The Blame Game

I have a very serious question to ask. If you didn't know, thanks to the media telling you over and over how the government was shut down, would you feel any repercussions from it personally? It's a serious question, not one that requires any answer to me, personally, but one that you have to answer for yourself. Once you've answered that question for yourself, then you have to decide whether or not to do something about it.

The media is full of blame, the politicians are full of blame, the American people are all taking their sides on who is to blame for this shutdown. The main streamers seem to want to blame the Republicans, shouldering the burden of blame fully on them for responsibility for this latest (I shudder to use the word that has been so overused the past several years) crisis. According to Media Research Center, the main stream media was blaming the pending shutdown on Republicans for two weeks before it even happened. There seems to be a trend to this, we'll discuss that at another time.

Who do we blame, who do we blame, who do we blame and pile heeps of shame? The real answer to this question is no further away than your bathroom mirror.

I'll let that soak in for a moment while posting a picture of a random Kardashian, Rob, who doesn't care about "keeping up" with the rest of the family, to distract you, main stream media style, from the real problems and events of the day:

I'm not here to play the blame game with anyone, I'm not here to play he said/she said. I will point out that the federal debt limit has been raised under el Presidente Obama. I will also say that we, the citizenry of the United States, do not do our own research on our candidates, but will instead let the media present our politicians to us like a pig at a luau. We the people do not participate in our government, as responsible citizens, such as were our founding fathers. We participate in keeping up...be it with the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, or who George Clooney is being seen with this week. Distraction is the game of the day, and until the government shuts down, we don't really pay that much attention, and as a result we do not send the best and brightest to Washington, or even to our state or local governments, to represent US. When we do pay attention, such as in the case of the current shutdown, the main streamers do what they can to hype it up into an evangelical frenzy, only instead of preaching about the Grace and Wrath of God, their subject is how you should be afraid, be VERY afraid, that your nanny state isn't able to watch over you...

Just a thought.

Sic vis pacem parabellum.

Mike Tippitt

Republican's Balk at ACORNs in the Recipe

Republicans have been balking at Democratic propositions on fixing the economy, and the main reason has finally come to light. There has been a taint of ACORN in the original propositions.

Republican protests that any propositions forwarded for consideration in the "bail-out" discussions have a root cause to them. Original proposals included a plan for some of the profits earned by the governmental loaning of funds to financial institutions to go to ACORN, a group closely associated with the Democratic party that does work to ensure Democrats are elected to office. Republican opposition members issued a statement on Saturday expressing their outrage at such inclusion on the part of the Democrats, outlining the reasons they would not support any proposal including monies allocated for ACORN.

In issuing the statement, House leaders are reflecting -- and also feeding -- a reaction to the provision that has exploded in the last day or more. Our colleague Ben Smith says he's gotten more than a dozen anti-ACORN e-mails in just the last few hours. The viral uprising is both organic and institutionally driven. Prominent bloggers have fed the flames and so has the Wall Street Journal editorial page; several of the e-mails sent to Smith reference a House leadership alert on the "ACORN Slush Fund" and others refer to the Journal opinion. On Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Crypt that his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opposes the provision.

"The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office."

In the end, how much of the bailout's potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator.

A proposal rife with the possibility of more corruption, more mismanagement, and more mishandling of money, proposed by the democrats? But how can this be, out of the party that had promised that if elected to majority status in 2006 it wouldn't be "politics as usual?" So far, and especially in light of the most recent situation regarding the financial market, that has been exactly what the majority party has given the American people. Despite this shady and underhanded attempt by Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has deemed to accuse Republicans of being "unpatriotic."

Fortunately, perhaps, all references and inclusions of ACORN in the Democratic proposals have been removed from their offerings, as shown in a side by side comparison of proposals that have been considered.

The question of the Constitutionality of the entire process has still not been answered completely, in the minds of many Americans. One can look throughout the contents of the Constitution and be hard pressed to find anything regarding the nation's economy, other than powers of levying taxes and tariffs and the responsibility of Congress to mint the nation's money.

We have reached, perhaps, a cross-roads, as a nation, one in which it must be decided whether to remain a free-market nation, or one that begins to turn a hard turn to socialism. The efforts of the Roosevelt administration during the great depression put the United States on the road to a quasi-socialistic state of economy that the nation has existed under ever since, growing the government larger and more intrusive into the lives of the American citizenry by leaps and bounds with each passing year.The current economic crisis, if not handled carefully and with cool heads, could change the scope of not only the American economy in coming years, but the very structure under which we, as a nation, exist. Socialism, the control of business and industry by the state, and capitalism can not exist side by side under the same roof. If the past nearly 70 years has not shown that, nothing will.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Denver Imposes Restrictions on Protesters Tactics

Field commanders and generals know that the best way to win a battle is to be prepared ahead of time for any tactics and tricks the opposing side will use in a pending conflict and confrontation. Denver is making plans now for the DNC convention.

There will be no urine tossing in Denver. Nor will there be any buckets filled with feces nor "cut-proof" devices that protesters can use to thwart local police officers as protesters gather outside the Pepsi Center in Denver when the DNC gathers there to meet next month for the party's convention. Denver law enforcement and lawmakers are working together to make sure that they have as many bases covered as possible to keep protesters from blocking traffic and creating undue disturbance in the Mile-High City.

"Protesters are getting pretty sophisticated," said Councilman Doug Linkhart, chairman of the council's safety committee.

"In other cities, they're not just handcuffing themselves to each other," he said. "They put their handcuffs inside PVC tubes, which are inside concrete. They've figured out ways that keep the police from just using bolt cutters to cut them apart. They also use buckets of urine and feces and various noxious substances to pour on themselves or the police."

Denver's proposed ordinance would make it illegal to carry any "tool, object, instrument or other article" that can be used to obstruct streets, sidewalks and entry or exits from buildings or for hindering emergency equipment.

"We're just trying to very narrowly define an area where, if they have these kinds of tools and we can prove intent, then we can arrest them," Linkhart said.

Among banned items will be chains, quick-setting cement, and locking devices resistant to bolt cutters, along with containers used to transport urine and feces, and any other items that might be seen as being used as a tool for disrupting order. Arapahoe County, where some delegates will be staying during the convention, has also placed bans on items that could be used as weapons, including gas masks that protesters might be carrying to use in case of tear gas being employed by law enforcement officials for crowd control.

Personally, I'm kind of amazed at the mindset of some protesters. I can understand picketing, I can understand the chants used by marchers, but there are some things my mind can not fathom. Urine and feces? Are we talking about people protesting, or chimpanzees here? Mind boggling.

In all honesty, while I can see why there would be a lot for Democrats to protest in regards to their party, especially those who belong to such groups as PUMA, I can't really say that I see many of the Hillary Clinton supporters that would be attending being the feces flinging type.

Of course I could be wrong.

What does sinking to this level of primate behavior accomplish, really? It smells, it potentially spreads disease, and we won't get into the whole concept of that one has to actually take the time to collect containers filled with feces or urine in order to take that one pride filled moment in which they can proclaim, "I tossed my shit on a cop!" I'm sure they have a mother somewhere who would be very proud of them for such adult behavior.

Protesting in such manner does little to accomplish actual real political change. It creates a breeding ground for violence, lawlessness, and potential injury to both the protesters and public safety officials who are there to maintain order. The rare exceptions were the non-violent protests led by Dr. Martin Luther King in which he urged passive resistance. But the days of King are over, and I'm certain that he would have highly disapproved of the use of human/animal waste as a means of attempting to make a point.

I wonder if they've also banned jamming devices for the undercover officers who will be communicating by shoe phone? Just a thought.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Obama still in uphill battle against Clinton supporters

Senator Hillary Clinton may have suspended her campaign for the Presidency, but that doesn't mean that her supporters have embraced the presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Despite his top spot, he's still battling to gain their support for him.

In a move being called dissent by some, top Hillary campaign supporters and funders have basically shut down in transferring their support to Barack Obama, ensuring that their displeasure with the treatment of Clinton by Obama, the Party, and the media, are being heard in the most effective way possible; financially.

Some have gone so far as to create anti-Obama websites and grass roots organizations urging Hillary supporters to back Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. Sources close to this rebellion by the top tier of donators say that it involves around 300 Clinton "Hillraisers" who have, individually, raised at least $100,000 each for the Clinton campaign.

The Clinton holdouts are typically most angry about what they say was the media's sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton during the campaign. And though few, if any, blame Sen. Obama directly, they fault the Illinois senator and other party leaders for what they say was failing to do enough to stop it.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a Hillraiser from San Francisco, said, "What really hurt women the most was to look back and see all this gender bias." Ms. Buell said she hasn't decided whether to vote for Sen. Obama and plans to skip the August Democratic convention.

The impact of such efforts could extend beyond the hurt feelings that typically emanate from losing campaigns. Sen. Obama has built a formidable fund-raising machine that has scooped up money from donors large and small. But his general-election bid could suffer if he fails to mobilize a group that raised tens of millions of dollars for Sen. Clinton.

I don't think the Democrats, currently under the leadership of "Screaming Howard" Dean, have been this fractured since the election of 1860. I think we can all take a look back and see how well that turned out for everyone. While I'm not willing to go so far as to predict a Civil War in my writings, one can't help but wonder, in noticing the heavy splt on the Democratic side of the aisle, what the plan is that will bring ultimate unity back in the Democatic party come convention time.

After all, Obama IS supposed to be the "Unity" candidate...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

We Need More Democrats Like Joe Lieberman

For some time now, I've been watching the political parties shifting, shuffling, posturing, and what have you. It's interesting to me to find that I'm not the only one who has had this on my mind of late.

I like Joseph Lieberman. I may not see eye to eye with him on a number of issues, but basically, when it comes down to it, he's a helluva guy, and I like him. Lieberman is one of those rare individuals who has the intestinal fortitude not to go with the majority of his party when he sees that they're wrong.

It also seems he's been thinking along the same lines that I have, the past few weeks, in thinking about how we got were we are today as a nation. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lieberman discusses his opinion of when things started going, in his opinion, south for the Democrats, and for America. In looking over his article, I have to say, I agree.

Lieberman begins with an overview of the Democratic party up until and through World War II, discussing the character of leadership displayed by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and the potential of JFK and what might have been, there. The character began to change, as did the party, during the 60's.

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

This was the era in which we began the "blame America" syndrome that has reached such epidemic proportions in our country today. This is the era in which socialist thinking began to really, deeply entrench itself into our nation, affecting the thinking and philosophy of democrat and republican alike. John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Since his death, throughout most of my life, I've seen this country doing the exact opposite of the altar call that Kennedy is lauded and praised for giving. We have become more and more the nation of the public teat, the earmark, the pork, the special interest, and less and less the rugged individualistic nation that generated the heroes and legends that my generation grew up on.

That all changed in the 60's, however, as the Democrats became inundated with European political theory for the first time since the foundation of the United States to a degree that the uniqueness of the American political experiment was under assault from a more radical, socialistic ideology. Along the way since then, the Democratic party of today is nothing like the Democratic party of 50 years ago; it's more of something along the lines of western European Socialism. And after 9/11, the party has taken an even more drastic change.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

This party line mentality is part of what's undoing our nation from within. Rather than being an open forum for discussion and discourse, for debate and direction, our Congressional chambers have become divided camps, sitting in siege of each other during each legislative session (I hold both parties equally responsible for this, by the way, before anyone gets all up in a twist that I'm blaming just the Democrats). Party line mentality has also crept into the system to such a degree that it has spread to the public at large, creating such phenomena as "Bush Derangement Syndrome," in which George Bush is blamed for everything from 9/11 to Katrina, the Minnesota bridge collapse, rampant gas prices, and reality television. Party line mentality prevents us from becoming independent of foreign oil for energy, and overburdens the middle class. Party line mentality creates class envy and class hatred, in the classic form of the bohemian versus the bourgeoisie.

The United States is suffering from a state of self-inflicted turmoil, foisted upon itself by allowing her ideology to become indoctrinated by failed economic and social policies of the European continent, policies that Europe has been abandoning and that we, a decade or two behind in our thinking as we try to emulate the Europeans, allowing our elected officials (i.e. the Presidency) to appoint life-term judges who are creating law from the bench, rather than doing their jobs and interpreting the law in light of the Constitution of the United States. Party line mentality keeps our nation at the whim of the United Nations, a body whose very actions work in conflict with our interests time and time again.

Party line mentality creates a Senate and a Congress that do nothing other than undermine the work of the Executive branch and authorize the changes of name of postal facilities.

Party line mentality has it's place when it comes to election time, and time for debate, to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. Party line mentality has no place in creating deadlock situations in which the nations business can not be accomplished. Party line mentality has no business in attaching amendments to pending legislation that make it unacceptable for being signed into act (the attachments on the military funding that would legalize illegal aliens).

In 2006, the American people voted to send new representation from a number of districts to Washington in order to send a message to the government that the government works for the people, the people do not work for the government. That message was misinterpreted and taken as a green light to further divide the nation along party lines.

How will Lieberman's column affect his standing in the Democratic party? Some are already privately discussing that Lieberman will not have a place in the party if he works against Obama in the general election. To do so would place the currently listed Independent Lieberman on the Republican side of the aisle; however, he's not the only Senator crossing support to the other party. Nebraska's Senator Chuck Hagel, a close friend of McCain, has been critical of McCain's candidacy as of late.

Election-year disloyalty goes both ways. Sen. Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican and close McCain friend, called out his party's presumptive nominee at an event Tuesday night. "I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying," Hagel said.

He singled out McCain's withering rebuke of Obama for advocating "appeasement" by expressing a willingness to engage in high-level talks with Iran.

Senator Hagel has been in government for a long time. Long enough to realize that in the race for the Presidency, the gloves have to come off at some point. If this one item is enough for Hagel to turn on McCain, it shows exactly how much of a break down is going on not only in the Democratic party over the Obama/Clinton fight, but how much the Republican party is breaking down as well.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way," Hagel said.

There are two things that are certain during this past couple of years leading up to this years Presidential election: America is watching, and so are her enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Why do I say we need more Democrats like Joseph Lieberman? Actually, for the same reason I believe, after writing this piece, that we need more Republicans like John McCain, leaders who are willing to work together for the good of the nation rather than sticking only to the party line. Democrats like Lieberman are a perfect example of why I personally spent so many years as an Independent myself, rather than declaring for either party. Who knows? If there were more Democrats who WERE like Joseph Lieberman, I might have considered the Democratic Party myself when I finally did declare for one side or the other.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Barack Hussein Obama: Messiah or Effete Elitist Snob?

After all of the backlash and controversy over the "bitter" statement made by Barack Hussein Obama last month at a California event, questions are arising about the Senator from Illinois and how much is really known about him, after all?

Barry Obama, as he went by prior to entering the world of politics, has an unquestionable lead over opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton as the race for the Democratic nomination heads into the final leg of the primary season and into the convention process.

But the process has not left Obama unscathed by political fire. His associations with his former pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright in the past handful of months, his association with William Ayers, former member of the Weather Underground, and indeed his own statements and some attempts at trying to come across as "just a regular guy" have caused some serious backlash against the Senator from Illinois, questions that quite honestly should have been raised before this late in the primary process.

His response at a San Fransisco fundraiser regarding his inability to win over large numbers of working-class voters by explaining that in their frustration over economic conditions, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," has further alienated him from some of those very voters even further, and has given his political opponents fodder for labeling him as "aloof and arrogant." His attempts at defusing the situation were not as well received as his campaign would have hoped them to be.

Let's see. Bitter, clinging to guns or religion or antipathy. Just words?

Then there is the issue of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the man Obama had once proclaimed as being his "mentor." His disavowal of Wright's "God damn America" sermon and stance, his denunciation of Wright's Black Liberation Theology approach, and his final "disassociation" with Wright as Wright explained that his approach was that of a minister, and Obama's was that of the politician, came across as being far less than sincere.

"God DAMN America." Just words?

His bowling photo-op became a major laughing stock, with political pundits and comedians making great sport of his low scoring in an attempt to try to come across as Joe Average further strengthened the opinion of many middle class Americans that the Harvard educated lawyer was anything but an "average guy."

The issue of John McCain's proposal at suspending the federal gas tax, parroted and ad-libbed by Hillary Clinton into proposals of turning that tax back onto the oil companies (which they would then turn back around and pass back to the consumer, don't you just love honest knee-jerk reactions?) was met with skepticism by Obama, which led to another opportunity for the dreaded "E-word" to be foisted upon him.

Obama has stated that some experts say it could mean only a $30 average savings per family. That means those who are still unable to afford to take a vacation, won’t, and for others the savings may be $60 or $90 or more.

Elitist Barack Obama thinks that is chump change that won’t make any difference for anyone. Afterall, as we know from the Obama family’s Easter getaway, a vacation for them is a luxury trip to the Virgin Islands. However, for many Americans, summer “vacation” is a trip to another state to visit grandma or a camping trip a few hours away from home. That 18.4 cents per gallon savings can mean the difference of an extra one, two or three tanks of gas or an extra night or two at a motel or campground which can mean the difference between taking the family on a summer vacation -- or NOT.

Obama, of course, is taking great strides to point out that he is anything BUT an elitist, explaining in Indiana to a crowd that he has four pairs of shoes and gets his hair cut frequently because his mother-in-law "makes fun of him" if his hair gets too long, and blames his "out of touch elitist" image on his opponents.

“I’m gonna be fighting as hard as I can to make sure that people understand why I got into this race in the first place, how I got to where I am today, and when they understand that, I think they’ll recognize themselves and that my struggles are theirs and together we can change the country.”

True to that comment, he made sure to point out his non-elite upbringing: "I was raised in a setting with my grandparents who grew up in small town Kansas, where the dinner table would have been familiar to a lot of people here in Indiana – a lot of pot roasts and potatoes and Jell-o molds."

Just an ordinary average guy, as the Joe Walsh song says.

I think the "messiah" image is long gone, as are the women fainting at Obama's speeches.

Then of course, there's his wife, Michelle, who is proud of her country "for the first time" in her life. Personally, I'm always proud of my country. I may take issue with a number of things that the government does, and I may take issue with a great number of things that other people would have this country become, but as far as being an American, yes, I'm proud to be an American. I should hope that deep down, all Americans are. We have a system in place wherein, if we used it, the American people can change the things that we disagree with and make sure that the things we do are right. That doesn't mean equal, that doesn't mean redistribution of wealth by taxing income, that doesn't mean a host of things. It means that we are a nation established to be "by the people, for the people, and of the people." Somewhere along the way we've forgotten that.

It's time that we all remembered it.

Messiah or elitist? Let's close this thought with the words of Protein Wisdom:

In Chicago, where 80% of blacks say jobs are difficult to find, there is a widespread perception among African Americans that immigrant workers are damaging local job prospects. Fully 41% of African Americans say they or a family member have lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an illegal immigrant instead. That is nearly double the number of blacks nationally who say this (22%), and almost triple the number of Chicago-area whites (15%) who say an immigrant worker has cost them or a family member a job.

Nearly half of Chicago-area African Americans (46%) favor decreasing the level of legal immigration into the U.S. This percentage is significantly greater than the fraction of blacks nationally expressing this opinion (34%). On most other immigration issues, however, blacks in Chicago have attitudes similar to those of blacks in the national public…

Is Obama — a resident of Chicago — aware of these sentiments in his local black community? Obama’s big speech on race issues does not mention it, though Obama repeatedly referred to white people being angry about losing their jobs to non-whites through affirmative action or free trade. He did not discuss black attitudes at the San Francisco fundraiser which has landed him in hot water. To the contrary, he got a big laugh from the crowd by claiming that these “small town” people had an extra layer of skepticism when being urged to believe in the power of big government “by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama.”

Obama is rapidly gaining the image of an elitist. He will be able to count himself lucky if such incidents do not cost him his already shaky image as a post-racial candidate.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

I'm going to ask a very simple question before we dive into the rest of this article, a question that ponders within my heart and soul as well as my mind, a question that I ask every time I watch the national news, a question that we should all be asking ourselves whenever we see one of our elected "leaders" open their mouths and start using their split tongues to double-talk us with lies and rhetoric.

That question is this: Have we become a nation of idiots?

A few months ago, I did a piece entitled "Inverted," in which I addresses several key issues of the day in which I see our thinking as upside down as a society. It appears that my piece might have hit home with a few people, but it hasn't had the significant impact that I had truly hoped it might have when I wrote it. I wasn't expecting mountains to be moved, nor rivers to change courses, but perhaps a few minds to be opened to thinking, something that seems to have become a dying art in our modern society. I have determined that one piece alone doesn't have the impact today of something as significant as Martin Luther's 99 Theses; instead, it takes perseverance and persistence and a constant showing of what is going on with things.

Therefore, I have decided that this will become an ongoing feature for Wake Up America. This will be the first of an ongoing series that will discuss the question, "Have we become a nation of idiots?"

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are preparing for their next round of Congressional testimonies this coming week. There is a lot to report. According to the latest NIE update, the troop surge in Iraq has worked, there is slow but steady progress in the country politically, and Iraqi forces are taking a more active role in their own security.

Petraeus is a career military officer, not a politician, and Crocker is a diplomat. These are not men who are coming to Washington jockeying for position with other lawmakers, opening themselves to the flirtations of lobbyists, or trying to determine how much pork they can bring home for their districts in the form of earmarks. Petraeus is a warrior, Crocker is a peace-broker. Despite the seeming contradictory roles they play, both men actually are working for the same goal in a country that needs their experience and expertise to begin full work in governing itself, with our help as a nation at the outset.

One needs only to look at history to see that our own nation had the help of the French at a time when we were struggling to emerge as a nation of our own right.

There has been no advanced word on what the Petraeus or Crocker reports will say. No one has leaked information, yet, as to what will be discussed at the Congressional testimonies. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to think she already knows what will be said, and has gone on the record saying that she doesn't want to hear it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.” “We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.

So the Speaker of the House has determined that she can warn a United States Army General in command of a theater of operations what not to say? The Speaker of the House is forwarding a message to a United States diplomatic official what not to report upon? Does this not come across as being less than open-minded in preparing for a report on the activities in Iraq, as she should be?

By the way, Petraeus and Crocker will have support when they go in to speak before Congress. Members of Vets for Freedom will be there tomorrow, as well.

From email:

For the past three weeks, the National Heroes Tour took the message of the success in Iraq straight to the American people. From San Antonio to Saint Paul to South Carolina, we engaged crowds large and small, and spoke with over 200 media outlets, reaching over 20 million people through local television and radio.

With just 3% of news coverage in the mainstream media committed to Iraq, we bypassed national media all together, and it worked. Local media outlets were very receptive to "ground truth," and our veterans were able to provide it. Any way you slice it, the National Heroes Tour has been an overwhelming success.

But it's not over yet. Tomorrow we bring our message to Congress, when over 400 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans descend on Capitol Hill for "Vets on the Hill." Our guys will enjoy breakfast with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, before heading to Capitol Hill for a bi-partisan press conference with two-dozen members of Congress, including Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham.

After the press conference, Vets for Freedom will flood the halls of Congress with a sea of warriors, armed with first-hand experience, facts about the incredible progress in Iraq, and a passion for nothing short of victory, Their stories are "taking points" that no one can refute—and members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, will hear from them.

Our message is simple: Let them win! and listen to General David Petraeus. He was right in September, and has the best pulse on events in Iraq. Congress would be wise to heed his advice.

Commence Movement to Contact,

Pete Hegseth
Executive Director
Vets for Freedom

It is beyond my comprehension how that Nancy Pelosi was selected to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has shown time and again over the past two years her lack of ability to actually lead, Congress has accomplished nothing during this term other than to show themselves to be able to behave like pre-schoolers who have been told they have to stay inside for recess; the Senate, under Harry Reid, has done no better. They have whined and complained and griped and moaned about President Bush this and President Bush that, but what have they done? And who keeps sending them back to do the nothing that they do so well?

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. We, the American people, continue to send people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to Washington, expecting them to do something for us when they get there. They do nothing. And yet they are reelected over and over and over until they become career politicians like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, just to name two.

They do nothing.

Insane?

I think so, that's why I very, very rarely vote for any incumbent candidate, unless the other option is worse than what is already in office. My question is, looking around at the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, and so on and so forth, is, what kind of idiot does it take to continue to vote for these people?

Phil Bredesen, take note: I didn't vote for your condescending ass either, I knew you'd show your true colors with a second term as Governor of Tennessee.

Bob Corker, take note: we are watching you. You were selected over a popular Democratic opponent because we trusted you AT YOUR WORD that you would go to Washington to do the peoples work. So far, you're doing well. Not great, but doing well. We expect to see leadership out of you; we didn't send you up there to be a follower.

Lamar Alexander, take note: you're on the verge of PISSING your constituency off when you have your staff take the phones off the hooks so that we can't get through on important issues. Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to take you on in this coming election cycle that you're going to be in, but that could change in a heartbeat if you don't watch yourself and do what you were elected to do.

Each and every one of you from Tennessee is on notice for this business in the House this term. You Democrats who have decided to ignore your home districts and pander to Grammy Nan are going to have to answer for what you've done when you come home at election time. There are those of us who are going to see to that in your districts. You have questions that you will have to answer. Personally, I hope none of you are returned to office.

John Tanner, you especially have a record that flies in the face of the people who live in your district. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent us in west Tennessee, you do, John, and we're disappointed as hell in you. You know better than to let the values you grew up with be overrun by a left coast liberal.

Shame on you.

Are we idiots? Are we insane to continue to send people who pay lip service to representing us in government back into office over and over?

What do you think?

Have we become a nation of idiots?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Can we COPY IT? YES WE CAN!

Hillary Clinton's team has accused Democrat opponent Barack Obama of plagiarism, referring to his speeches in which he has said: "Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?” The source of the original statements, they claim, belong to Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, from his 2006 campaign.

Senator Barack Obama adapted one of his signature arguments — that his oratory amounts to more than inspiring words — from speeches given by Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign.

At a Democratic Party dinner Saturday in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, responded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has criticized him for delivering smooth speeches but says they do not amount to solutions to the nation’s problems, by ticking through a string of historic references.

I'm actually not sure, personally, if Obama DID lift the key elements of Patrick's 2006 speech. Personally, it all sounds like the same old rhetoric of the left to me at this point. I've heard Hillary Clinton make speeches that, to me, sounded like the same things I've heard other Democrats make in the past as well, including things that I'm certain her husband said during his bid for and time as President.

What I DO know, however, is that there IS evidence that Obama takes things from other places, ideas from other people, and incorporates them into his own rhetoric in his bid for the White House, as is evidenced here:



Such are the curiosities of life during the campaign season...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Under pressure...under pressure...

Remember the old Queen/David Bowie song, Under Pressure? Hit song, the backbeat of which was the subject of a lawsuit because of Vanilla Ice using it for HIS song Ice Ice Baby without permission?

Is that the theme song for our current seated Congress?

I've been watching CSPAN for a bit this afternoon, and I have to say, for Congress to be whining about how that they're "Under Pressure" in regards to the FISA bill, which they've had before them to handle since APRIL, they seem to be discussing everything BUT.

And Congress deserves their recent pay raise for this session?

What have they done, actually, that warrants a pay raise? They've managed to rename a few post offices. Is that what the people sent them to Congress to do? This is progressive work? This is the "change" that the Democrats said that the people of this country wanted? I ask you this, you being the American public, are doctored votes, surrender politics, retreat policies, retreat FROM retreat policies, higher taxes, and hypocritical smoke and mirror tactics regarding the Unites States Attorneys what you voted for?

Are you, those of you who claim to be Democrats, so hypocritical that you're willing to have the President and the United States Attorney General taken to task for doing exactly the same thing that President Clinton and Attorney General Reno did? Which, I might add, was completely and totally LEGAL in both instances.

Do you Democrats want political posturing instead of substantial policy?

Do you Democrats really think that there would be that substantial a difference in having our troops here at home rather than having them deployed and fighting our enemies?

Do you Democrats really think that radical Islamic extremists, who were attacking our country BEFORE 9/11, are really going to just stop if we abandon the Middle East tomorrow?

Here's a good one from the past few days; do you Democrats REALLY think that George W. Bush is responsible for the bridge collapse in Minnesota? Do you really NOT understand that the funds WERE THERE for improvements, but that those funds were used for building the Twins a new ball field and stadium and other pet projects INSTEAD of being used for road improvements, having been allocated by LOCAL political figures for those things?

Do you Democrats have ANY CAPACITY at all for accepting ANY responsibility without pointing blaming fingers at everyone else but those who are truly responsible for things?

Or are you so brainwashed by the main stream media and the Democratic National Party and the quasi religion of liberalism that reality is out of your range of vision now?

The rest of us are waiting with baited breath for answers to these questions and more...

It's time to call upon ourselves as individuals to take responsibility for ourselves and for our nation as a whole. In the process of this, we HAVE to make our elected officials accountable for doing something PRODUCTIVE, not for partisan politics not as usual, but far worse than at any other time that I personally remember since the Carter administration.

Our nation has not been this divided since reaching the Compromise of 185o, and look where, ten years later, we wound up anyway. For those of you who slept through your history classes, that would what is popularly called the Civil War.

History does repeat itself, people, because we don't learn the lessons of it.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Abortion revisited...yet again...

It's never ending, you know?

Bush Warns of Vetoes Over Abortion Issue

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 3 — President Bush told Congressional leaders Thursday that he would veto any legislation that weakened federal policies or laws on abortion.

In a two-page letter sent to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, characterized the president’s message as “drawing a bright line.”

A statement from the group noted that many appropriations bills that Congress will take up include provisions to limit federal financing of abortion and that abortion rights groups have been urging Democratic leaders in Congress to change.

For example, a provision is under consideration for a foreign appropriations bill that would end a ban on discussing abortion in family planning clinics in developing nations.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, said she interpreted the president’s letter as a broader threat “to veto any pro-choice legislation.”

“Instead of trying to work with Congress he’s trying to threaten Congress, and that won’t work,” he said.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president felt that it was important to remind Congress of his position on these issues. It’s not about vetoing, it’s about standing firm on his core beliefs.”

Personally, I'm against abortion. That's just my belief about it. I've never really vocalized it much, never talked about it much, don't discuss it much, it is what it is, no more, no less. sprees stated opinion is she ABHORS abortion but does not wish to impose HER feelings on the subject on others...and furthermore, she considers partial birth abortion no better than infantcide.

I personally believe that things happen for a reason, good or bad, and we are changing things that are not ours to change by performing abortions.

Here's a thought to consider: the Supreme Court ruled on partial birth abortions just weeks ago, and the ink had not even had time to really dry on their ruling before Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, et al, had come up with proposals to turn the decision over to the states. Once again, the house and senate dem's are trying to act as other branches of government, this time trying to go around a Supreme Court ruling.

My question is this, and this is just my opinion: why is it so important to them that babies be killed? What potential threat do they see in the unborn?

It honestly boggles my mind.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Double Standards

I'm often amazed at how liberals apply double standards to things. It's an amazing thing to watch and to hear the bull that rolls off their tongues with utter conviction that they're right.

Prime example: how many liberals out there are in favor of the opression of women? The subjegation of women to a lesser role and status in the culture? Can anyone take a head count, please? None? I didn't think so.

So why do they want to cut and run from the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq when news stories such as this come out? Do they not want the little girls of the middle east to have an education? Do they want to prolong the subjegation and persecution of women in the middle east? And given the "mission" of Islam to spread throughout the world, and the militant attitudes of the jihadist extremists, is this what they want for the little girls of the middle east? Is this what they want for the little girls of the USA? What happened to "take your daughter to work day?"

I would love to hear from some liberals on this one, but I'm betting than other than a few trolls out there looking for nothing but a fight (which they won't get, I want discussion, not jabbing, blocking, and feigning) that there won't be any liberals with the GUTS to step up to the plate and defend their position.

Truth be told, there is no defense...

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Others discussing double standards: Re: Jefferson being reelected.
Iowa Voice.
Wapo.
WizBang.
Washington Times.
Michelle Malkin.
Nola.com.

.