Monday, June 30, 2008

Is the DNC afraid of it's own base? The Denver Wall is going up.

In the movie "V for Vendetta," the notion that people should not fear their government; government should fear the people is a prevailing theme. Is it possible that the Democratic National Party has reached this level of fear of the people?
As mentioned in previous articles (here and here), there is a huge fracturing going on in the Democratic party, at the base level. Despite all attempts to put on a good face with the media and go on as if there are no problems, the DNC seems to have no illusions, privately, that there is brewing trouble.

And they are making efforts to ensure that that trouble doesn't interfere with the National Convention when it meets in Denver, making preparations to keep protesters as far away from the center of activities as possible.
The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.
It is perhaps telling that such precautions are being made for the DNC. Given the past two years of a Congress with a record of little to no accomplishment, the rift between Clinton and Obama supporters, and the continued tirades by anti-war protesters (despite the successes made in Iraq in the past year, to the point that the media no longer reports from Iraq), Party leaders have good reason to be concerned over an irate constituency. And with the rise of the Denver Wall, one could speculate further about the views of the DNC not only on the Second Amendment, but upon the First Amendment, as well.

Wasn't there another wall, once upon a time a few years back, that divided a city east from west?

Just a thought.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, June 29, 2008

THIS is Unity?

The debate on who will be the nominee for the Democratic party is over. Sound familiar? As said with another "hot" issue, anytime someone tells you something is over, bunker down. The real fighting hasn't even started yet.
It's one of the most tenuous, shakey alliances in recent political history. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Two bitter rivals for the same position coming together for the sake of party unity. It's a coalition of great idea and sound concept, built on a foundation resting in quicksand.


Because a large and growing number of Hillary supporters are walking away in disgust at being forced with the prospect of Barack Obama as the nominee for the Democratic party in the November elections.

Despite the media events, the public rallies, and photo op after photo op showing a smiling Clinton and Obama greeting the assembled, things are far from well with the Democratic party base. The party is in trouble. And it's in denial about the trouble that it faces.

Unity was spared the banality of unanimity.

Carmella Lewis, with her Hillary T-shirt and Hillary placard, came all the way from Denver to make sure there would be plenty of ambiguity, duality and ferocity in Unity.

Just as Hillary was testing out the unfamiliar familiarity “Barack and me” Friday and talking about “his grace and his grit,” Carmella began loudly booing and waving her sign.

“We want Hillary!” screamed the 57-year-old retired ad saleswoman and Clinton delegate.

“It’s over, lady!” yelled some Obama supporters a few yards away.

But is it really over, at that?

Dissension in the ranks begins with the formation of such grass roots movements as PUMA and the determination of existing groups of Clinton supporters such as, working as a loose confederation, called Just Say No Deal, representing a large and growing number of women voters who state that they will do whatever it takes to ensure that Barack Obama is not elected to office. These women, who supported and believed in Clinton, backing her to the end and beyond, are not ready to simply "let go" after seeing their candidate leading in popular votes but losing to a slim margin of delegates.

In actuality, I can understand their reasoning, as can, perhaps, other southerners observing the situation, better than voters in other parts of the country, for reasons of our own and a shared concept of another dream that was taken away from it's supporters.

In response mainly to PUMA, the forerunner organization spearheading the Hillary backers in self-imposed exile, Governor Ed Rendell has formed a PRO-Unity group that goes by, interestingly enough, HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided). The purpose behind Rendell's group is to ensure that there IS party unity and harmony, and to work with patience and understanding to bring the PUMA women back into the fold of the Democratic Parties.

So, a group named for a type of dog is going to try to herd like wayward sheep another group named for a mountain lion...

Does anyone else see the potential for some badly chewed up hounds in this equation?

They should, because a recent press release by PUMA has declared that Rendell and his HOUNDs "are missing the point."

Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide - The Just Say No Deal Coalition issues the following response to Governor Ed Rendell’s counter movement HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided). While we thank the governor for recognizing us as a fluid, viral, viable and ever growing movement— we PUMAs and members of the Just Say No Deal Coalition want to respectfully point out that Governor Rendell and his crew are missing the point.

In HOUND’s credo Governor Rendell states, "PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity…We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama…"

The philosophy on which the Just Say No Deal Coalition was founded is plainly stated as this:
We, as millions of disaffected voters or PUMAs have banded together to form a Coalition of the unwilling. We fervently believe in Country Before Party. If political parties won't uphold core democratic principles, who will? If the voters don't hold the parties accountable, who will?
The answer, "We (PUMAs) will at all costs!"

For the veterinarians in the audience, remember, these are actually people we are talking about here. But I'm sure that local hospital emergency rooms will accept the volunteer service of your skills as trained medical professionals once the cat and dog fight begins in earnest...

In the meantime, there are other segments of the Democratic party, or individuals just in general, who don't care to see the Rock Star candidate elected to office. At least 60 Orlando municipal vehicles have suffered vandalism in recent months, with most of the graffiti messages painted onto the city vehicles, bearing such messages as "Obama smokes crack."

Unacceptable behavior regardless of one's candidate of choice.

Currently, there is no clear solution to resolve the fracture in the Democratic party. Hillary's supporters remain steadfast in their insistence that the nomination was basically stolen from her and that she, and husband Bill, were treated badly by the media, the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party as a whole.

In reading over the PUMA rebuttal to Rendell's Hounds, in which they basically tell him WHY that dog won't hunt as the party continues to implode, some are whispering in other corners, observing the situation from the outside, two words: Operation Chaos. It does make one wonder...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


I Am Spartacus Hussein. Yes, Spartacus Hussein, That's Correct

In a time of growing controversy over the nationality and religious beliefs of one Presidential candidate, there is a growing support movement that is showing a new trend for Obama supporters; the inclusion of the name Hussein into their names.
All apologies to the Monty Python troupe for the title. Or maybe the Python crew would appreciate it, at that.

Romeo said of Juliet, "Would a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." One has to wonder if there would have been less of a feud between the families in the Bard's play if the main characters had been Romeo Hussein Montague and Juliet Hussein Capulet. Shakespeare could have even been the first to write "Can just get along?" asked by the insertion of a character named Rodney Hussein Capulet. Or Montague. A rose by another name, after all.

There is a growing trend of late among people supporting Barack Obama to include his middle name as their own middle names. Some parents are making the discovery by finding their children's online identities at such social sites as Facebook, and are shocked to discover that the children they named at birth have adopted the Hussein moniker as well.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
Some supporters give their reason for this adaptation as being their outrage that some Republicans use Barack Hussein Obama's middle name as if it were what one dailykos contributor describes as "a cuss word" in an article entitled "We Are All Hussein" on his own blogsite.

Personally, I don't think Republican's would have latched onto it so quickly if the candidate formerly known as Barry H. Obama hadn't made such an issue of it himself early on in the campaign, changing his position about the use of his middle name along the way, a trend, it seems, that Obama has taken up on several other issues, as well.

One can't help but be reminded of the controversy over Hillary Clinton's maiden name being used during the 90's. Yes, I know envisioning Hillary Rodham Clinton as a maiden is a stretch, but we're talking names for a moment here. During the 90's, Hillary Clinton's usage of her maiden name was "much ado about nothing," but regardless, it led to a great deal of air time for the talking heads of the dinosaur media, to the point that Hollywood made light of it as well, by adding the name "Rodham" to the names of the members of the cast of Hot Shots Part Deux.

It just goes to show, there is nothing new under the sun.

And for the record.

I, however, am not Spartacus, neither am I Hussein.

John Cleese on the other hand...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, June 28, 2008

Bill Clinton - "Obama can kiss my ass"

Entering the final leg of this years election cycle, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama is finding that the water is getting a little hotter in some places, and where Bill Clinton is concerned, it's downright frosty.
It has to be a hard thing for a candidate to beat another candidate by a narrow margin in a contest that a large percentage of the public is not pleased with the outcome. Presidential politics is the hardest beast of all things political in the U.S. The normal thing for a Presidential candidate is that he receives the endorsement of all other living former Presidents of his party.

That's the NORMAL thing.

This campaign season has been anything but normal, given the demographics of the Democratic party's offerings as candidates for the Oval Office. Barack Obama stands to, possibly, gain the position and become the nation's first true black President, a position that former President Bill Clinton had claimed for himself during his tenure in office.

Yes, I know, Bill Clinton is a white boy from Arkansas, but if he wants to say he's black, don't make fun of him. It just makes him worse.

The main thing that Obama faces, however, in regards to Bill Clinton, is that the candidate that he defeated in running for the Democratic spot is Bill's wife. And now he needs Bill's support as he goes into the general elections. And according to Bill, it's going to take a lot for Obama to get that support.

A whole lot.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.


And frankly, THAT is a mental image I could have done without.

Another source close to Bill said that the former President has been keeping his distance from Obama "because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election." This despite the announcement of a Clinton aide last week (not from Bill Clinton himself, who was out of the country at the time) that the former President would do whatever he could to support the Obama campaign on the way into the November elections. Clinton was also absent from last weeks party unity rally, attended by wife Hillary and candidate Obama, choosing to instead attend the London celebration of the birthday of Nelson Mandela.

And then there are the Hillary supporters who absolutely will not support Obama as Democratic nominee come November.

Perhaps more telling of the mindset of Bill Clinton's frosty approach to Obama is the way Clinton feels he and wife Hillary were treated during her campaign against the Senator from Illinois. Harsh words were spoken by the Obama campaign, and there was a lot of mud-slinging done by both sides until Senator Clinton "suspended" her campaign "for the sake of party unity." It is because of this treatment that Bill still holds ill-will for Obama.

The former president and Obama have not talked, and, by all accounts, the man of the Clinton household remains hurt and resentful. Associates provide a variety of explanations for the Bill Clinton dilemma, none of them mutually exclusive.

Some say Bill Clinton not only wants Obama to reach out to him, but to also promise to lift the cloud of alleged racism -- an accusation that continues to eat at the man once dubbed the nation's "first black president." Clinton, these folks suggest, wants Obama to publicly exonerate him of the charge that he played the race card in the primaries.

Beyond that, some associates say, Bill Clinton wants Obama to reach out to him as a mentor, a guide who can lead Obama through the labyrinth of a tough presidential election. "Bill wants to be honored, to return to the role of Democratic elder statesman, and get rid of this image of him as a pol willing to do anything to win," said one associate.

Bill Clinton as a mentor for Obama. Personally, I'm not sure how that would work out for either of them; Obama already seems to have a way of his own in swooning the ladies and coming across with a rock star image, and he's already thrown his last mentor, Jeremiah Wright, under the bus. Perhaps Clinton should reconsider that aspect of his wish list for what he wants and expects from Obama.

Maybe Obama could start the fence mending process by calling Bill "sweetie..."

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


NRA Begins Legal Assaults against Anti-Gun Municipalities

Hat Tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

With the passage of the United States Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the National Rifle Association has taken their cue from Shakespeare; "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!"
As mentioned at the announcement of the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the NRA has set it's sights on the anti-handgun policies of Chicago.

But Chicago isn't the first stop for the NRA, nor the only stop, as they begin a campaign of legal battles to have restrictive anti-gun laws overturned and erased around the country. The city of San Fransisco finds itself "under the gun" by the NRA and others over their ban of handguns in public housing, on the basis that the ban is unconstitutional and relegates those who live in public housing to a separate class of citizenship than the rest of the citizens of the city. San Fransisco, and other cities that are suddenly finding themselves facing lawsuits, are digging in and preparing to fight, despite the Supreme Court ruling this week.
But officials here and in other cities where gun restrictions are now being challenged took a defiant stance. As the lawsuit was being filed, San Francisco officials held a news conference in the city’s hardscrabble Western Addition neighborhood to announce a series of antigun measures. Mayor Gavin Newsom said the timing was coincidental, but apt.

Mr. Newsom, who said he suspected that the rifle association might also sue to overturn a local ordinance requiring trigger-locks, challenged N.R.A. officials to come to his city and spend time in public housing developments, which he said were often overrun with weapons.

“We don’t happen to believe that it’s good public policy in public housing sites where guns and violence is the highest in our city and, for that matter, respectively, in cities across America, to say ‘Hey, come on in; let’s everybody get guns,’ ” said Mr. Newsom, a Democrat.
Obviously Mayor Newson has never heard of the town of Kennesaw, Georgia.

The San Fransisco suit, interestingly enough for a city with a reputation of ensuring the rights of it's gay citizenry, was filed by a gay man living in public housing after being denied a handgun permit for the purchase of a firearm to use in self defense from potential hate crimes. According to NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre, denial of a certain population of the city based upon where they live, stating “It can’t be walled off by the political class. It would be the equivalent of saying you can have a right to free speech, but you can’t have a right to free speech in public housing.” The suit was filed against San Fransisco within hours of the release of the Supreme Court decision. San Fransisco virtually banned handguns within the city in 1982 when it passed ordinances in which no new handgun permits would be issued.

Officials in Chicago and New York City, two more cities that have restrictive gun laws, remain convinced that the high court ruling won't have any immediate effect on existing gun laws. Georgia's Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, on the other hand, has asked a Republican state senator to form an exploratory committee to determine which of Georgia's state statutes are in violation of the Supreme Court ruling. Cagle, a Republican as well, is a gun ownership advocate.
A city of about 725,000, San Francisco has 12,000 residents living in public housing, all of whom are required to sign a lease that forbids a broad variety of weapons, including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, automatic rifles, BB guns, as well as nunchucks, brass knuckles and stun guns. This blanket ban was begun in 2006, and the penalty for violation of the lease is eviction.

In the case filed on Friday, an anonymous gay man said that stipulation had deprived him of “any effective means of self-defense.
In 2005, a city-wide ban was enacted, and overturned by the California State Supreme Court. Last year alone, there were 42 gun related deaths in San Fransisco, and residents of the city's public housing neighborhoods state that they hear gunshots on a daily basis, despite the ban on weapons in public housing.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Friday, June 27, 2008

"Hell Hath No Fury" on a National Level

Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and pledged her support for likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Nothing, however, says her grass roots supporters have to go along with her...
William Congreve once wrote "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. In light of recent events transpiring within the Democratic party, this quote from the play The Mourning Bride may very well be shown to be the classic understatement as the United States approaches the November general elections and the time comes to elect our next President.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have announced that they will work together for party unity. After a bitter campaign, and a perceived mistreatment of Clinton by the media and the Democratic Party in general, Clinton supporters are less than thrilled to be faced with the option of candidate Obama. Some are taking their frustration and turning into activity, working at a grass roots level to work against the expected nominee for the Democratic candidacy.
Diane Mantouvalos is an anger-shaker. The night before Clinton announced the suspension of her campaign, Mantouvalos was at home in Miami checking posts on her blog and sensing a mood that went beyond disillusionment, beyond sadness, beyond "I'm upset and bummed out." As co-creator of, which describes itself as "a forum of power chics for Hillary," Mantouvalos hangs out on the sassy edge of the blogosphere. Feeling more empowered than embittered, the public relations consultant wondered: "Wouldn't it be great if we could thread all of these disparate factions and form one coalition?" A brassy coalition of rebels.

On June 8, the evening after Clinton conceded the Democratic presidential contest to Barack Obama, Mantouvalos organized a conference call with some 40 bloggers, political activists and other hardened loyalists of the New York senator's, in what became "a jam session of very intense opinion" -- about the party, its leadership, its presumptive nominee, the media. Five hours later, Mantouvalos, age "north of 35," had built a new Web site,, which has become a clearinghouse for the renegade forces that are now confounding Democratic Party officials and Obama campaign operatives.
While polls would suggest that most of Clinton's supporters, including a large majority of her women supporters, have now thrown their support behind Obama, perhaps doing a little more digging is in order to find the full story on how many women are displeased to be left with the prospect of Obama as the party nominee.

Another of the "rebels" who are going on the attack against Obama from the Clinton supporters is Darragh Murphy, founder of P.U.M.A, an acronym for People United Means Action. Murphy, in an interview with, outlines her reasons for founding P.U.M.A. Receiving a whopping 35,000 hits in the first few hours of the site's existence, Murphy explains in the interview, "The immediate, ultimate goal, is to let the party/leadership know that millions and millions of us are not going to support the candidate. That we believe the nomination process was flawed beyond belief -- that it was unfair and biased."

With the loss of delegates from Michigan and Florida and that Clinton held a larger number of popular votes than Obama, it isn't hard to see why so many female Clinton supporters are up in arms against the party.

Things aren't going so well behind the scenes for funders of Clinton and Obama, either, now that the two camps have intermingled for the sake of party unity. Insiders report that there are hard feelings between the two thrust together factions; there is animosity, and yes, one of Obama's favorite emotions to bring up, bitterness.
I know this is supposed to be a marriage, but behind the scenes, it feels more like a divorce.

There's a lot of sadness and hurt between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton camps, with both sides fighting over money and loyalty.

Before the unity fest to began here in Unity, N.H., I was on the phone with some top Clinton supporters who attended a big gathering of major donors in Washington, D.C. last night. It was hosted by Clinton's team, and to many in attendance, it didn't feel like a reunion. It felt like the arrival of a repo man.

"Hillary was sad, even pitiful I have to say," said one of her top donors.

"It was like, this guy is coming to take my family away."
No uncomfortable public event could be complete without the inevitable loss for words, given at this event by Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, who, with a pregnant pause, announced Clinton as "the next...speaker!" Some speculate that he was struggling not to use the word "president."

What does all of this spell for the Obama campaign at this point? The Travis Tritt song, "I Smell T-R-O-U-B-L-E" comes to mind. Obama is now dealing with a combined campaign involving members that he knows, or should know, if arrogance has not taken control of him at this point for being the presumptive nominee at this level of (in)experience in the arena of national politics, were not supportive of him but rather of Senator Clinton and are working for his campaign now for the sake of party unity, a disenfranchisement of his "rock star" status by members of the media, who have stopped portraying him as the Second Coming, and a growing number of angry women voters who are fighting against him, could things be going more wrong at this critical point in his bid for President?

Wellll, yes, actually, they could. In an op-ed for McClatchy's Washinton Bureau, Margaret Talev poses the question "Is Obama turning out to be just another politician?"
He abandoned public campaign financing after years of championing it. Backed a compromise on wiretap legislation that gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for helping the government conduct spying without warrants. Dumped his controversial pastor of two decades — then his church — after saying he could no more abandon the pastor than abandon his own grandmother.

He said he wouldn't wear the U.S. flag pin because it had become a substitute for true patriotism, then started wearing it. Ramped up his courtship of unions. Shifted from a pledge to protect working-class families from tax increases to a far more expensive promise not to raise taxes on families that earn up to $250,000 a year. Turned to longtime D.C. Democratic wise men to run his vice-presidential search and staff his foreign-policy brain trust.

Presidential candidates often tack toward the center after securing their party's nominations. But all this tactical repositioning by Obama suggests that he's a more complex, pragmatic and arguably more opportunistic politician than the fresh face of "change we can believe in" that he presented during the primary season.
And as we have seen earlier this week, he has given a continual snub to the American Muslim community backpedaled on the Second Amendment, and given the go ahead for a new television network consisting of nothing but reality shows. Um, strike that last one. The point is, Obama, now the front runner for the Democrats, is in a key position to make positive, real changes, rather than the numerous and tremendous flubs and fumbles he seems to be making as his campaign enters the last, and most difficult, leg of the election cycle.

No wonder John McCain prefers to be the underdog. He isn't having to deal with the fury of a woman scorned, multiplied exponentially across the country.

I'm just glad it ain't me for a change...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, June 26, 2008

Obama, McCain, and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

For at least the past 60 years, there has been a war being waged in the United States. Not with guns, but about them, and the citizen's rights to bear them. Today, the Supreme Court ruled on the side of the Constitution, and the candidates responded.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Those are the words, in their exact form, that have been in such hot debate for the past several decades. Those are the words that have been so divisive to some, and have created such anger and hatred between the pro-gun and anti-gun camps, and yet so many people do not know the words OF the Second Amendment which they stand either for or against.

"Shall not be infringed." To quote Barack Obama, "just words?"

Our founding fathers seemed not to think so, hence the inclusion of the Second Amendment, including the wording "shall not be infringed."

Historically, the Supreme Court has stayed pretty much away from Second Amendment cases, allowing lower court rulings to take precedence and establish or abolish laws in the regions which they represent. Today, however, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Washington, DC, ban on handguns was unconstitutional.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28
There has been, of course, the expected amount of jubilation from gun advocates and the anticipated weeping and gnashing of teeth of the anti-gun left. The National Rifle Association has wasted no time in gearing up to challenge, next, a similar gun ban in the city of Chicago. Other pro-Second Amendment sponsors have responded as well, including one entrepeneuring venture that offers a free handgun with the completion of a training course.

But what of the candidates, in this Presidential election year? What are the responses to this landmark decision that the banning of handguns is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the individual? The answer, of course, will depend upon which candidate you ask.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, an open-carry state, has called the decision a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom," and has accused opponent Senator Barack Obama of reversing himself, once again, on the issue of Second Amendment rights.
All I can say it’s one in a long, in a long series in reversals of positions,” McCain said. “In a few days he has gone from opposing nuclear power, to not a proponent, to willing to explore. I fully anticipate -- whether it be on his pledge on public financing or his position on the Second Amendment, or any other issues -- he is changing his positions. So it's not surprising."
McCain's remarks were made at a local town-hall meeting at Xavier University. Noticeably absent was Barack Obama, whom McCain had invited to attend for debate. McCain also made another jab at Obama in a writen statement, in which he said, "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly." Former Presidential candidate cum McCain supporter Senator Sam Brownback, in a conference call with reporters, put forward his thoughts, as well, stating, "This is either an incredible flip flop or incredible inexperience on this issue. Anybody whose been around politics in Washington D.C. knows the center of this gun ban debate is whether this is an individual right.”

So why are the Republicans accusing Obama of flip-flopping again? First, an examination of his response to today's ruling is in order.
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
On the surface, it sounds great, and looks as if the Senator and Presidential hopeful has given his full support all along to the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. But the Republican's are quick to point out, on their website, Obama's previous statements regarding gun ownership, statements which clearly show that Obama, in his own words, is opposed to the private ownership of firearms. There is even a spot for a video from YouTube that is, mysteriously, no longer available for viewing, labeled as "mistatement" on the YouTube site. However, one doesn't have to go back very far to recall Obama's gaffe in Pennsylvania in which he called small town Americans "bitter," stating that they "cling" to religion and guns.

Obama's record is indicative of the inverse of the opinion of the American people, according to a Gallup poll released today showing that of those polled, 73% of the American people believe that it is their Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just words?

Perhaps it would behoove Senator Obama, who feels that the gun control laws of his home city of Chicago are so effective, to examine more closely a town hailed by gun ownership advocates as a true success story of the Second Amendment; Kennesaw, Georgia, a town in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, this past April celebrated their 25th year without a single murder. What makes Kennesaw the pride of the Second Amendment supporters? Their city ordinance requiring that every home own at least one gun:
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.
Not what was predicted, but the results speak volumes. A lesson Senator Obama should examine closely in contrast with his own past stand on the issue of gun control.

A few more words Senator Obama should get used to hearing between now and November: "I'm the NRA, and I vote."

Once and Always, an NRA Membership Holding American Fighting Man


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

John McCain: Setting his Sights from Behind

It's a common misconception about old warriors that they aren't up to the grade when it comes to a down and dirty fight. The thing about old warriors is that they become old warriors by learning how to fight better than their younger opponents.
John Sidney McCain is trailing behind Barack Hussein Obama in the national polls at this moment in time, and he knows it. A new poll out Tuesday showed that the Senator from Arizona trails behind his Illinois rival by as much as 12-15 points, but McCain is far from worried. In fact, this is the spot he prefers to be in at this point in time. He likes to come in from behind.

Sen. John McCain stood up at a fundraiser late last evening at the oceanfront home of former ambassador George Argyros in Newport Beach. There were probably 80 people there. They dined on filet mignon, which cost $25,000 a couple.

McCain held his arms in that stiff bent way that he always does, a result of his nearly six years of POW imprisonment in Vietnam. The Republican nominee-to-be looked out at the guests and heI can out-campaign anyone, Republican senator John McCain said last summer and he did to win his party's presidential nomination told the truth:

"My friends," he said, "this is a tough race. We are behind. We are the underdog."

And then he uttered another truth that McCain's competitors ignore at their peril, "That's what I like to be."

Rhetoric from McCain on his position in the race? Hardly. McCain has a proven track record of applying this strategy to his campaigns and his interests, dropping off the radar for a time and letting his opponent have the spotlight, then sweeping in unexpectedly from behind to secure a win.

Precisely the strategy he employed during the Republican primaries to emerge as the front runner and presumptive nominee for the party's candidacy. Early front runners in the Republican race watches this happen, to their dismay, as they underestimated the former fighter pilot and Vietnam P.O.W. as they took the lead in the polls and fell, one after the other, to the wayside as McCain continued to climb, from behind, and overtake them, one by one. Even the expected heir of Reagan, Fred Thompson, seemingly underestimated his chances against the war veteran and found himself "gunned down" from before he could launch a successful push of his own for the lead position in the pack.

It would seem, in McCain's case, that the skills and tactics learned for being a fighter pilot have served handily in transitioning them into the arena of politics. And now those political gun sights are trained on Barack Hussein Obama.

As of June 1, the Democratic candidate had raised nearly $288 million. Now, that he's reneged on a pledge to take public funds, some think he may actually raise a half-billion dollars. Not counting millions more in parallel help from sympathetic 527 funds.

McCain has raised $110 million. Republican 527s are slow to gell, given the party's low spirits.

Looking back over the past year, McCain's record shows that this is exactly the place he works best, as the underdog. Using this spot to conduct town hall meetings, which Obama backed out of doing with the Republican, McCain is taking his message and his campaign to the grass roots level, an area the Obama camp seems to be largely ignoring. McCain is also slated for trips out of country to Mexico and Columbia to discuss trade, drug smuggling, and international terrorism, footage of which will likely be shown in ads coming this fall prior to the general elections, while Obama's footage will likely contain images of "a shirt-sleeved Obama, wading like a rock star amid his cheering throngs."

Perhaps as an unseasoned contender, Obama has not yet learned fully how to estimate his political opponents fully in a national election. Despite the insistence of the national media, his race with Senator Hillary Clinton was a close one, prior to her retiring her campaign after he achieved the necessary number of delegates for the coming Denver convention. McCain is clearly not a candidate to be dismissed when he is behind, as previous Republican front runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney can attest.

McCain was a fighter pilot, and his training as such was to get behind his enemy and take them down from behind. A lesson Obama needs to consider in approaching the November elections.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Picking Up Bill and Throwing Muslims Under the Bus

Barack Hussein Obama has picked up the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton. Given the help that Bill gave Hillary's campaign, can this be good for the Obama camp, as he tosses the Muslim community under the bus while stopping to pick up Bill?
Senator John McCain can start writing his inaugural address now. There is no need to wait until the results are in in November, his win over Senator Obama has just been secured. Former President Bill Clinton has announced his endorsement of Obama, and pledges to give his support and effort to the Obama campaign.

What a difference a few (political) days makes. Several days ago Reuters reported that former President Bill Clinton smilingly — and pointedly — didn’t answer when pressed by reporters whether he’d endorse Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama. But things happen and change in politics.

Perhaps the Reuters report raised some eyebrows (and perhaps some voices) in Democratic party elite circles: today it was announced Bill Clinton supported Obama.

Curiously enough, however, the announcement came through Obama's spokesman rather than from the former President himself. Journalists from the Washington Post to the LA Times have speculated that Clinton is less than enthusiastic in offering support, perhaps still angry over the way the Obama campaign portrayed him and his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, during her campaign against Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Strange bedfellows?

The move to show support for Obama by the Clintons is seen as one to reunify the Democratic party, which has shown signs of severe fracturing during the Clinton/Obama race for the party nomination. Several pro-Hillary sites are still showing their dismay at the treatment of Senator Clinton by the party, and are urging their followers and Clinton supporters everywhere to vote for Senator McCain in November.

This is not good news for the Obama, who has offered himself up as the candidate, of "hope, change, and unity." Nor does it bode well for Obama that a growing number of members of the Muslim community in America are equally disenfranchised with the candidate of hope and change.

As recently, or as long ago, depending upon your perspective, as December of last year, the Obama campaign began showing a growing trend of snubs at the Muslim community. At an event scheduled for that month, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, the nation's first Muslim to be elected to Congress, was eagerly anticipating showing his support and offering his help to the Obama campaign, offering to speak on behalf of Obama at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the nation's oldest Muslim enclave. The trip, however, was cancelled by the Obama campaign, with the reason given of that it might stir too much controversy. Ellison is quoted afterward as having said, regarding the visit to his office by an Obama aide, "I will never forget the quote. ‘We have a very tightly wrapped message.’ ”

It would appear that this tightly wrapped message excludes the Muslim community from playing a part in Obama's appearances and campaign stops.

When Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign, Muslim Americans from California to Virginia responded with enthusiasm, seeing him as a long-awaited champion of civil liberties, religious tolerance and diplomacy in foreign affairs. But more than a year later, many say, he has not returned their embrace.

While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.

In interviews, Muslim political and civic leaders said they understood that their support for Mr. Obama could be a problem for him at a time when some Americans are deeply suspicious of Muslims. Yet those leaders nonetheless expressed disappointment and even anger at the distance that Mr. Obama has kept from them.

“This is the ‘hope campaign,’ this is the ‘change campaign,’ ” said Mr. Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. Muslims are frustrated, he added, that “they have not been fully engaged in it.”

Hope, change, and unity.

Obama aides, of course, have denied allegations that the Senator has kept the Muslim community at arms length, pointing out television and radio messages in which Obama has reached out to Muslims, and his support in a radio spot for Indiana's Representative Andre Carson, the second Muslim to be elected to Congress, and the May meeting with the leader of a mosque in Dearborne, Michigan, which is the home to the largest population of Muslims in the United States. According to Ben Labolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, “Our campaign has made every attempt to bring together Americans of all races, religions and backgrounds to take on our common challenges”

Given the number of appearances that Obama has made at churches and synagogues across the country, one could speculate that this bringing together of all races and religions as one big happy family would be the equivalent of bringing the Muslim community into the family as step-children. This second-class citizen approach by the Obama campaign is fueling feelings of resentment on a daily basis. According to Safiya Ghori of the Washington office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, "“The community feels betrayed.” Added into the mix are the strong denials by Obama that he is secretly a Muslim, which further enflames the Muslim community. According to a Pew Research Center poll, ten percent of voters believe that Obama IS secretly a Muslim no matter how strongly he denies it. A new section of Obama's site reportedly calls such claims "a smear."

Hope. Change. Unity.

Perhaps it is fitting that former President Clinton should be boarding the Obama bus at the same time that it is running over the Muslim community. President Clinton is used to a bumpy ride, and as the campaign progresses, the bumpier the ride is getting for the Senator from Illinois on his road to the November general elections. Given all the help that Senator Clinton gleaned from having her husband stumping for her, I'm sure that Bill's involvement in the Obama campaign will be precisely as productive as it was for his wife.

Just remember, for those of you who may think about getting off the bus at the next stop, to tip the driver. Senator Kennedy is a natural behind the wheel of this bus, don't you think?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


ACLU Thugs Out To Stop Prayer Again

Hat Tip to Stop the ACLU.

What is it about this country that we have let a group founded by admitted communists bully our liberties away from us using our own court systems against us?

Since when does the ACLU have any business in telling anyone what they can't do when it's well in accord with their Constitutional rights as citizens?

NO WHERE in the United States Constitution nor in ANY of the Amendments does it state that there is to be a separation of Church and State.

Yet and still, the jackboots of the ACLU go marching again, threatening legal action against Ohio and Wisconsin, ordering them to stop public prayers or else.

ADF advises officials in Ohio, Wisconsin
regarding constitutionality of invocations

Officials in two states threatened by anti-religious organizations

GREENFIELD, Ohio, and MADISON, Wis. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent letters to public officials in two states Friday, advising leaders of both bodies regarding the constitutionality of allowing public meetings to open with prayer. Both the Greenfield City Council and the Wisconsin State Assembly have received legal threats from anti-religious organizations.

A prayer before public meetings is one of our oldest and most cherished American traditions, and it is sad that some radical secularist groups are trying to eliminate the practice,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. “The First Amendment allows public officials, and not the ACLU and its allies, to decide what is appropriate for acknowledging our nation’s religious history and heritage.”

Greenfield officials received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union threatening legal action if their opening invocations are not censored or prohibited, while Wisconsin officials received a similar demand from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Read the rest here.

It is time that we, the majority of citizens in this country who are tired of being badgered and aggravated by a bullyish minority in this country, take a stand, and shut these America-hating communists down once and for all.

Contact your senators and congressmen today, and insist that they put forth legislation stopping funding to the ACLU and other such organizations.

Join the American Center for Law and Justice and help fight the ACLU

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Heinz Mayonnaise Mess

What could be more cozy that a mother preparing lunches for her family in the morning, making and packing sandwiches for the kids and dad as they run out the door to start the day? What if, though, "mother" is a guy with a New York accent, in deli garb?

Heinz corporation has withdrawn a television advertisement for its Deli Mayo and issued an apology to consumers for the content of the commercial. The reason? The ad features two men kissing at the end of the commercial, and two young children addressing one of the men as "mum." The ad was pulled after one week running in the U.K. after the Advertising Standards Authority announced that it had received complaints "that it was 'offensive' and 'inappropriate to see two men kissing'."

Other complaints include that the ad was "unsuitable to be seen by children" and that it raised the difficult problem of parents having to discuss the issue of same-sex relationships with younger viewers.

"It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it," said Nigel Dickie, director of corporate affairs for Heinz UK.

Dickie also added that the ad was intended to be "humorous," and was meant to portray the message that having Heinz Deli Mayo was like having "your own New York deli man in your kitchen."

Evidently, viewers in the UK were not amused, and the ad was pulled after a one-week run.

Personally, I have to say, I'm not a fan of mayonnaise. Never have been. I've always been more partial to mustard. I do know, however, that there are a number of males who share my disdain for mayonnaise, and it revolves around, shall we say, psychological reasons. The very sight of mayo is far from appealing to us as something to ingest. To include a couple of gay guys into a commercial attempting to promote mayo?

I think I'll have a cheeseburger for dinner tonight, with pickles, onions, tomato, and French's golden mustard...

One has to wonder, though, if Senator John Kerry, or his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, have been asked for comment? If they have been, is "mum" the word?

Ponderous thoughts from,

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Monday, June 23, 2008

Sex, Lies, and Denial of a Socialist Agenda

Oil prices have continued to rise daily, with each rise marking a new record for high fuel prices around the world. The blame has been tossed about from one party to the next, but certain Democrats are suddenly backtracking from some of their statements.
Imagine how you would feel as a business owner if the government decided one day that it needed to nationalize your industry. Suppose, for example, that some politician, in cahoots with a group of bureaucrats, decided that, let's say, the office supply industry was so vital to the American economy that it needed to be taken over by, administered by, and controlled by the federal government.

Suddenly, a few months down the road, changes have to be made. It wasn't enough just to catch the office suppliers, now the government has discovered, after spending tireless hours of research, that it also needs to nationalize the paper industry, the ink industry, and the manufacture of paper clips and staples, because they are all vital suppliers to office supply companies and their survival is vital to the economy. A few more months pass, and the makers of the bodies for ink pens are added in, along with printer cartridge manufacturing and copy machine toner, pencils both wooden and mechanical are added in as well.

Wooden pencils come from trees, so eventually, to ensure the proper flow of pencil products, the timber industry will fall under nationalization as well, which would sub branch out into the building industry, because, as you know, the timber industry supplies the lumber industry and everyone who builds needs lumber, making it a vital part of the American economy as well and therefore in need of regulation. What holds a house together, now that we think about it? Why, that would be nails and fasteners, so naturally those industries would have to be nationalized, and subsequently there would be a nationalization of the metals industries, foundries, machine shops, leading all the way back to the raw materials mined out of the earth to create them.

Tools are used in mining, building, manufacturing, as well, which would make the manufacture of tools vital to the American economy and thus in need of Nationalization.

Need I continue, or have I adequately illustrated the snowball effect (I SO loathe the "slippery slope analogy, personally) that comes of nationalization of an industry? That business alone isn't affected, all suppliers to that industry become affected as well, over the course of time, and before you can say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" nationalization is becoming a national trend. And yes, I spelled that right, I googled it to make sure. I have to say, I was mightily impressed with myself.

I digress.

Last month, Congresswoman Maxine Waters demonstrated that timeless tradition of Socialists when she "outed" herself fully and publicly in calling for a nationalization of the oil industry; step 1, open mouth, step 2, insert foot, step 3, chew vigorously. Her comment did not go unnoticed by another Democrat cum Socialist, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, who chimed in this month saying practically the same thing as Waters, only without the catch of trying to stop himself from saying what he meant.


In light of the heavy fire that Waters and Hinchey have taken over their statements (Hinchey, doesn't that just sort of sound like a pirate name or something? AVAST, First Mate Hinchey, make ready to be underway!) the Democratic Party has sent out their spin doctors to try to patch up the sucking chest wound that has resulted from two Socialists in their ranks publicly showing their true agendas.

Thomas Fiery, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service that he doubts whether Waters, Hinchey or any Democrats truly support the nationalization ("socializing") of U.S. oil refineries.

"The Democrats in general do no support this idea," he said. "My guess is that neither Waters nor Hinchey really support this idea. They are ducking and covering and saying anything that might get people riled up."

Fiery added that if the federal government were to take over refineries, oil companies would profit. "The people who would be the most happy to hear about the socialization of oil refineries would be ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and all the oil companies because there really isn't much money to be made in refining," he said.

"Historically, there has been close to no profit in those industries at all," Fiery added.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't everyone been complaining because Exxon has reported such staggeringly large record breaking profits per quarter? Or does Mr. Fiery know something that we don't? It is precisely because of the huge profits that Exxon and the other major oil producers are making that Democrats would be interested in nationalizing them. What, 18.9 cents per gallon of profit for doing nothing in the production of gasoline other than imposing a tax upon it isn't enough for the federal government? At 18.9 cents tax per gallon for gasoline, the federal government makes 10 cents more per gallon than the companies that make it possible for you to put it in your fuel tank and drive down the road. And the federal government plays absolutely no role in the production of gasoline.

While Mr. Fiery can go around all he wishes to spouting off how he doesn't think that Waters and Hinchey really believe in the nationalization of the oil industry, one has to wonder and ask, if they don't really believe it, why aren't they out there saying so themselves rather than relying on the Cato institute to say it for them?

Oh, and as to the sex portion of the title, I'm sure that you, the reader, have noticed that there is no mention of sex in this article whatsoever to this point. The truth is, it's been a tried and proven marketing device that sex sells. If the title caught your interest because of the sex part, then you have just proven years of psychological and marketing research correct in participating in this little experiment.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


If it Doesn't Bleed, it Doesn't Lead, Give Us Dirty Laundry

It wasn't so long ago that people were all up in arms protesting the war in Iraq and the staggering loss of lives that our troops have suffered (significantly less than any prior engagement that has lasted half this long). Where is the news from Iraq now?
Don Henley had a song out several years back (yes, I know I'm dating myself by using this reference, but it's applicable) concerning the media and how they approach the news. Aptly enough, the name of the song was "Dirty Laundry." In the song there are several situations that are mentioned, such as a plane crash, an operation in which the camera crew wants to film the procedure and the question is asked, "Is the head dead yet?"

In no instance is this attitude of "if it bleeds, it leads" more evident than in the coverage of the war in Iraq. When there was a significant amount of gunfire and conflict, the main stream couldn't get enough of it, to the point of fabricating stories along the way about American troops shooting up places that they hadn't opened fire on (note if you will in clicking the link that the bullets the woman is holding have never been fired, they are still in their shell casing), or about 20 headless bodies being found in a mass grave.

I can't help but wonder if the movie 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag inspired that story.

So I'm guessing that building schools, hospitals, and an infrastructure, along with police operations to mop up the pockets of insurgents that are starting to dwindle, aren't newsworthy now?

I'm guessing it isn't bleeding enough.

Getting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network.

“Generally what I say is, ‘I’m holding the armor-piercing R.P.G.,’ ” she said last week in an appearance on “The Daily Show,” referring to the initials for rocket-propelled grenade. “ ‘It’s aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don’t put my story on the air, I’m going to pull the trigger.’ ”

Ms. Logan let a sly just-kidding smile sneak through as she spoke, but her point was serious. Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.

“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.

It drives many of us into a state of brain damaged myopia as well

I wonder if a reporter causing a bureau chief to bleed would be bloody enough? It would create a moral dilemma for the dinosaur media, though.

"To bleed or not to bleed, that is the question."

It's a matter of money, and the dinosaur media isn't going to continue investing money in a region that doesn't have enough blood and guts coming out of it to fill the time slots for the evening news. Inside sources have indicated, on the condition of anonymity, that they are concerned that the "big three" would withdraw their organizations from Baghdad after the November elections.

It's at this point that one has to wonder why the November elections are the deciding point for the withdrawal of major media encampment in Iraq. Could this say something to a propaganda factor that the big three have been running against the current Presidential administration of George. W. Bush? It is HIS war, after all, if some pundits are to be believed. How much credibility is lost in close examination of the media and their coverage of Iraq when closely examining how much negative attention has been given to the war during the time period when our armed forces were in the process of bringing stability to the region, and the subsequent lack of information coming out of the area now that the situation is becoming more manageable. Does this show a concerted effort by the main stream media to try to discredit and bring down a sitting Republican President?

Or does there need to be more bleeding involved for them to continue that effort?

As to Lara Logan and others who have come forth, it will be interesting to see what turns their careers take in coming weeks and months.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, June 22, 2008

An Open Letter to President Bill Clinton

Mr. President,

We recognize that you have devoted your life to a cause and a dream, following the tenets of the Democratic party and it's teachings and virtues. However, in taking a look at the party from outside the workings of the Democratic Party, we can see, perhaps, a little more clearly than you on certain issues that are personal and close to you.

Mr. President, the Democratic Party has written you off as irrelevant, and have shown, by their choosing and pushing for the nomination and candidacy of Senator Obama, that they no longer regard you with the respect due to you as a former president.

The party has shown that they have no regards for your experience, your insight, and the wisdom that you have garnered during your tenure of eight years in the Oval Office, leading this nation through turmoils and trials, maintaining the dignity and virtue characteristic of the President of the United States of America. May I be so bold as to offer you a suggestion that would show the Democratic Party and the American people that you are not only a vital and relevent national resource? You, yourself, have seen, with the wisdom of one who has held the office, that Senator Obama has not the experience to lead this great nation. My suggestion would be this: to withhold your endorsement of Senator Obama, declare yourself as an Independent, and endorse and support Senator McCain. Can you think of a better way to ensure your continued place in history as being a man of the people, and at the same time to show the Democratic Party the error of their choice in treating Senator Clinton in such a disrespectful manner?

I implore you, Mr. President, to consider this as an option for this election cycle, leaving yourself an opening to return to the Democratic Party before the next cycle to ensure your wife gains her spot as President, as well, thus further marking you both down in our nation's history as being the first couple to have both held the office of the President.

Thank you for your time.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Endorsements from our Enemies: Why Can't Barack Obama Catch a Break from them?

Presidential candidates often seek out endorsements from prominent figures not only nationally, but throughout the world, during election years. What, however, does it say for a candidate when a nation's enemies endorse a candidate?
It's a conspiracy theorists dream situation that Barack Hussein Obama finds himself facing.

The Democratic party front-runner and likely nominee in the upcoming Denver national convention has overcome the Clinton machine, rising through the ranks quickly to go from Congress into not even a full term in the Senate, into the launching position to become, possibly, the President of the United States.

His quick rise to fame and popularity is a tale straight out of the Brothers Grimm; a fairy tale ascension to power from the local to the national level, with a somewhat Messianic appeal to the public that hasn't been seen since the 1930's in Germany. Captivating audiences initially with his message of hope and change, Obama quickly soared into position to take on the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton campaign, ultimately defeating her and ending her hopes of becoming the first woman to gain the White House in the 2008 election cycle.

But at what cost to the nation does the rise of Obama bring? His campaign catch phrases, "hope and change," have done little, really, to address a hope in what, or a to address what changes that he intends for the nation, other than mentions of higher taxes and the promise to bring our combat forces home from Iraq within the first year and a half of his administration.

Perhaps, in seeking the true nature and character of the man, candidate Barack Hussein Obama, one should begin by looking at his list not of detractors, but at his list of supporters, and examine the causes they represent.

Jesse Jackson - political activist and civil rights activist. Very spotty record since the King days in his methods of promoting social and political change. Jackson has also been called a "shadow senator" from the District of Columbia.

Jane Fonda - actress and war protester who posed with North Vietnamese forces in a photo-op during the Vietnam War.

Danny Glover - actor cum political activist known for his support of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Bill Maher - Comedian and political commentator host of Politically Incorrect (which it is anything but), known for his anti-American and anti-Christian remarks.

Spike Lee - actor, political activist, director, known for his controversial race relations films and statements.

Mayor Douglas Wilder - Mayor of Richmond, Virginia, and former Governor of Virginia, who called for riots at the Denver DNC if Obama was not the party nominee.

And many others, listed here.

But this is just barely the tip of the iceberg in controversial figures endorsing Obama, and all of the above mentioned are Americans. What about his endorsements from overseas groups? This past week, Obama has received endorsements from two groups who have been and are stated enemies of the United States.

While Sen. Barack Obama sought to improve his relationship with the Jewish community today by meeting with leaders in Philadelphia, comments by a Hamas political adviser this weekend could potentially hurt the Democratic presidential candidate.

During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

This endorsement brings back up the resignation earlier this year of Obama adviser Rob Malley over controversy surrounding his ties to Hamas. Seeking to put an end to any rumors or speculation of any links to Hamas by Obama, Malley stepped down in an attempt to shed the campaign of such speculations, speculations with have revived with the endorsement of Obama by Hamas leadership this week.

To compound the situation facing the Obama team in light of the Hamas endorsement, Obama received another dubious endorsement this week, this time coming from North Korea.

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.

So what does this say of the character of candidate Obama, that he receives endorsements from at least two of our nation's enemies? Are there expectations of Obama from these endorsements, or are they merely well wishes from foreign nationals who have interests that are not in the interest of the American people? Given the record of flip-flopping that has been characteristic of Obama of late, and the support of members of the Democratic party being withheld from his campaign, could it be that there are, at this late stage of the election cycle, important issues that we, the voting public are unaware of but that are known to these groups overseas who are endorsing him? Could it be that there is information being gleaned from Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim Kenyan half-brother Malik to which we are not privy?

Whatever the answers, for some reason, two of America's enemies are interested in seeing Barack Hussein Obama elected to the office of the President. Why can't Obama catch a break in endorsements from our enemies? Perhaps it's because he doesn't deserve one...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, June 21, 2008

To Drill or Not to Drill, That is the Question in Florida

It wasn't but just a few years ago that if you mentioned off shore drilling to Floridians, you might be met with anything from angry glares to other means of expressing displeasure. With the price of fuel topping $4.00 a gallon, that may have changed.
After conducting a special survey in Florida this week, Rasmussen has released results that would indicate that Floridians have come around and would be largely accepting of drilling for oil off it's coasts. This could play a significant role in the outcome of the November general elections for Florida, as they were told, in the survey, that John McCain favors drilling for off shore oil reserves and his likely opponent Barack Hussein Obama is opposed to the option.

Not surprisingly, 85% of Republicans agreed with McCain’s perspective. However, Democrats were evenly divided—45% of those in Obama’s party agreed with McCain and said offshore drilling was likely to reduce the price of oil and gas. Just 48% of Democrats agree with Obama on this point. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 51% said drilling was likely to reduce prices and 38% disagreed. These findings help explain why the Obama has responded so aggressively to challenge McCain on this issue over the past couple of days.

Rasmussen Reports will release additional national polling data on energy topics later today. Earlier polling showed strong support for offshore drilling.

McCain currently leads Obama 47% to 39% in Florida, with another 6% saying they will vote for someone else and 8% undecided. Raising the issue of off shore drilling, however, changed the percentages a bit in McCain's favor, however, to 49% for McCain, 38% for Obama, a difference of eleven percent. Not a startling gain of three percent net, but significant in the fact that the issue drew support away from Obama, rather than gaining any support for him. McCain's gains on the issue of off-shore drilling came entirely from male voters.

McCain, prior to his announcement of his support for allowing off-shore drilling, was leading Obama in Florida by as much as ten points prior to Obama's securing the lead as the Democratic prospective nominee. At that point, Obama jumped in the national polls across the board in most states. With McCain's stance on drilling, however, Obama may see a drop off in he gained ground from Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race. McCain is currently viewed favorably by a gain of seven percentage points from last month among Florida voters, with Obama garnering a favorability gain of only three points for the same time period.

Rasmussen will continue to conduct polling over the next couple of weeks to track any changes in opinion based upon this issue.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Friday, June 20, 2008

Training Iraqi Security Forces - With a New Twist

The training of a security force for Iraq is a top priority for United States forces who are currently providing the bulk of security for the fledgling government. Having shifted to a primarily support role, training still is in the hands of the U.S.
In al-Anbar province, a program that has been successful for strengthening security forces in other provinces such as Fallujah has been employed; the training of women to supplement the existing forces already in place.

Graduates of the Sisters of Fallujah program work at any number of entry points into the city of Fallujah, doing their part to dirsupt the flow of weapons and other contraband to insurgents into the city, The next class, the Sisters of Ameriyah-Ferris, are currently training with the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, and are the first class to train outside of Fallujah as female security forces, with augmented support in instruction from female search teams from Combat Logistics Battalion 1, who conducted the five-day training course, held between the towns of Ameriyah and Ferris.

To thoroughly train the new Sisters to assist Iraqi Police, the Sisters studied topics such as police ethics, human rights, women’s issues, working in a terrorist environment, female searches and first aid. The Sisters also performed live-fire training with AK-47 rifles and 9mm pistols as a confidence booster. The final stage before graduation involved putting their newly learned skills to the test with on-the-job training at entry control points to Ferris Town.

“In contrast to Fallujah, which already has female search points, this will be a first for Ferris, meaning the women here are starting from scratch,” said 1st Lt. Kathryne Schilling, officer in charge of the training, who is overseeing her third class of Sisters with 3rd Bn., 6th Marines. The women were taught very basic skills since the idea of women providing security alongside all the male Iraqi Police is new to Ferris.

Personal protection is also a high priority for the Sisters; even though Amieriyah and Ferris are much smaller towns than Fallujah, the work they are doing is every bit as dangerous as their "Sisters" in Fallujah. For many, it is also their first job, and they are proud to be doing it. One Ameriyah-Ferris graduate said “I joined to help the Iraqi Police and to help my family. I’m proud to get this job. I’m proud to help the Iraqi Police. I’m going to make the city safer. I can prevent illegal passengers in the city. I’m so proud, I’m so happy.”

AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -Chief Warrant Officer 3 Charles Major, infantry weapons officer of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1 assists a shooter during range training with the Sisters of Ameriyah/Ferris June 4. The program trains women in Iraq to work alongside their male counterparts, the Iraqi Police, at entry control points through Anbar. , Lance Cpl. Albert F. Hunt, 6/4/2008 6:40 AM

She should be happy, and proud, as well. In a region that has traditionally not been the most "forward-thinking" in the area of equal rights for women, these women are undertaking two very important steps at once. They are women who are entering into the work forces, and they are women who are undertaking some of the most dangerous work IN Iraq at the moment.

A lesson that could be learned, perhaps, on our own shores, as well, even today.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saturday, June 14, 2008

Obama - YES WE CAN, maybe, I think, what was the question?

Is Barack Hussein Obama becoming the king of the flip-flop? Or is he suddenly just trying to come across as a tough guy by going into Sean Connery mode from The Untouchables?

I've never been impressed with people who will say whatever they think other people want to hear. When I was growing up and in church, I could tell a huge, huge difference between preachers who said what they thought and felt, and preachers who preached for the audience. Thus, I'm rarely impressed with politicians.

With the string of flip-flops and gaffes coming from the Obama campaign these days, it's hard to really trust him at his word for what he believes in and stands for. Not that anyone was fairly certain about that to begin with, other than that he believes in "change." We still don't know that much about the Senator from Illinois, other than that he DOES supposedly believe in "change." I believe in change, as well, get enough of it together and it can be converted into bill form...

I digress.

Barry H. is supposedly a propponent of gun control. Supposedly he believes that handguns should be heavily regulated (unconstitutional, by the way, as anyone who has ever bothered to actually READ the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, can tell you), and yet he is coming across with the Sean Connery line from The Untouchables in reference to McCain and the Republicans.

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

McCain and the RNC took on the comment in terms that will be very familiar to people who followed Clinton campaign statements last year:

“Barack Obama’s call for ‘new politics’ is officially over. In just 24 hours, Barack Obama attacked one of America’s pioneering women CEOs, rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, referring also to the Obama campaign's shot at Carly Fiorina's lavish pay package and role in layoffs at Hewlett-Packard.

“Why is Barack Obama so negative? In the last 24 hours, he’s completely abandoned his campaign’s call for ‘new politics,’ equating the election to a ‘brawl’ and promising to ‘bring a gun,' " said the RNC's Alex Conant.

The bi-partisan town hall meetings, by the way, set up after Obama's challenge of "any where, any time." I'm not sure that there was screaming like a little girl involved, but he did, obviously, run from them like one.

Again, I digress.

The McCain camp was quick to respond Obama's "bring a gun" comment, stating on the McCain web site, "we're having second thoughts about our proposed series of town halls."

"New politics" indeed. Obama is the product of the Chicago political machine, having been schooled and tutored to fight a dirty, ruthless campaign if necessary in order to win at all costs. Understandable, this is politics. Politics is a dirty game, and Obama seems ready and willing to dip his hands into the mud and come out slinging, keeping a bottle of hand cleaner close by in order to do a quick scrub job in order to come across as the one playing clean. The problem with that arises in having an established public record that shows exactly what positions that a politician has taken on issues, showing, as in the case of Rudy Giuliani, exactly where a candidate has been on issues as opposed to what they say while running for their current bids for higher office.

Despite his Messianic appeal early on before his own skeletons began to come rattling out of the closet, Obama is starting to come across with all the charm of nails dragging across a chalkboard. His challenges to McCain and then backing down from an open forum town hall style series of debates are indicative of a tremendous lack of intestinal fortitude. Not that McCain is a great national treasure himself, but it speaks volumes that Obama is unwilling to face him man to man in debate without the aid of prescreened questions or a teleprompter. That would indicate a lack of character, a lack of principles, and a lack of having a firm stand on anything, in my opinion.

Perhaps these are symptoms of a larger, unasked question. If Barack Obama is unable to square off without having the issues defined ahead of time, could it be that there is someone behind the scenes who controls which issues Obama will address? If so, what does that say for how he will operate should he take the Oval Office come November? Will there be some unknown, behind the scenes puppet master controlling Obama's actions as President? If so, who might that be?

Given his associations with Ayers, Wright, and the questionable connections to known terrorist sponsoring organizations, could it be that we have allowed the Democratic party to put forth a potential candidate that we really, truly, know nothing about other than that he looks good in a suit and can talk about change?

And if he does come with a gun to a knife fight, does that mean that McCain can saddle up and bring in a jet fighter?

These are the questions that must be answered before the November elections. Perhaps Lincoln Davis and Bart Gordon of Tennessee are right in withholding their super-delegate support from Obama. It may very well indeed be that the Democrats have made a huge error in judgement in allowing themselves to be overcome by "the Messiah."

McCain has put forth that electing Obama will be bringing about the second administration of Jimmy Carter. What I have to wonder is, is Jimmy Carter suddenly starting to look a little bit better to anyone else?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Saudi's look to increase oil production

Looking at the effects upon global economic conditions and under pressure by the U.S., Saudi Arabia is looking at increasing production of oil.

With oil reaching a record of $140 a barrell and an increased push in the search for alternative energy sources and methods, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is rethinking his position taken in May after meeting with President Bush concerning oil production increases.

Set to meet with oil producers and consumers in Jidda later this month, King Abdullah is expected to recommend an increase in production, hoping to stave off potential losses in the face of alternative fuel sources becoming more available.The U.S. has not been alone in pressuring for an increase in oil production, the other seven members of the G-8, France, England, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia, have been suggesting an increase in production as well, hoping to boost their economies.

Rising prices have shaken the world: Gas in the U.S. has reached as high as $4.43 a gallon and India, Indonesia and other Asian nations have cut fuel subsidies, creating anger and panic among drivers.

The kingdom produces about 9.45 million barrels of oil a day. The New York Times reported that the nation was considering raising that by about 500,000 barrels. Some economists believe that such a jump would cater to the West at the expense of Saudi Arabia, which has the world’s largest oil reserves.

Critics, however, object, saying that this jeopardizes Saudi oil reserves for the sake of western consumption. Others object to this line of thinking, saying that an $11 jump every day in oil prices is not in the best interest of oil producers, claiming that if it continues, interest in oil could very quickly be replaced by interest in alternative fuels. Such a situation would, in effect, cause oil producers to price themselves out of business. Some economists have speculated that an increased push for alternative fuels could hurt the economies of oil producing nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, in as soon as 10 to 15 years.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Army Strong, for 233 Years

They began as a ragged bunch of farmers and businessmen who believed in an idea; a free Continental Colonial America free from English rule. Today, the United States Army celebrates it's 233rd birthday.

At the outset of the American Revolution in April of 1775, the American Colonies had no standing army. Initial confrontations with British forces were conducted by militia units in Lexington and Concord. A gathering of thousands of New England militiamen to lay siege to British troops at Boston prompted the Second Continental Congress to realize the need for a centralized command structure, and on June 14th of 1775, the Continental Army was born. The next day, George Washington was unanimously voted by the Congress to be the Commander in Chief, a position for which he refused any recompense other than reimbursement for his personal expenses.

From Bunker Hill to Baghdad, the Army, the first commissioned military organization by a congressional body in our nation, has held the standard for service and excellence in standing ready to defend our nation. And today, this oldest branch of our nation's military is an all volunteer organization of highly trained men and women who utilize a wide range of technology and equipment applied to old fashioned traditions and standards.

Take a moment today to visit the Army Birthday website, and to reflect and give a moment of thanks for the men and women who have devoted a portion of, or the entirety of, their lives to ensure that a nation and a people remain free.

233 years.

Army Strong.

Drive on!

Once and ALWAYS, and American Fighting Man (and proud Army vet)