothing of meaning.

Kind of makes you wonder why all of the terrorist organizations around the world hope he's our next President, doesn't it?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Monday, April 28, 2008

Denver DNC Convention - The Eve of Destruction?

There is an old proverb that says, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it." Is the Democratic National Convention this year heading towards a historical reinterpretation of the 1968 Convention?

In 1965, Barry McGuire released his hit, "Eve of Destruction", an interpretation of the world at that time.

The eastern world it tis explodin',
violence flarin', bullets loadin',
you're old enough to kill but not for votin',
you don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin',
and even the Jordan river has bodies floatin',
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Today, more than 40 years later, we're seeing history repeating itself in many ways in this country. If a group called "Recreate 68" has any say in the matter, we will see a near replay of the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention played out at the 2008 Denver Democratic National Convention.

The 68 Convention was one marked by infighting of the Democratic Party's members and violent confrontations between the Chicago police, reportedly under "shoot to kill" orders by then-mayor Richard Daly, and anti-war protesters. Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated two months earlier, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been assassinated three months prior to that, Lyndon Johnson had declined to run for re-election as President and the nation was, indeed, on the "Eve of Destruction."

There were even suggestions, prior to the meeting of the Convention, that it not be held in Chicago, but rather in Miami, where the Republican party was slated to hold it's Convention. This suggestion was met with violent disagreement by Mayor Daly, who promised to enforce the peace and threatened to withdraw his support for the apparent nominee, Hubert Humphrey, if the convention were to be moved. President Johnson also preferred Chicago, having been rumored to have said "Miami is not an American city."

The Convention itself was filled with tension and apprehension, after a downbeat keynote address by Hawaiian Senator Dan Inouye, and as pro-war and anti-war delegations debated the issue of Vietnam. Peace protesters caused delays in the debates and their confrontations with the police lasted through the length of the Convention.

Humphrey eventually took the nomination for the party, and lost the general election to Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate, in November.

So how does this tie in to today, and the upcoming Denver Convention for the Democrats? The anti-war group known as "Recreate 68" has lost their bid for a permit for the Civic Center to the host committee for the convention.

"When things blow up because the police have to enforce a permit that the Democrats got, don’t blame us for that," said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer for the Re-create 68 Alliance.

"Blame the Democrats for trying to silence dissent in the city of Denver."

The lottery for permits to protest, pray or hold other events in city parks during the DNC Aug. 24 through 28 resumed Thursday after the city bungled the drawing Tuesday by accidentally leaving out some of the applicants' names.

This is just one group that is calling for a replay of the 68 convention. Former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder has predicted riots if the popular vote isn't adhered to in selecting the Democratic nominee. Obama is currently leading Clinton in the popular vote.

Personally, I understand the desire for peace, and appreciate the work that is done to achieve peace between conflicting factions. Few know greater how precious peace is than those who have seen conflict. What I don't understand, honestly, is the threat of violence to promote the cause of peace. In my mind, in my way of thinking, that's a contradiction. As I've said before, contradictions can not exist. To protest, peacefully, in the name of peace, for the sake of peace, for the purpose of peace, makes a statement. To protest violently and proclaim that you are promoting peace, contrarily, seems more like an excuse to act in a violent manner for a cause that you don't truly believe in. Violent protestations for peace come across as hypocritical, and the message for the promotion of peace becomes tainted by the advocacy of those who proclaim it, but don't practice what they are preaching.

There is a time for war, and a time for peace, if one is to believe the teachings of the Bible and other ancient texts that have been handed down from generation to generation through the centuries and millennial. A time to kill, a time to let live. A time to sow, a time to reap. If this sounds like a song, too, that's because it is a song, "Turn Turn Turn", by Pete Seeger, and it was based straight out of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

Regardless of the situation as it was in 68, the 08 DNC promises to be interesting in it's own right, as well. With the Clinton machine gearing up for full confrontation and a determination to remain in the race right up until the very end of the nomination process, and the continued revelations of Obama's associations and their anti-Semitic, Afro-centrist agenda's, the continued bad light he has fallen under because of his pastor (who is currently working ON Obama's campaign staff), it's sure to be a slug fest right up until a candidate is finally nominated and approved.

And in case no one has mentioned this, the possibility has been suggested that neither Obama nor Clinton could wind up as the party nominee.

Has anyone noticed how quiet Al Gore has been lately?

It definitely is winding up toward a very interesting Democratic National Convention for Denver.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Hillary Clinton Talks Tough to Iran

Hillary Clinton has made every effort not to make any firm or committed statements during her current campaign regarding her plans for policy with Iran concerning it's nuclear development programs. Today we see a different Hillary Clinton on ABC.

It's down to the wire in Pennsylvania. With voters heading for the polls today, the last ditch efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters for today's election was carried out yesterday. Or was that the end of it? Both candidates made appearances on ABC's Good Morning America this morning

Obama stated during his interview that he's had to say some "sharp things about Clinton" because of the attack campaign he said she has been running against him, stating, "You've always got to measure if somebody throws an elbow at you and after three or four times of getting elbows in the ribs, you know, at what point do you sort of say okay, you know, we -- we, we've gotta put a stop to that?" A far cry from what he said on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night when he said Clinton was doing him "a favor" by putting him "through the paces," comparing the campaign to spring training." Obama played basketball in school, a sport he still participates in today.

Clinton, however, also appearing on Good Morning America, was asked how she intends to handle Iran and the growing concern over the Iranian pursuit of a nuclear program and their threatening stance against Israel, stating that were Iran to attack Israel: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

An interesting stance for Clinton, who last October wouldn't answer the question asked by moderator Brian Williams in an MSNBC debate as to what her "red line" would be "concerning when to, if to attack Iran."

Clinton at the time wouldn't answer the question, even when pressed by Williams, who had to come back at her after she gave a lengthy non-responsive answer.
"Respectfully, Senator," Williams said, "same question though: Do you have a threshold…?

Clinton would only say, "I want to start diplomacy….I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons."

Her current remarks are quite a contrast from that cautiousness.

Political posturing in an attempt to win votes and the nomination of the party, or a true statement on her planned policies for Iran? That's ultimately up for the voters to decide. However, given the team Clinton history of saying whatever seems to be expedient for the moment, one has to speculate that this sort of posturing is done with the same careful, calculated motivation of addressing an issue based upon public opinion polls.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, April 20, 2008

Hillary Clinton Dogged by Terrorist Ties?

Given the rich opportunity afforded to Hillary Clinton surrounding Barack Obama's documented ties to terrorist organizations, why is she not using them in her campaign? Could there be something she doesn't want us to know about her own history?

A few days ago I posted a piece outlining Barack Obama's ties to known terrorists. George Stephanopoulos addressed it in the Philadelphia debates, and the left went ballistic in the blogs and in commentaries afterward.

The question has arisen, however, in light of the Philly debates, of why Senator Clinton didn't go for Senator Obama's political jugular over the issue? There may be a very good reason for that, as a little digging and research uncovers that the Clinton's have their own connections to terrorist groups and individuals who have been known to commit acts of terrorism or governments supporting them.

In 1998, during the administration of her husband Bill, the FAA granted permission to "commercial" flights from Cuba to cross U.S. airspace en route to Canada using one East coast flight route, and one west coast. This permission was granted despite the known ties of the Cuban government to terrorist sponsoring states in the Middle East, and in despite the knowledge of the Clinton administration of Cuba's biotechnical manufacturing plants [biological warfare]. Fidel Castro, then dictator of Cuba, was also on the record with his hatred of the United States.

In a 2001 Judicial Watch report warned that the United States government was ignoring the threat of Cuba to the nation. Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey presented the following findings at a Congressional hearing:

# Three suspected Afghans were arrested in the Cayman Islands with fake passports after transit to Cuba.

# Cuban spy Ana Belen, only recently arrested after working at the Pentagon for years, provided classified information to Cuba.

# Cuban spies recently convicted in Florida provided Castro with detailed information about the U.S. mail system. (This could cause raised eyebrows, given the recent anthrax problems at postal facilities and mailrooms in and out of government.)

# Castro recently visited Iran, following interchanges that have for years existed between scientists in Cuba and Iran and the documented cases of terrorists who have sought and achieved safe harbor on the island just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that he was "not familiar" with most of the findings, a situation that Judicial Watch called "scary," as he had earlier announced his desire to soften the Cuban embargo.

It should be noted that Powell was Secretary of State during the first term of the Bush administration, a position currently held by Condoleeza Rice.

Then President Clinton also issued pardons to several individuals who had been involved in terrorist activities. In 2001 a pardon was issued to former Weather Underground member Susan L. Rosenberg, who had been convicted and was serving sentence after being arrested in 1984 "while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car." Rosenberg was being sought at the time of her arrest for suspicion of involvement in a 1981 Brinks armored car heist that left two police officers and one guard dead, a role she has denied playing any part in.

In 1999, 16 Puerto Rican nationals were pardoned by Clinton, who were responsible for the bombings of more than 100 U.S. political and military installations, upon their promise to renounce violence. These attacks had left six people dead and dozens wounded. Clinton justified the pardons by saying that none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

Hillary Clinton's involvement with terrorists and terrorist organizations isn't limited to her involvement with her husband Bill, however, as reported by, a Sri Lankan news outlet.

According to a fundraising web site for the Senator, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) activists are involved in raising funds from 100 Dollars to 2300 Dollars to help elect Senator Clinton as the next United States President.

New Jersey residents have expressed the fear, that LTTE or the Tamil Tigers could flush supporters with millions of dollars, to buy influence over the next possible President of the United States of America by infiltrating into democratic fund raising machine.

An email distributed by a female activist, Pat Pathmakumar for the group under the name `Tamils for Clinton` has appealed to contribute for the Clinton fund by sending checks to her or a man named Ram Ranjan, a man who organized the LTTE Heroes day meeting in New Jersey last year. Ranjan has publicly admitted he raised funds for LTTE front, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO).

To be sure, Hillary Clinton has attacked Obama on a great many points and issues. Her campaign has been accused of "mud-slinging" and the use of smear tactics, but then this is what we expect from team Clinton, the use of the politics to their advantage in every way they deem necessary. Perhaps a historical look back at the Lincoln-Stevens debates is necessary, from time to time, as well as a look back at Andrew Jackson, a noted duelist of his day, in his own bids for public office, in order to give us, today, a full appreciation of the Clinton's sense of history in their conduct during political campaigns.

But this issue, this key issue that is being covered by some media sources concerning Obama, is for some reason taking it's time in coming to the forefront concerning Clinton. Even FOXNews has not to date given this the coverage that has been given to the Obama terrorist ties.

Perhaps the Obama connections having light shed on them have opened the door for the Clinton connections, as well. Only time will tell for that. In the meantime, the fact does remain that both Democrat candidates have their share of ties to terrorism.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, April 19, 2008

Newspaper Reports Putin Affair, Closes Next Day

A now defunct Russian newspaper has defied the Kremlin, and paid for reporting on rumors about the possible engagement of Russian President Vladamir Putin and 24 year old Olympic Gymnast and Parliament Member Alina Kabaeva.

For months, the rumors of the possible romance of President Vladimir Putin with Alina Kabaeva have been quietly circulating around Moscow. Rumors that have remained unpublished until yesterday.

Last week, the Moskovski Korrespondent dared to report that there was a romance, that Putin had already divorced his wife Ludmilla in secret, and that Putin plans to marry Kabaeva.

Today, there is no Russian newspaper named Moskovski Korrespondent.

The paper admitted there was no factual basis for its claim that Putin had already divorced Ludmilla, 50, his wife of 24 years, and would marry Kabaeva in June, shortly after standing down as president and becoming prime minister. It cited information from a party planner who claimed to be bidding to organise the lavish reception.

Both Putin and Kabaeva denied the report, which was followed up by European newspapers but ignored by Russia’s media, which do not delve into the private lives of politicians.

Editor Grigori Nekhoroshev was forced to resign his position, stating that he thought they should break the taboo and run the story. Russian billionaire tycoon Alexander Lebedev ceased publication of the paper immediately, the parent company blaming "costs and conceptual disagreements with the newsroom" but denying that there was any political motivation in the decision to shut down the newspaper.

Many Russians believe otherwise. Putin discounted the article and condemned the paper as tabloid journalism. Kabaeva threatened to sue. Putin, during his presidency, brought control of all Russian television under control of the Kremlin and has been highly sensitive of criticism from the print media.

So much for the much vaunted freedoms of the Russian Federation...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, April 17, 2008

John McCain wins Philadelphia Democratic Debate

I'm not really sure who sponsored the Democratic debate in Philly last night, but it should have been Excedrin. Or maybe BC Powders or Goody's. One thing is for sure, just the opening statements were enough to induce a migraine.

I want to pose, as an opening question before continuing into this analysis of last night's debate. How much government involvement do you want in your life? A second question that is being revisited from earlier campaigns rises as well: does character matter?

For a change, Senator Clinton wasn't given the opening statement last night, the result of a coin toss. Last night those honors went to Senator Obama, who immediately went into his spiel about poor working class Americans and how he can help them.

(Full transcript of last night's debate can be found here.)

SENATOR OBAMA: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there.

You know, Senator Clinton and I have been running for 15 months now. We've been traveling across Pennsylvania for at least the last five weeks. And everywhere I go, what I've been struck by is the core decency and generosity of people of Pennsylvania and the American people.

But what I've also been struck by is the frustration. You know, I met a gentleman in Latrobe who had lost his job and was trying to figure out how he could find the gas money to travel to find a job. And that story, I think, is typical of what we're seeing all across the country. People are frustrated not only with jobs moving and incomes being flat, health care being too expensive, but also that special interests have come to dominate Washington, and they don't feel like they're being listened to.

I think this election offers us an opportunity to change that, to transform that frustration into something more hopeful, to bring about real change. And I'm running for president to ensure that the American people are heard in the White House. That's my commitment, if the people of Pennsylvania vote for me and the people of America vote for me.

Senator Clinton weighed in with her opening statements, paying tribute to the founders of the nation in her remarks, and then delivered her opening of how she can help the average American citizen.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, we meet tonight here in Philadelphia where our founders determined that the promise of America would be available for future generations if we were willing and able to make it happen.

You know, I am here, as is Senator Obama. Neither of us were included in those original documents. But in a very real sense, we demonstrate that that promise of America is alive and well. But it is at risk.

There is a lot of concern across Pennsylvania and America. People do feel as though their government is not solving problems, that it is not standing up for them, that we've got to do more to actually provide the good jobs that will support families, deal once and for all with health care for every American, make our education system the true passport to opportunity, restore our standing in the world.

I am running for president because I know we can meet the challenges of today, that we can continue to fulfill that promise that was offered to successive generations of Americans starting here so long ago.

And I hope that this evening, voters in Pennsylvania and others across the country will listen carefully to what we have to say, will look at our records, will look at the plans we have.

And I offer those on my website,, for more detail. Because I believe with all my heart that we the people can have the kind of future that our children and grandchildren so richly deserve.

Is this what we want from the Presidency? Is it the responsibility or even the role OF the President to create jobs? Since when do we elect people into office to create jobs? WHERE in the United States Constitution can it be found that the role of government, ANY branch of government, is the creation of jobs?

It was during the first commercial break that the first packet of BC Powders came out for me (I'm not paid to endorse them, they're just what I use). More big government talk. Isn't that just what we need to hear? It blew my mind that Hillary Clinton could pay respects to the Founding Fathers in one sentence and then go totally against their intention, their Constitutionally mandated intentions, by bringing up, again, the notion of the "nanny state."

It got better.

Much better.

There are plenty of people out there today complaining (mostly from the Obama camp) that last night's debate didn't deal enough with the issues.

On the contrary.

To a great many people in the United States, the question of character is still a viable issue, and the character of both candidates was called into question by moderators Charles Gibson and former Bill Clinton White House staffer George Stephanopoulus (the involvement of whom [Stephanopoulus], in a debate featuring a candidate with whom he has ties, is a questionable thing in my opinion).

Senator Obama faced several "tough" questions last night, from his association with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who many see as a racist after his much publicized "God DAMN America" and "United States of KKK America" statements, his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers (who has stated that he felt they hadn't done "enough" in their bombing campaigns during the late 60's and early 70's), to his own statements last week trying to explain the "bitterness" of Americans.

Senator Clinton didn't escape unscathed, either, having to answer for her comments about coming into Bosnia under sniper fire (like the Secret Service would have allowed her to land under sniper fire), her treatment of General Petraeus ("a willful suspension of disbelief," a statement made by Senator Clinton before the General had given his report), and her backpedaling on her support of the war in Iraq.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?

She of course answered no to that question, going on to say that she couldn't predict the future and that no one else could, either. Senator Obama then fielded his response to the question of removal of troops from Iraq, stating that it was the job of the President to set the mission, and the job of the generals and the troops to carry out the mission, then said that Iraq was a bad mission, and that he, as President, would be the one to determine what missions would be conducted by the military, stating "ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

That sounds an awful lot like micro-management to me. I don't recall seeing any military experience in either Clinton nor Obama's resumes.

So let's see what we have so far. Big government, cut-and-run, Clinton's lies and Obama's ties to terrorists and anti-American sentimentalists.

Another BC Powder is in order.

And both had to get in their shots at the Bush administration, of course.

The bottom line is this from last night's debates: on the one hand, we have Senator Clinton, coming across as calm and in her environment, and on the other, Senator Obama, trying very hard to do the same but clearly uncomfortable in being in the hot seat rather than following a prepared speech. Both candidates advocating a larger role of government in issues ranging from jobs to health care. Is that the role of government? Is it the job of the President to micromanage the economy, the military, the job market, health care, etc.?

Or is it the job of the President to lead the country at the head of a government that allows individuals their freedoms, a government that works for the people instead of the people working for the government, a government that isn't an invasive part of the daily lives of the American citizen?

That, I think, is the real issue here.

Not whether ABC treated either candidate "unfairly," as the Obama campaign is claiming with an ad that has come out today in response to last night's Philadelphia debates.

Did you see the debate last night?

If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country.

In fact, it took more than 45 minutes before Barack was asked about the economy, health care, or foreign policy.

Regrettably, Senator Clinton seemed all too comfortable with that type of debate. She's running a 100% negative campaign in Pennsylvania, taking every opportunity to make personal and discredited attacks against Senator Obama.


Senator Clinton's false, negative attacks are exactly the kind of say-anything, do-anything politics that the American people are tired of.

That's why polls show that the majority of Americans think she's running the most negative campaign, and 58% of voters do not find her honest or trustworthy.

Barack Obama wants to end the politics of division and distraction in Washington so we can bring about real change for ordinary Americans.

The stakes are too high to play the same old games. More than 1.3 million supporters have responded to Barack's message of change, and with your help we can reach 1.5 million by May 6th.

Is this the strength of character that we need in the White House dealing with the House, the Senate, and with foreign leaders?

What do you say, Americans. Does it take a village, or does it take the strength and determination of the individual?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


First Conviction in Knoxville Double Homicide

Last week, the trial of Eric Boyd for accessory to murder began in Knoxville, Tennessee, the first in a series of four more cases to be brought to trial for the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a young couple attending University of Tennessee, who were carjacked, abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered.

Today, Boyd was found guilty of that crime, and will be sentenced in August, facing up to 22 years in prison for his role in the deaths of the couple.

"Justice was served today, but it doesn't take the hurt away from losing a great son," [Hugh] Newsom said as he broke down into tears.

For Gary Christian, the bill is far from paid.

"One down, four to go," he said. "But we've got more to do on the one, too. That ain't the last Eric Boyd has heard from us."

These two fathers, first linked by the budding romance between children Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian and now forever bound by the deaths of the young couple in a carjacking turned torture killing,spoke out Wednesday afternoon outside U.S. District Court, where a jury had just deemed Eric Dewayne "E" Boyd guilty of helping hide out one of their children's alleged killers.

Jurors deliberated from 9:35 am until 1:43 pm, with one break in deliberations to ask for clarification of wording in the charges, before returning with the guilty verdict.

While the families, prosecutors, and investigators celebrate the first victory, they know that there are still four more trials to undergo. There was a great deal of information that came out during this trial, details of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Christian and Newsom, but perhaps the most important question remains unanswered, asked by Newsom's mother, Mary; "Why did they just not let them go, if all they wanted was the car, why did they not just let the kids go?"


Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Watching the "Inevitable" Meltdown

If you look on the liberal blogs, you'll find something interesting happening. The bloggers are going ballistic. Now, normally, this isn't such an unusual thing and would pretty much go beyond the notice of the attentions of those of us from the middle to far right, but here's the interesting thing: the bloggers are going ballistic on each other rather than on things that we, conservatives and moderates, are doing.

So what's going on on the liberal side of the aisle that we're no longer the focus? Internal bickering and fighting. Conflicting issues. Power struggles and power plays, not just by the candidates, but by their supporters. Different factions are turning on each other, liberal bloggers are attacking other liberal bloggers, and the entire situation seems to be hitting a feeding frenzy mode of lib blogger eat lib blogger. One blogger at DailyKos makes this observation:

I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution. I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately. I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.

I don't even have to do any research on this one to know that it's liberals attacking liberals here. DailyKos is not well known as a bastion of Conservative thinkers.

But this is just one isolated incident, one might argue. One blogger who feels "picked on" by the other hens in the chicken yard, so to speak (simply putting things in terms where the concept of a "pecking order" is more visual to the mind of the reader. Trust me, you don't want me to try to draw chickens pecking each other in a chicken yard. One of my psych professors tried doing that. It wasn't pretty). No, this is merely one very visible and telling indication of what's going on in the blogosphere: the liberals are suffering something of a cyber-civil war, and the conservatives are sitting back scratching their heads wondering what, exactly, to do.

Why do I say it's a liberal civil war? Let's examine that, shall we? Grab you fedora's, your bullwhips, and your colt .45's (the pistol, not the malt liquor), it's Indiana Jones time for just a little bit as we go on a little adventure: comparing the conservatives to the liberals to examine what the hell is going on.

Picture, if you will, a conservative. Get a good mental image of what you THINK a Republican Conservative would look like if you passed one walking down the street on any given day. Got it? Good, because I want you to hang on to that thought for just a moment, I may just be on the verge of shattering the image you conjured forth in your mind. Brace yourselves, now, this might hurt just a bit. Are you ready? Good. If you pictured a portly gentleman in a three piece suit, bald head, smoking a cigar, gold watch chain stretched across his ample paunch leading to a pocket watch stuffed into the pocket of his vest, you've just envisioned the Hollywood and dinosaur media perpetuation of what a Conservative Republican looks like. Shake your head, clear your mind, get that image GONE, it has a place, but we don't need to conjure it forth again just yet. Now, breath in, breath out, and focus. Picture for yourself a man climbing a pole on a set of hooks, safety gear at the ready to lock into place when he reaches his working height near the top of the pole, be it cable, telephone, or electric. Picture the soccer mom driving the crumb crunchers to school in the morning and taking them to ball practice this afternoon. Picture your neighborhood church's pastor. The small business owner. The entrepreneurs. THESE are more likely to be the kinds of people who are more adherent to the conservative line of thinking today. That other fellow, the big guy in the business suit who's enjoying a cigar while telling you that he needs to raise the taxes on your cigarettes? That's more like your modern day liberal than you can imagine. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty, PLENTY of working class liberals out here, too. I bet, I would just BET, that if I had asked you to envision a liberal, you would have had trouble coming up with any one clear, concise image of what you had in mind that a liberal might look like.

If you ask the average conservative what makes him (yes, I use "him," it's grammatically correct and refers to both male and female in instances such as this. If you're looking for ME to be politically correct, don't hold your breath. It ain't happening. I'd rather be grammatically correct) a conservative, you're going to get a basic rundown of answers that fall in line with the conservative mindset: limited federal government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and rugged individualism. There might be other inclusions into that according to the individual, but that's going to be pretty much the answer if you ask more than two or three of us separately.

What do you suppose the answer would be if you asked a liberal why he's a liberal? Can you imagine the number of answers you would get going from individual to individual asking this question? I've asked this question of liberals; I've yet to see any binding thought process behind liberalism other than bigger, stronger, more controlling governmental legislation to fix everything.

Wanting the government to control things isn't a guiding principle. Wanting the government to control everything is giving up yourself unto the control of someone other than yourself. Whether by force and coercion or by choice, the giving up of ones rights to another is a form of slavery.

So if the liberals want us all to become slaves of the government, according to that thought process, why all the internal bickering and fighting among the liberals? Let's go back to the conservatives for a moment. Among the conservatives, you have a clear, defined, coherent set of core beliefs that, as a group, the conservatives adhere to. It isn't brainwashing, it isn't "group-think," it's individuality expressing itself in the common thought process that man is a creature who longs for, and strives for, and will die for, to attain a goal, and that goal is individual freedom and individual responsibility. That doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who don't do volunteer work in the community, it doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who won't help their fellow man, it doesn't mean that conservatives are self-centered and self-absorbed people who look out only for themselves and care nothing for others. If you'll examine who the conservatives are in your community, you'll more than likely find them giving their time to coach little league baseball, serve as volunteer fire fighters, and lead in other community projects. And they do so quietly, for the most part, without the need to feed their egos with the gratitude and platitudes of the mass public. Their satisfaction comes from knowing that they are doing something positive, and by choice, and that they're doing the things that they want to do rather than being forced into doing something against their will. There is a binding, unifying common thread among conservatives that cause them to stand together under the idea of a common thought process, and the code for that ideology is what I mentioned before.

But the liberals, as I said, are turning on each other, devouring each other, and doing their best to do each other, and ultimately themselves, in. There are so many causes that fall under the umbrella of liberalism that lie in contradiction with each other that they are finding themselves unable to survive the existence of each other.

I have often said that contradictions can not exist. Modern liberalism is proving that theory to be correct. When you have a party, such as the modern Democratic party, that hosts so many conflicting points of view, it's going to come apart at the seams.

What are these contradicting points of view, you ask? I'm glad you asked that. Let me point out just a few of them. When you have a governor who proposes, as we do in Tennessee, that everyone should stop smoking, who puts forth legislation to stop smoking in public places, and then sets forth legislation to raise the taxes on cigarettes in order to fund education projects, that is a contradiction. You can not force people to stop smoking or curb their habit and yet and still rely upon the taxes raised from smokers to fund anything. To have a party that promotes abortion on demand and opposes the death penalty for capital crimes is a contradiction. Both activities mean someone is going to be killed. For a party to demand to live in freedom and yet ask that the government take more control of their lives and take care of them from cradle to grave is a contradiction. For a party to demand that all religions be respected equally unless they are based in Christianity is a contradiction.

And the list goes on. There are literally thousands of other examples. Save the dolphins, but not the tuna? That's always been one of my favorite examples. The point is this: contradictions can not exist. A contradictory thing will struggle to center itself to a point where it no longer lies in contradiction. And that is what we are seeing coming out of the liberal blogs.

When you see news footage of liberals protesting, how are they acting? Are they marching along peacefully, as they did in the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of my favorite liberals, by the way, from a time when being liberal truly did mean being progressive)? Likely you'll see them shouting, as the Code Pink members protesting in front of the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley. A great, great many liberals feel like they have to shout and go on the offensive to make their point. That's why it's referred to as militant liberalism. Unfortunately for the liberals, the generals are clashing (everyone is a general in the militant liberal movement, by the way. There are no privates. Well, there are, but, um, never mind). Group A is attacking group B while reacting to an attack from group C who is being assisted, for the moment, by group D while fending off a counter-assault from group E, who just recently decimated in an onslaught of rampant verbiage groups G, H, and J (there is no I in liberalism, it is all, "we").
The save the polar bear people are attacking the save the baby seal people because that's what polar bears do, they attack and eat baby seals.

The plastic baggers have just recently sacked the paper baggers.

The save the whales people are treading water amongst the save the sharks people. We're still waiting to see what happens there when the save the dolphin and bottle nosed porpoise people show up with the save the orca people in that one.

The save the predatory ocean bird people have egg on their face because of exposure from the save the sea turtle people.

It goes on and on and on, but seems to be centering itself in a conflict around "do we want Hillary or Obama?" Each side has decided that they will do what they need to do to shout the other side down. The side that shouts most loudly wins, rights? The question is, what are they shouting about, and why are they shouting in the first place? At some point, during the 1960's, someone, possibly Abby Hoffman, decided that liberals should shout to make their point. Yes, I know King shouted, too, but honestly, how many Baptist preachers have you ever listened to in your life who didn't shout? I'd say not very many. Not that old school, Bible thumping, fire and brimstone type of preacher, anyway.

Part of the problem that the left is facing is that the "inevitability" factor of Hillary Clinton didn't quite pan out the way that they expected. According to (pardon the tongue in cheek moment here, but I have to) conservative thinking among the left, Hillary Clinton had all but been anointed as the next to take the throne. And then along came the newly appointed pastor of the Church of Hope and Change. And people remembered, with a new player on the scene, "Hey, I don't LIKE Hillary Clinton." The "inevitable" has suddenly a heated race for the top spot. And as the smearing and mud slinging heats up between Clinton and Obama, expect it to pick up in the blog world.

Just don't let me run out of buttered popcorn that was popped in coconut popcorn oil while we're watching them slug it out. And if anyone wants to bring along some ice cold Corona, we might even watch them with the windows open this spring, listening to the coyotes yipping across the distance...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Monday, April 14, 2008

Could We Be Being Duped By An International Shell Game over Tibet?

The Dalai Lama, speaking today in Silicon Valley in California, has announced that there will be no more concessions made in dealing with China, and has threatened to resign his leadership of Tibet's government in exile if violence escalates.

From the 17th century until 1951, Tibet has been ruled by the Dalai Lama's and their regents from the traditional capital of Lhasa. In 1911, Tibet declared it's independence from China at the fall of the Qing dynasty. From that time until 1941, it remained an independent state until the formal formation of the People's Republic of China, at which time the government in Beijing (formally Peking) launched an armed invasion of the region in 1950. The unprepared Tibetan army of 5,000 was routed by 40,000 Communist Chinese forces near the city of Chamdo. In 1951, Tibet and China signed the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, recognizing the rule of China over Tibet. In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India with his government, going into exile, and repudiated the agreement.

The Dalai Lama is more than just the leader of the government for the people of Tibet. Tradition holds that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of a line of Buddhist Masters who have become so enlightened that they have been able to become exempt from the wheel of life, death, and rebirth, and have chosen by their own free will to be reborn on this plane to teach mankind.

The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14th Dalai Lama and has proclaimed that he will be the last.

The Dalai Lama is currently on a visit to the United States, and has issued a statement today from Silicon Valley in California concerning the violence and protests over the Olympics in Beijing.

If violence becomes out of control then my only option is to resign,” the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told reporters on the sidelines of a five-day conference on compassion in Seattle.

“If the majority of people commit violence, then I resign,” the 72-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate said on his first visit to the U.S. since the recent Chinese action in Tibet.

The Dalai Lama said he was fully committed to his “middle way” approach to Tibet’s relationship with China. “I am fully committed to the middle approach; further more concessions, I don’t know,” he said. “Our struggle is with a few in the leadership of the People’s Republic of China and not with the Chinese people,” he said in a statement.

However, he expressed fears that suppression in Tibet may increase if the present situation continued.

“I am very much concerned that the Chinese government will unleash more force and increase the suppression of Tibetan people,” he said.

The Dalai Lama also indicated that there have been ongoing private conferences between his government and Beijing since the eruption of protests last month, adding that he had had no direct contact with Beijing, but that talks were being conducted through "private channels," giving no indication as to nature of the talks or the means of communication. He also expressed his support for the Olympics in Beijing, expressing that he was "saddened" by recent anti-Chinese protests surrounding the arrival of the Olympic torch in San Fransisco.

Beijing, however, has accused the Dalai Lama of "masterminding" the protests in an attempt to stir unrest and split Tibet from China, and ruin the Olympics.

At the weekend, Chinese President Hu Jintao defended the action in Tibet and dismissed the claims that the riots in Lhasa were linked to human rights. “Our conflict with the Dalai clique is not an ethnic problem, not a religious problem, nor a human rights problem,” Mr. Hu told Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

The human rights controversy is and has been at the center of the protestation of China's occupation of Tibet for several years. Actor Richard Gere has been a long time advocate for human rights in Tibet.

For now, the violence and unrest, the protests and demonstrations, are what are taking center stage as the Olympics prepare to begin in Beijing. It does give pause to consider, in stepping away for a moment to look at the entirety of the situation, who benefits from a disrupted, politicized Beijing Olympics? Who suffers? And what will be the final outcomes once the Olympics are past for China?

There is something to be said for timing. China accuses the Dalai Lama of stirring unrest, the Dalai Lama expresses his regrets that the Olympics are being overshadowed by the unrest, so the question remains, who has sparked it?

Is the Dalai Lama truly behind the protests, while claiming denial on the international stage, or is it possible that China, itself, has staged the demonstrations as some way of discrediting the Dalai Lama and the exiled Tibetan government.

Somewhere, there is truth that has yet to be brought to light.

In the meantime, the athletes of the world gather under the taint of political and social disharmony.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, April 13, 2008

Barack Obama Dogged by Terrorist Ties

There is an old expression that goes, "A man is known by the company he keeps." In keeping company with Jeremiah Wright, and now with the revelation of ties to William Ayers, what does this say for the man, Barack Obama?

A short history lesson: William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is also a former member of the Weather Underground Movement, previously known as the Weathermen, a radical 1960's Maoist movement dedicated to sparking a revolutionary overthrow of the United States government. The group carried out jailbreaks of members, bombings, and incited riots during their run in the 1960's and 70's. Ayers has admitted to being involved in bombings carried out by the group, and is quoted as saying "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." He went into hiding underground after one bomb went off accidentally, destroying a Greenwich Village apartment and killing three other members of the organization, one who was Ayers girlfriend.

Ayers is linked to bombings of the United States Capital, the Pentagon, and the Harry S. Truman Building, home of the United States Department of State, along with a series of courthouses, jails, banks, and prison administrative offices. He, along with other members of the Weather Underground, turned themselves in to police in 1981, after a series of official acts of misconduct on behalf of law enforcement officials ensured that they would never be brought to trial for their activities.

And this self-confessed domestic terrorist has current ties to Presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama.

In a lecture to college students in North Dakota last week, Ayers said: “I was trying to go to sleep, flipping through the channels real quick, and Hannity said, ‘Stay tuned. John McCain and I will talk about William Ayers.’ And I said, damn, I will have to stay tuned for an hour.”

Ayers went on to tell the students: “People ask, ‘Do you regret anything you did against the government in those days?’ And my answer is: no, I don’t.”

In an interview in The New York Times on the day of the September 11 attacks, when he was promoting Fugitive Days, his book on the Weathermen, Ayers said: “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and added: “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

This is what we send our children to colleges and universities to be taught, right?

Obama's connection to Ayers began in 1999, when they served together on the board of the Wood Fund of Chicago, a a philanthropic foundation. Their children also have attended the same schools and Ayers is a known Obama supporter and campaign contributor.

Given his refusal to wear a United States Flag pin on his lapel, an option for United States Senators of course, coupled with his refusal to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegience, the comments about small-town Americans, his wife's remarks about never having been proud of her country until his rise as a candidate, this is another controversy that the Obama campaign doesn't need.

Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA said: “They’re going to kill him with this. The guy is an unrepentant terrorist, so please, Barack Obama, explain why you aligned yourself with him. It is a fundamental question of judgment. By the time he [Obama] was hanging around with Ayers, his position was well known. He [Ayers] was not a freedom fighter; he belonged to a violent terrorist group.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, said earlier this year that the two were “friendly” but in the sense that “their kids attend the same school”, but Ayers' children left long ago. A campaign aide later clarified that the connection was with Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, who was still involved with the school.

Dohrn is another former leader of the Weather Underground, who also went on the run in the 1970s and served just under a year in jail.

This is not the only connection that Obama has with known terrorist organizations. In 2001, while serving in a paid position as director for the Woods Fund, the organization issued a grant to the Arab American Action Network, a group that has ties to the PLO. His church published a very pro-Hamas newsletter, and the churches ties with the Nation of Islam, and Jeremiah Wright's award to Louis Farrakhan, as well as his visit to Libya to meet Muammer Kaddafi.

Do we really need a President, indeed a Senator or any other elected official, who seems to be on such friendly terms with terrorist and their sympathizers? Obama has been on the fast track as a politician since his entry into it. He's not "known" nationally in the same way as the other remaining candidates for the Presidency. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both vetted and known individuals. They have long standing records and have been in the public eye, have withstood scrutiny, and the American people basically know what they are getting from either of them. We don't have, yet, the benefit of that sort of record with Obama, but the information is coming out, in droves, on a daily basis. And these are the sorts of things that are coming out.

Obama has called himself the candidate of "hope and change." In looking past the rhetoric, what sorts of change, exactly, can we expect, should he be elected President?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, April 12, 2008

Why Are We Not Seeing This Horrific Murder Story in the Main Stream Media?

Two University of Tennessee students were tortured, raped, and murdered last year in a case that by all rights should be drawing international attention for the brutality involved. You probably haven't heard about it because the main stream media refuses to carry it.

It has been almost a year since I first sat down to write about Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in a piece I called "A Call for Justice." It's been almost 18 months since the story first broke, and I, a Tennessean, living in the same state, albeit at the other end of the state from where the tragedy took place, didn't hear about it for almost six months.


Because it's not being covered outside of Knoxville. To give credit where it is due, FOXNews and CBS did run pieces on it; brief pieces, but it was reported by them. No other major network media outlet has touched it.

They don't consider this to be newsworthy:

Childress says Channon Christian's Toyota 4-Runner was located after her father, Gary Christian, contacted the family's cell phone provider. The cell phone company then determined where the closest cell tower was located, and thus, were able to find Christian's car.

Officer Childress says he went to Lemaricus Davidson's residence on Chipman to serve outstanding warrants on the recently released convicted felon, after Davidson's fingerprint was found inside Channon Christian's recovered 4-runner.

He found the front door ajar, and after entering the house, he found a body inside a large trash can in the home's kitchen. At this point, he summoned the Medical Examiner's Office. The body was later identified as that of Channon Christian.

And that's barely the tip of the iceberg. Both Christian and Newsom were beaten, raped, and murdered. Newsom reportedly also had suffered the loss of his genitalia before his death. (Email subscribers click here for Michael Savage's commentary.)

Personally, I fail to see how the abductions, brutal and horrific torture, and murders of two young college students can be anything BUT newsworthy.

Now that the trials have finally begun, the main stream (dinosaur drive-by) media still refuses to cover the story. And the testimony that is coming out now during the accessory trial of Eric Boyd is just as shocking as the initial reports that came out when the story first was being broken.

Former Lemaricus Davidson girlfriend Daphne Sutton testified that Letalvis Cobbins forced Channon Christian to shoot and kill Christopher Newsom on Monday, January 8, 2007.

Sutton also testified that she knew about Newsom's murder a day before Channon Christian's body was found.

Sutton admitted that she lied to investigators when she told them the last time she had seen Davidson was Sunday night. She also testified that she knew at the time she began dating Davidson that he supported himself by robbing people.

Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? Where are the outcries of the public that they have had enough of the violence and they demand that this type of thing be eradicated? Of course it's hard to rally anyone together when there is no story being delivered by the media outside the town where the incident happened.

One can only conclude that if the main stream media is ignoring this story, there are others that are equally as graphic and chilling that are being covered up, in favor of more "politically correct" pieces.

At least those are my thoughts, what are yours?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Friday, April 11, 2008

"NO ONE Left Behind"

Personal note: Some pieces are harder to write than others. This one...this one had to be done "right." Perhaps it's part of the process of growing "older," perhaps it's because I was trained to be a soldier, a warrior, and I find myself not IN uniform doing what I was trained to do over 20 years ago, perhaps there are other factors involved internally, I'm not sure, but as I DO grow older, and because of my contacts both online and off, interactions with such a wide variety and assortment of people, I find myself with a deeper and growing kinship with my brother and sister veterans with each passing year. Ergo, this is a subject that hits me very close to home, personally, thus the desire and need to say exactly what needs to be said.

I hope I have done my brothers and sisters justice.

A heartfelt salute to you all.

Prefacing my piece will be the message that inspired me to write this. It was sent to WUA and is of particular interest to me.

S., I would really appreciate it if you could post this on your site. It is for a good cause as you will see when you read it.


Most of us who read this blog are grateful for the many men and women who currently serve our country. They are heros, everyone of them. We also are grateful for the many men and women who have worn the uniform in prior years. Whether it was a time of conflict or a time of peace. They were there for us and they kept us safe.

I know that many of you are like me. When I see one of our active duty military I will shake their hand and thank them for there service and, if I see them at a restaurant, their bill goes to me. I never fail to express my appreciation for a fellow Veteran's service with a thank you.

There are some Veterans who will never hear that thank you. They, in fact may never have a proper burial. They are the missing. Not POWs or MIAs. They are Veterans who are missing in America. Their unclaimed cremains are sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for someone to take action.

From the "Missing in America Project" Site
"You served your country through a war, or through peacetime. You expected to receive a military burial, recognition by our government of your commitment to our great country. You expected to have honor and respect paid to you as a result of your service to our great country. Instead, you reside on a shelf in a mortuary or a storage facility at a crematorium."

Well, I invite you to visit "Missing in America Project" website. Take a look around and see for yourself the wonderful work they are doing.

Chris Brocksmith, a fellow PGR member told me "What we do for the PGR is from the depth of our heart. What the MIAP does is from the depth of ones soul."

Patriot Guard Riders
Standing For Those
Who Stood For Us


It's funny how one simple little word can have such powerful impact upon people.


For children in school, it's a location on a map, a country across the Pacific located in Southeast Asia where there was a war once that America was involved in.


For others, it's a place that they know about because they had family members there all those years ago, and they felt the effects of that war through them.


For some, it's a place they went to and learned what hell on earth was, coming home forever affected, forever changed, and forever remembering the smell of the jungles, the smell of gunpowder, of rot, of decay, the symphony of insanity played out by men in combat. Some didn't come home. Some didn't come home alive. Most did come home, but some of them never really left in their minds...

Don't think I'm trying to paint a picture of all Vietnam vets as mentally unstable, unable to adjust and cope, unable to leave Southeast Asia behind them, I'm not.

Far from it.

There are those, however, who for whatever reason, whatever circumstance, fell by the wayside in the years after their return from the Nam. A great many of them are still out there today. And a great many of them pass on, unnoticed, from this life, with no one knowing or realizing the tremendous role that they played in the history of our nation.

Vietnam was a learning experience for us as a nation, or at least it should have been. I often think that there are those out there who missed the lesson.

That, however, is the topic for other discussions, ongoing and continuing, as we pursue other conflicts around the world that are ongoing.

This one is for another reason. This one is to remind us that there was one lesson we DID learn in Vietnam that we have to apply here, on the home front, as well as on the field of battle. That lesson is this, "no man left behind." It's a lesson we need to practice here at home, because there is a growing number of homeless vets who are dying and being cremated, with their ashes being stored awaiting someone to claim them for interment. Connecticut is one state that is taking measures to make sure that this growing situation is being resolved.

The state's veterans cemetery in Middletown is a final resting place for thousands of Connecticut's war heroes. Sadly, some veterans who should be buried here are not.

"I think the families had the opportunity to do the right thing by these veterans and for whatever reason it didn't happen," said Keith Soileau, director of the Missing in America Project in Connecticut.

Soileau joined the Veterans' Affairs Commissioner Linda Schwartz in announcing a first of its kind partnership.

Missing in America is an organization that has undertaken the tremendous task of making sure that the unclaimed cremated remains of American veterans receive the proper honor and respect due to them by locating and identifying their remains and ensuring that they have a final resting place.

It's a daunting task, to be sure, that will involve a lot of time and a lot of research, and will be coordinated with such agencies as the American Legion, Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, local funeral homes, national and state veteran organizations and administration agencies, and state and national veteran cemetery administrations, just to list a few of the organizations and agencies that will be involved. There will, of course, be strict adherence to local, state, and national laws for the identification, claiming of, and interring of unclaimed remains.

But what greater honor can we bestow upon the forgotten veterans of this nation who have passed on? What greater service can be undertaken to honor those who have, for whatever reason, slipped off the grid and have been forgotten in death?

It is a debt of gratitude that is owed to our forgotten brothers and sisters, a labor of love, that guides this project. Some may have gone missing, but there are those searching for them to ensure that they rest in peace, with honor and dignity.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, April 10, 2008

Battleground: Los Angeles - 10APR08

In the fifth deadly shooting since this streak of violence began last month, Los Angeles highways have become a killing ground yet again.

Samantha Padilla, 19, of Los Angeles, was shot in the upper torso around 12:30 a.m, authorities said.

She apparently was attacked while stopped at a traffic light at the end of an off-ramp from the 110 Freeway in South Los Angeles, police Detective Tommy Thompson said. A car pulled up alongside and someone fired about five rounds from a medium-caliber gun, he said.

It appeared Padilla was heading home from Los Angeles International Airport where she worked for Hallmark Aviation Services, officials said.

Thompson said two witnesses had given conflicting statements about the make of the suspect's vehicle. He said he was trying to locate stores with surveillance footage of the area in an attempt to gain additional clues.

Los Angeles has never been at a lack for violence, but given this recent wave of freeway shootings and the murder of Jamiel Shaw, one has to wonder if indeed the greater Los Angeles area is turning into a battlefield. One thing is for certain; LA area police are having their hands full with investigations of these crimes.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Politicizing the Olympics

I thought, from my understanding, that the Olympics were supposed to be set up and established as an apolitical event? Was I incorrect in that assessment? I was under the impression that they had been revived in the spirit of allowing the athletes of the world to come together and compete without the constraints of political wrangling and haggling.

Yet since the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, politics has wormed it's way into even the Olympics, as it has managed to do yet again with the upcoming Beijing Olympics of this year.

It's an interesting thing that for the one U.S. stop of the Olympic Torch, an event meant to usher in a season where our world class athletes are gathering in hopes of competing with others from around the world, people bent on protestation over the relations between China and Tibet set out to extinguish the torch. The situation was serious enough that the torch route had to be changed for security reasons.

The announcement came during a day in which the torch's trek through the city was shortened and its path altered to try to minimize the chances that protesters would mar the event.

Anti-Chinese protesters and Beijing supporters lined the streets along the planned route hours ahead of the start of the relay.

The torch was lit in a short ceremony at AT&T Park in front of hundreds of pro-Chinese supporters who waved Chinese, American and Olympic flags.

I can honestly understand the outrage over the China/Tibet situation. I can equally understand outrage over the China/Taiwan situation, but it seems that's a less popular "cause" than Tibet. I have to wonder why? Do the people of Taiwan not deserve as much a chance to live without the threat of mainland China taking them over as the people of Tibet deserve?

Africa comes to mind, as well. At any given moment, on any given day, there are horrors and atrocities committed on the African continent, and yet no one protests. No one complains. No one forms groups to go out and picket on behalf of the people of Darfor, which was, for a few days, slightly newsworthy. There are no mass demonstrations against the atrocities of the Sudan. The United States went to war in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, and who was vilified? The dictator who was committing genocide, or the nation who had, supposedly, committed itself after 9/11 to go after terrorists any where that they were being given sanctuary.

How many warnings did we give the old Iraqi government that we were going to do something? Plenty. We gave them enough advance warning that they had ample time to move any weapons of mass destruction out of the country so that they wouldn't be found if and when American and coalition forces invaded. And yet the evidence of genocide was found in the forms of mass graves, torture and rape rooms, and the like. Yet that wasn't protested; the invasion OF Iraq to stop a dictator was what came under fire.

And yet Hillary Clinton and others are calling for George Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics, while at the same time calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq at a time when doing so would clearly destabilize the region.

I do not understand picking and choosing which evil to vilify and which to condone. The treatment of Tibet by China is wrong, but at the same time the treatment of Kurds and Iraqi's by Saddam Hussein was wrong, as well. Other nations call for the elimination of the nation of Israel, and they are celebrated, not protested. If an Israeli so much as sneezes in self-defense, there is outrage among those on the left in this country.

But are these things, are these situations, cause for protesting the Olympics? The Olympics are not Chinese, they are not Iraqi, they are not Israeli, they are not American. They are, truly, an international event designed for the spirit of athletic competition. And yet we have politicized even our sporting events now, protesting the host nation by taking out our outrage on the international community as a whole.

The Olympics are not about China, they're about all of us, all around the world, every man, woman, and child in every nation who wishes to compete in a fair and friendly atmosphere for the sake of competition.

In my opinion, in my mind, politicizing them cheapens the entire organization.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Move Over Martha Stewart, There's a New Sheriff In Home Decorating

They called him "the Duke," and 30 years after his death, he's still an American icon and an influence on our society. Paintings, sketches, and figurines of John Wayne in character decorate millions of American homes. His movies are still in high demand on video and dvd, and almost any weekend you can find the Duke on television somewhere.

Now he's getting his own home decoration furnishing line.

Ethan Wayne, president of Wayne Enterprises, said, “We’re excited to have RWG Licensing working with us to bring the John Wayne brand into the home furnishings and accessories categories, and look forward to expanding our current licensing partnerships and products to include a lifestyles product line that he would be proud of.”

Wayne Enterprises holds sole licensing for John Wayne as a commercial brand, and has protected the Wayne image very closely in their business dealings in authorizing the likeness of the Duke for use. Wayne Enterprises also sponsors cancer research, treatment, and education programs.


It will be interesting to see what sorts of furnishings become available on the market as this venture begins. The influence of John Wayne is universal. With a film career that spanned some 50 years, Wayne is a Hollywood, and indeed an American, legend.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Jamiel's Law Presented to Los Angeles City Council

On Sunday, March 2, 2008, Jamiel Andre Shaw, Jr., was murdered not five minutes from his home in Los Angeles. He was 17 years old.

Jamiel was a star football player, a "stand-out," with one coach describing him as a "Houdini on the football field." He was found on the ground outside by his father, who had come out after hearing gunshots. His mother Anita, a sergeant in the army, was in Iraq on her second deployment and had to return home to bury her son.

To say that the loss of this young man is a tragedy would be a major understatement. From everything that I've been able to glean through the pages upon pages of news articles, memorials, and tributes, this was a fine young man with his future fully ahead of him. I look at my own son, who is 18, awaiting graduation in a month and looking forward to entering college this coming fall to pursue his dreams. I look back, thinking, at the time when I was the same age, and the dreams I had of my own future.

Yes, my heart goes out to the Shaw family, and I am fully behind them in what they are undertaking as a result of their son's murder. I can not fathom the grief that they are feeling, and I can not imagine the anger that they feel inside concerning the incident surrounding the senseless death of their son.

You see, Jamiel Shaw's murder could have been prevented.

That's right, it didn't have to happen, because the gang member accused of his murder, 19 year old Pedro Espinoza, who is a documented member of the 18th Street Gang, is an illegal alien.

Nineteen-year-old Pedro Espinoza was arrested Friday and appeared in court Tuesday for arraignment, but it was postponed until March 25 at his request while a public defender is assigned to him. Espinoza is a "documented member" of the 18th Street gang.

The charge includes the special circumstance allegation that the defendant was "an active participant in a criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang."

Prosecutors are expected to decide later whether to seek the death penalty against Espinoza, who was arrested last Friday by Los Angeles police.

Shaw's family is taking an active stand in the wake of the loss of their son. There is an old saying, "You can't fight city hall." The Shaw's are doing otherwise, joining in the fight against the Los Angeles policy of being a "sanctuary city," a municipality that allows illegals to come in without worry of being apprehended for their status. In Los Angeles, this falls under "Special Order 40."

Drafted by Walter Moore, a political opponent of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Shaw's and supporters are pushing for the city council to adopt an ordinance named "Jamiel's Law," which would enable Los Angeles law enforcement to begin checking the legal status of suspected gang members and illegal immigrants. At this point, the ordinance is not expected to pass. (Video available here for email subscribers.)

Anita Shaw is scheduled to return to duty with the army in early April.

To some, Jamiel Shaw is a statistic, a casualty in an ongoing war in Los Angeles between ethnic groups. But to the Shaw's, and the friends and family of Jamiel Shaw, he was more than just a statistic. He was a young man on the verge of becoming an adult, with a promising future laying before him.

Jamiel Shaw is but one death, not just in Los Angeles, but across the country. But each life lost in the quiet invasion of this nation by illegal immigrants is a life that someone cherished, a life that touched and affected others, a life ended by someone who is here illegally. Each of those lives, each of those people, are mourned and missed by their families and friends.

What part of "illegal" is so hard to understand? Before you answer this question, those of you who want so desperately to simply forgive and allow those here to be given amnesty, think about how you would sell it to Sgt. Anita Shaw and tell her your answer. I'm sure she'd love to tell you her opinion as well.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Woman Stabs her Daughter Claiming Child Possessed by Demons

One has to wonder if there wasn't some indication that this was going to happen. One has to wonder if there were not indications that could have alerted someone that there was a problem that was brewing. One has to wonder, could there not have been some sign, some symptom, that was evident that could have prevented the death of a six year old little girl?

A Waukegan woman charged with fatally stabbing her 6-year-old daughter initially told police the girl was possessed, attacked her with a knife in bed and slammed her into a wall before the mother grabbed the weapon and slashed her daughter's neck, Lake County prosecutors said in court Tuesday.

Nelly Vazquez-Salazar, 25, later admitted there was no attack and that she stabbed her daughter, Evelyn Vazquez, after she awoke and found the girl on her bed holding a knife, they said.

Sobbing throughout her bond hearing, Vazquez-Salazar listened through a Spanish interpreter as prosecutor Stephen Scheller laid out to Circuit Judge Dan Shanes the details to support first-degree murder charges against her.

Investigators have stated that from all accounts, after interviewing the little girls teachers and others who knew her, the demon possession claim by her mother was far from the truth, with one investigator stating, "she was an angel."

Neighbors say they were awakened by Vazquez-Salazar at around 4:30 in the morning, finding Vazquez-Salazar pounding on their door, hysterical and begging to use the telephone to call 911. 6 year old Evelyn was found dead in her bedroom from multiple stab wounds to her upper body and neck, according to Coroner Richard Keller. Her mother was found to have cuts on her arms and hands. She was not injured when she called for help from the neighbors apartment.

Vazquez-Salazar remains in custody pending a $5 million bail. She has been charged with first degree murder; her next court date is set for May 1st. Police say that there are no indications of drug or alcohol abuse, nor problems with mental illness in her background.

My question is: what snapped. What happened. What makes a woman who has been a mother for 6 years suddenly take a knife and attack her child with it, killing her?

It frankly baffles me.

I'm sure that there will be no conclusive answers to come from this case. At least nothing satisfactory to explain why a mother would kill her own child, especially in such a horrendous way. Psychologists will attempt to offer all sorts of explanations at her trial. Lawyers will make claims of this and that about how the woman is a victim of some societal ill or another in an attempt to get her off the hook, probably on some sort of insanity plea.

Whatever the reason, whatever the real motivation was for this, there is one thing that to me is clear. The demon wasn't in the child...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man