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

.

Politicizing the Olympics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Daylight Savings Time? Moving it Back a Week

(Note: Before any of you start thinking that you've gone Groundhog Day, this IS a reposting from last week. It's done to make a point on how RIDICULOUS the concept of continuing daylight savings time is in our day and age.)

How many of you woke up this morning to clocks having different times, an hour apart, throughout the house? I personally awoke to see my tv and vcr with one time, my computer and phone with another. I know spree didn't, before we even talk today, because Arizona is the ONE state in the Union that doesn't practice this stupidity.

In an age that is so hi-tech that we can punch in our addresses and see our houses via satellite in space, an age where we can travel across the oceans in a matter of hours rather than in the weeks and months ocean travels took until as late as two centuries ago, an age of corporate farming with machinery, an industrialized, modern society, WHY DO WE STILL NEED DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME? And WHY, for the love of peace, rock and roll, and green eggs and ham, did it have to be MOVED A WEEK from what it's been since we were CHILDREN?

Daylight saving time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daylight saving time (DST; also summer time in British English) is the convention of advancing clocks so that afternoons have more daylight and mornings have less. Typically clocks are adjusted forward one hour near the start of spring and are adjusted backward in autumn; several ancient cultures lengthened each summer daylight hour instead. Modern DST was first proposed in 1907 by William Willett, and saw its first widespread use in 1916 as a wartime measure aimed at conserving coal. Despite controversy, many countries have used it since then; details vary by location and change occasionally.

Adding daylight to afternoons generally benefits retailing, sports, and other activities that exploit sunlight after working hours, but it can cause problems for agriculture and other occupations whose hours depend on the sun. Extra afternoon daylight appears to cut traffic fatalities; its effect on health and crime is less clear. DST is said to save electricity by reducing the need for artificial evening lighting, but the evidence for this is weak, and DST can boost peak demand, increasing overall electricity costs.

DST's clock shifts complicate timekeeping and can disrupt meetings, travel, billing, recordkeeping, medical devices, and heavy equipment; they also serve as twice-yearly fire safety reminders. Many computer-based systems can adjust their clocks automatically, but this can be limited and error-prone, particularly when DST rules change.

Origin

In this ancient water clock, a series of gears rotated a cylinder to display hour lengths appropriate for each day's date.

Though not punctual in the modern sense, the ancients adjusted daily schedules to the sun more flexibly than modern DST does, often dividing daylight into 12 equal hours regardless of day length, so that each daylight hour was longer during summer. For example, Roman water clocks had different scales for different months of the year: at Rome's latitude the third hour from sunrise, hora tertia, started in modern terms at 09:02 solar time and lasted 44 minutes at the winter solstice, but at the summer solstice it started at 06:58 and lasted 75 minutes. After ancient times, equal-length civil hours eventually supplanted unequal, so civil time no longer varies by season. Unequal hours are still used in a few traditional settings, such as some Mount Athos monasteries.

During his time as an American envoy to France, Benjamin Franklin anonymously published a letter in 1784 suggesting that Parisians economize on candles by arising earlier to use morning sunlight. Franklin's mild satire proposed taxing shutters, rationing candles, and waking the public by ringing church bells and firing cannons at sunrise, in the spirit of his earlier proverb "Early to bed and early to rise / Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." Franklin did not propose shifting clocks; like ancient Rome, 18th-century Europe did not keep accurate schedules. However, this soon changed as rail and communication networks came to require a standardization of time unknown in Franklin's day.

William Willett invented DST and advocated it tirelessly.

In 1905, the prominent English builder and outdoorsman William Willett was inspired to invent DST during one of his pre-breakfast horseback rides, when he observed with dismay how many Londoners slept through the best part of a summer day. An avid golfer, he also disliked cutting short his round at dusk. His solution was to advance the clock during the summer months, a proposal he published two years later. He lobbied unsuccessfully for the proposal until his death in 1915; see Politics for more details. Wartime Germany, its allies, and their occupied zones were the first European countries to use DST, starting 1916-04-30. Britain, most other belligerents, and many European neutrals soon followed suit, but Russia and a few other countries waited until the next year, and the United States did not use it until 1918. The Netherlands have used their own time system until the second worldwar. Since then the world has seen many enactments, adjustments, and repeals.

So.

The world suffers confusion twice a year because some whack job wanted to play golf longer at night. MARVELOUS.

Wikipedia has a full feature on the pros and cons of DST, which is where this information on this post was found.

If the rest of you think, as I do, that this practice is ridiculous and has outlived its usefullness, please let me know. Perhaps we could lobby Congress to drop this, as the State of Arizona has done, and we could all sleep NORMALLY those two days out of the year when we're staring at our clocks and trying to remember which way to set them (at 2am, no less).

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Of Cat Herding and Gay Wizards...A Strange Week for News

It's been sort of a surreal week for news. The typical stupidity of the Beltway notwithstanding (nothing that goes on in DC surprises me any more), it's been sort of a strange week for news, and the weekend has kicked off with a gala of even more weirdness.

Definitely not normal news.

I suppose from time to time the dinosaur media and even the NEW media have to find things that are, for lack of a better word, different. The "different" for this past week, however, have the taintings of the ghost of Rod Serling to them...

Let's start with the dinosaur media itself. I used to like Charles Gibson; he came across as personable, likable, and someone you could actually sit down with in the morning and discuss the issues of the day over a cup of coffee. Perhaps that's why he had such staying power on Good Morning America. He really, really showed his true self this week, however, on World News Tonight:

A Depressing Lack of Bad News
By Rich Tucker
Saturday, October 20, 2007

Bad news, folks. We’re winning in Iraq.

According to a front page story in The Washington Post, “The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group.”

Wait -- isn’t that good news? As Charlie Gibson put it on ABC’s World News Tonight, “One item from Baghdad, today. The news is that there is no news. The police told us that to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad, and today, no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.”

Oh, come on, Post. Come on, ABC. You’re not trying hard enough. Any story can be bad news if you’re willing to dig deep enough.

Luckily for us, the Baghdad bureau of McClatchy Newspapers did just that. “A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months,” Jay Price and Qasim Zein reported. “That’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.”

You can almost hear the late Peter Jennings in the quote that has been covered up and not to be found but I and other people I know heard him say one night, "We did not mean to mislead you more than we had intended."

Moving right along.

Ernest Hemingway remains one of the best known authors of modern time. Tourists can still visit his mansion on Key West and see where he lived and wrote for more than a decade. Among the other things visitors can find while touring the grounds are the descendants of Hemingway's six toed cat Snowball. It would seem, however, that some people at the USDA have decided that they HAVE to step in on private property and make assertions:

The plot thickens for Hemingway's cats

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
Literary legend's six-toed legacies live on in Key West — much to the dismay of some. The fight over the felines has grown to include the USDA and the courts.

The legendary American novelist Ernest Hemingway lived in Key West for a decade in the 1930s, in a stone mansion on Whitehead Street with his wife, Pauline, and a six-toed cat named Snowball.

Hemingway divorced Pauline in 1939, but Snowball stayed on. Today, about 50 of Snowball's descendants roam the grounds, to the delight of many tourists who visit the Hemingway Home and Museum. But the cats won't be roaming much longer, if the federal government has its way.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has cited the museum for violating a 1966 federal animal welfare law, and has threatened to impose stiff fines or confiscate the cats if the Hemingway Home does not do more to control the felines. Department inspectors say that the museum must be licensed as an exhibitor of animals, and that the cats, which sometimes climb over the wall surrounding the grounds, must be confined to the property.

After initially moving to comply with the government's demands, the Hemingway Home now is fighting them. The dispute has festered into one of those big-government-vs.-the-little-guy showdowns that involves a growing cast of characters, including locals in Key West, members of Congress, the U.S. Department of the Interior and, last week, a federal judge.

In an effort to resolve the spat, the museum sued last July in federal court and asked a judge to determine whether the USDA has jurisdiction over the museum. On Dec. 18, U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore dismissed the museum's suit, saying that it first should pursue remedies in administrative hearings and appeals.

Darby Halladay, a USDA spokesman, says the agency will schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge.

"There's always a possibility of confiscation," he says of the cats. "The likelihood of that occurring, I can't state. But that is a remedy."

The museum also could face thousands of dollars in fines.

Cara Higgins, the museum's attorney, says that the federal Animal Welfare Act, which sets care standards for animals in zoos and circus acts, should not apply to the Hemingway Home.

The cats "are born and raised and live their lives in Key West," she says. "They've been doing so for over 40 years. They're not sold, they're not distributed, they're not taken across state lines."

Neighbor's complaint

The dispute began when a USDA inspector showed up at the museum in October 2003 in response to a complaint about the cats.

Long negotiations and multiple inspections ensued. The USDA suggested several methods for containing the cats, including hiring a night watchman, adding an electrified wire to the top of the property's 6-foot stone wall, or adding to the stone wall, which Hemingway had built in 1937.

The museum countered that a wire could shock tourists as well as cats, and that altering the wall would put at risk the house's designation by the Interior Department as a National Historic Place.

At the height of the USDA's investigation of the museum, the agency rented a room in a guesthouse near the Hemingway property in order to videotape the cats.

In a report of one inspection, on Dec. 1, 2004, the USDA noted that "during the inspection, a cat was seen scaling the fence and leaving the property." Another report cited the death of a cat named Toby, which had been fatally struck by a car after leaving the property.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican who represents Key West, wrote to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, calling for a compromise over the Hemingway cats. Ros-Lehtinen, noted that "this extraordinary museum serves as an essential bond to past and revered American culture."

The Hemingway Home flunked three inspections. When the USDA declined to grant it a license, the museum sued to try to avoid having to get a federal license.

The Hemingway Home is one of Key West's most-visited attractions. Although Hemingway wrote most of his novels in Key West, including To Have and Have Not and A Farewell to Arms, Higgins says many tourists come just to see the cats.

Key West is known as much for its cats as it is for its zany festivals and eccentric charm. Located 159 miles from Miami and 90 miles from Havana, it is the southernmost point in the continental USA. Cats arrived in Key West long ago with visiting sea captains, who employed them as shipboard rat catchers. Today, cats wander Key West.

The neighbor who complained about the Hemingway cats is Debbie Schultz, a former official at the local animal shelter who lives four doors away from the museum.

"I contacted the USDA," Schultz says. The museum "made it appear I am the villain, that I am out to undermine everything they stand for in cats, which is absurd. My whole thing is the cats need to be cared for properly."

Those interested in positions as cat herders should contact the office of Senator Hillary Clinton, who is rumored to have much experience with cat fights and cat herding...

Ahem.

Speaking of cat fights, who could have seen this one coming? Any Harry Potter fans in the audience? Of course there are, even I like the Potter movies. But you know, watching the movies, I frankly didn't catch something that must have been obvious to J. K. Rowling. I haven't read the books yet; my 17 year old son has all of them and now I may have to borrow them from him and do a little digging to see if there is anything that suggests what Rowling revealed this week to fans in New York:

Dumbledore was gay, JK tells amazed fans

David Smith
Sunday October 21, 2007
The Observer

There could hardly have been a bigger sensation if Russell Crowe, Rod Stewart or Sven-Goran Eriksson had come out of the closet. Millions of fans around the world were yesterday digesting the news that one of the main characters in the Harry Potter novels, Albus Dumbledore, is gay.

The revelation came from author JK Rowling during a question-and-answer session at New York's Carnegie Hall. It instantly hurtled around the internet and the world. News websites in China and Germany announced starkly: 'JK Rowling: "Dumbledore is gay".' One blogger wrote on a fansite: 'My head is spinning. Wow. One more reason to love gay men.'

After reading briefly from her mega-selling book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on Friday night, Rowling took questions from an audience of 1,600 students. A 19-year-old from Colorado asked about the avuncular headmaster of Hogwarts School: 'Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?'

The author replied: 'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.' The audience reportedly fell silent - then erupted into prolonged applause.

Rowling, 42, continued: 'Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald [a bad wizard he defeated long ago], and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent, but he met someone as brilliant as he was and, rather like Bellatrix, he was very drawn to this brilliant person and horribly, terribly let down by him.'

Can you say "making it up as you go along?" Interesting that Rowling waited until after finishing the series to make this "outing." I wonder if George Hamilton will play a "younger" Dumbledore. I can see it now, Dumbledore, the Gay Wand. Has a ring to it.

Speaking of goofy gay things, what about Ellen Degeneres and the the whole puppy adoption breakdown this week?

Ellen DeGeneres' Pooch Gets New Home

By SOLVEJ SCHOU – 1 day ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The pooch at the center of the dog-adoption drama between Ellen DeGeneres and an animal rescue agency has found a new home. Iggy was placed with a new family earlier this week, a spokesman for the agency's owners said Friday.

"We're not revealing the family's identity to protect their privacy," attorney Keith A. Fink told The Associated Press. "The dog is fine."

The tug of war over the little dog named Iggy began after DeGeneres, who had initially adopted the terrier mix, gave the dog to her hairstylist after Iggy couldn't get along with her cats.

Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, who own the nonprofit Mutts and Moms adoption agency, said DeGeneres violated her signed agreement, which called for Iggy to be returned if things didn't work out.

Iggy was removed from the hairstylist's home on Sunday during a confrontation that DeGeneres said left the woman's daughters in tears.

You know, she KNEW up front what the conditions were. Did she think that she was an exception because she's Ellen? Maybe she should have just built a four foot fence, like the following story discusses:

Congressman Questions Mich. Turtle Fence

By JAMES PRICHARD
Associated Press Writer

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- A congressman disputes the state's contention that it's worth $318,000 in federal money to keep turtles from becoming roadkill.

Installation is expected to begin this week on a 2-mile-long fence along both sides of U.S. 31 in Muskegon, in west-central Michigan. It is intended to prevent hundreds of turtles, some of them protected species, from being killed as they migrate to nesting sites along the Muskegon River, which the highway crosses.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., questions why the Michigan Department of Transportation did not consider using the money on other projects "more related to the movement of people and products."

"Serious times require a serious approach to the very real problems Michigan faces," Hoekstra said in a news release issued Wednesday.

The 4-foot-high chain-link fence has been planned for two years. State officials consider it a relatively inexpensive solution to a problem that affects traffic safety and the environment of rare turtle species.

The fence will cover a stretch of road that is Michigan's deadliest for turtles and one of the nation's worst for the reptiles, Tim Judge, manager of a Transportation Department service center in Muskegon, said Thursday.

Two state-protected species - the wood turtle and Blanding's turtle - are common traffic victims, as are snapper, painted, box and map turtles.

Department spokeswoman Dawn Garner didn't know whether any drivers swerving to avoid turtles have gotten into crashes, but said: "There is definitely the potential for improving the safety of motorists."

Yes, let's all watch out for those turtles jumping out in front of us as we drive along not suspecting that we're in danger of TURTLE ATTACKS. Such horrid criminals these turtles can be, catching drivers off guard and causing huge amounts of damage each year.

Speaking of criminals, our last piece comes from Japan, where those creative and ingenious Japanese police officers are trying to be like the Canadian Mounties, and always get their man:

Fearing Crime, Japanese Wear the Hiding Place

TOKYO, Oct. 19 — On a narrow Tokyo street, near a beef bowl restaurant and a pachinko parlor, Aya Tsukioka demonstrated new clothing designs that she hopes will ease Japan’s growing fears of crime.

Deftly, Ms. Tsukioka, a 29-year-old experimental fashion designer, lifted a flap on her skirt to reveal a large sheet of cloth printed in bright red with a soft drink logo partly visible. By holding the sheet open and stepping to the side of the road, she showed how a woman walking alone could elude pursuers — by disguising herself as a vending machine.

The wearer hides behind the sheet, printed with an actual-size photo of a vending machine. Ms. Tsukioka’s clothing is still in development, but she already has several versions, including one that unfolds from a kimono and a deluxe model with four sides for more complete camouflaging.

Hat tip to Steve Gill for that one. His comment is that the Diet Coke one is more slimming...

Once and Always, a Still Highly Amused American Fighting Man


.

Black Thongs Preferred, but Silky Sheer French Cut Are More Than Acceptable...

You know, there are times when I look through the news and have to reread a story. The following definitely fits into that category.

Activists send female underwear to Burmese embassies

Martin Hodgson
Friday October 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Activists exasperated at the failure of diplomacy to apply pressure on Burma's military regime are resorting to a new means of protest against the regime's recent crackdown: sending female underwear to Burmese embassies.

Embassies in the UK, Thailand, Australia and Singapore have all been targeted by the "Panties for Peace" campaign, co-ordinated by an activist group based in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

The manoeuvre is a calculated insult to the junta and its leader, General Than Shwe. Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments - clean or dirty - will sap them of their power, said Jackie Pollack, a member of the Lanna Action for Burma Committee.

Obviously Tom Jones isn't in their government...

"Not only are they brutal, but they are also very superstitious. They believe that touching a woman's pants or sarong will make them lose their strength," Ms Pollack told Guardian Unlimited.

So far, hundreds of pairs of pants have been posted, according to another campaigner, Liz Hilton. "One group sent 140 pairs to the Burmese embassy in Geneva," she said.

The campaign was a serious attempt to allow ordinary women to express their outrage at the regime's response to democracy demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, Ms Pollack said.

"Condemnation by the United Nations and governments around the world have had no impact on the Burmese regime. This is a way of trying to reach them where they will feel it," she said.

"The junta is famous for its abuse of women: it is well documented that they use rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minorities. This is a way for women around the world to express their outrage..."

If this is how women are expressing their outrage today...Let me just leave that thought right there before I get myself in trouble. I'm NOT saying that women have OTHER ways of expressing outrage that are more, um, err...Yeah, leaving that one alone.

AHEM.

Look for more on the situation in Burma in the coming days.

Once and Always, A Highly Amused American Fighting Man

.

So much for it being a conspiracy theory...

For those of you who have read me saying that we're heading back into grounds we have visited before, grounds that have not been visited since the middle of the 19th century, and have dismissed my words as being "conspiracy theory," we have this story out of my home state of Tennessee today:

Secessionists Meeting in Tennessee

By BILL POOVEY
Associated Press Writer

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions - New England and the South - are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.

If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.

As I've said before here, on this blogsite, my work involves a LOT of traveling during the day. During that traveling, I have seen more Confederate flags flying in the past two years than I can remember seeing at any other time that I can remember.

Having said that, I'm going to say this. I have my own views on the secession question, my own theories on what the outcome of the War Between the States SHOULD have been, and I definitely have my views on Reconstruction. That being said, I'm not ready to commit to a new movement for secession. There are a great, GREAT many things that need to be considered before making such a move, and it can not and SHOULD not be based simply on a few loose reasons. Nor can it be based heavily, to my fellow southerners, on Rebel Pride, which so many of us still do have and cherish as a part of our heritage. There are MAJOR ramifications to be considered, financial, economic, political, governmental, social, militaristic...the list goes on and on.

For now, this bears further watching, and a LOT of heavy thought. We are a nation divided. But we are a NATION, a country, a people. Our history has been one of being able to pull together and depend upon each other AS a nation, as a great nation. That, too, needs to be one of the many things to be considered.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man.


.

Fickle Irony, thy Name is Webb...

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

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

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

The Corner

Friday, August 24, 2007


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


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

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

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

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

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

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

A House Divided...

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

I'm not so sure.

What September Won't Settle

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article here.

I can understand the Weimar analogy. I really can.

Personally I'm not quite so optimistic.

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

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

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

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

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

God help the world if we do...

This time there WILL BE NO winners.

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

Time to open your eyes, sleepyheads.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

A lesson for the leftinistras with BDS

I have stated on this blog and in face to face conversations I don't know how many times that I DO NOT blindly and completely support President Bush in everything he does. I know spree doesn't either; she is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT behind our troops and our war on terrorism, as I am, but that in NO WAY SHAPE MANNER OR FORM is a blanket support for the President.

Wanted to make that clear for all of you out there who mistakenly try to label the writers for this site as being "brainwashed" or incapable of thinking for ourselves.

That being said.

I don't know how many of you out there read Eli E. Hertz and his site at www.mythsandfacts.org but he has a GREAT open letter to President Bush that he sent out in an email alert today.

Well stated, and very much something to think about...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

To President Bush

Eli E. Hertz | July 17, 2007

I read with interest your remarks on the Middle East given on July 16, 2007 at the White House.

I appreciate your sincere commitment and devotion in promoting and advancing the creation of functional democracies and peace around the world - particularly your effort in the Middle East.

As one who devotes his time studying the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as a person of the Jewish race and religion, it became incumbent upon me to direct your attention to statements you made of which I found offending. Statements perceived as fact, but in reality are, in my humble opinion, misguided.

I would start with the notion that your administration will not 'do business' with terror organizations and those who call for the destruction of Israel, or at best, suggest to toss the "Jews to the sea."

This brings me to Fateh, the main faction of the PLO for whom Mahmoud Abbas is the driving force and was one of its founding members. This is the organization and leadership that the administration relies upon to bring functional democracy, freedom and peace to the region.

Mr. President, it takes little effort to learn what Fateh is all about. Its constitution calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words:

"Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" [italic by author]

If this does not suffice, please review Abbas' words in a recent rally on January 11, 2007, to a crowd estimated at nearly 250,000 supporters. Abbas calls on Palestinians to refrain from internal fighting and to direct their guns only against Israeli "occupation."

He promises to "not give up one inch of land in Jerusalem" and he "considers the settlements illegal."

In his book, "the issue of the refugees is non-negotiable"

So as much for the partner.

And now to the "Occupation"

I notice with relief that you did not spell out who is the occupier and who is the occupant - just to make sure I will discuss the legal occupation under international law of Jewish settlers in the area known forever as Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

In 1897 it was Benjamin Herzl, founder of modern Zionism who said: "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency."

In 1917 it was Arthur James Balfour of Great Britain who declared:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object ..."

In 1922 it was Winston Churchill (your hero), British Secretary of State for the Colonies that declared:

Jews are in Palestine "as of right and not on sufferance ... When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."

On July 24, 1922 it was fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - that published the legally binding document "Mandate for Palestine" and unanimously declared:

"Recognition Has Been Given to the Historical Connection of the Jewish People with Palestine and to the Grounds for Reconstituting their National Home in that Country."

The "Mandate for Palestine," a historical League of Nations document laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.

On June 30, 1922 it was the joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States that unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

"resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United State of America in congress assembled, That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [The resolution was incorporated in the 1937 Palestine Royal commission Report, Chapter II, page 31]

On September 21, 1922 it was Warren G. Harding, President of the United Sates of America who signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Mr. President, Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality!

As a matter of fact there has never been a sovereign Arab state in Palestine. The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves. Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

Mr. President - Jewish "continuing occupation" that you speak about, is legal and endorsed by international law.

The "Mandate for Palestine" document defined where Jews are and are not permitted to settle. Article 6 of the Mandate clearly states:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

The "Mandate for Palestine" document is the last legally binding document regarding the status of what is commonly called "the West Bank and Gaza." The September 16, 1922 memorandum (of the Mandate) is also the last modification of the official terms of the "Mandate" on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor - the United Nations - in accordance with Article 27 of the "Mandate" that states unequivocally: "The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate."

Mr. President, political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other mandates - in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A forth Arab state east of the Jordan River - Trance-Jordan, came to fruition via the "Mandate for Palestine."

Mr. President:

300,000,000 Arabs in 21 'exclusive' Arab countries now occupy an area of 5,207,000 Square Miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers.

6,000,000 Jews in 1 country now occupy an area of nearly 10,000 square miles [will fit into Lake Michigan with plenty of room left] in Palestine, and you Mr. President propose to reduce it even further.

This is an injustice and a grievous handicap to the continuous development and security of the Jewish State.

Thank you.

Eli E. Hertz
PO Box 941

Forest Hills, NY
718-544-8030

Sources:

The President speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html

Commentary: This Land is My Land (Includes the "Mandate for Palestine" text at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf

A short presentation at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/ThisLandIsMyLand.ppt

Mandate for Palestine, the legal aspects of Jewish Rights at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf

Mandate Document - British Archive.

.

Right to know versus Need to know

How much information is "too much?" How much do we REALLY need to know about special operations and secret operations DURING a war that is ongoing, rather than letting those stories come out AFTER conflicts are ceased? Does it NOT make sense to keep certain things under wraps until a more appropriate time to release them rather than to let them out in the middle of an ongoing war?

Evidently the New York Times and certain former military officials don't seem to think so.

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: July 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Okay. Let's think about this analytically. What good does it do for disgruntled former military staffers to complain about the operations they planned didn't come off? I know that there are several members of the military who are not happy with the Bush administration, particularly with George W. being the commander-in-chief. That's not the point. George W. Bush IS the current commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces. Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Hillary Clinton (God help us if she ever DOES make it to that position). Not Harry Reid.

It is highly unprofessional for a military officer to berate his commanding officer.

In MY mind, it says volumes about what kinds of officers these men made while on active duty.

Yes, I said "on active duty." Enlisted men can retire and walk away from it. Officers are officers for the rest of their lives, and subject to being recalled to active duty at any time.

Something to think about in regards to professionalism amongst our nations officers cadre.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Grasping at straws and making things up...

It's an amazing thing how fear can send people into terrorized frenzies. Fear of an individual, especially a powerful, strong-willed, charismatic individual, can create a stirring of rumor, innuendo, and fabrications, all in an attempt to discredit an opponent.

Yes, boys and girls, we're talking about "mudslinging." And with Fred Thompson going SO HIGH in the polls, the leftinistras are starting to add water to anything they THINK might be the smallest patch of dirt that they can find.

Part of the trick is to make you BELIEVE that a candidate is something that they aren't. Notice how the Clintonistas are trying to portray Hillary as a motherly, friendly, charming person? A stretch, I know, to make ANYONE think that she has a personality, but that's the attempt. With Fred Thompson, the attempts go a little more devious.

First let's address the attempts to make Thompson an abortion supporter, something KEY to conservative voters. If you listen to the spin doctors, Thompson lobbied for abortion groups and supported abortion issues during his time in the Senate.

Not so.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters for this one.

July 6, 2007
The Pending Mudslinging (Update: Show Me The Money!)
It's easy to tell when a candidate has the potential to do well in a campaign -- the opposition starts throwing mud as early as possible. This appears to be doubly true with Fred Thompson, as the Los Angeles Times will shortly publish a new story about a purported client of Fred's when he worked as a lawyer and lobbyist. The American Spectator steals the Times' thunder:

The Washington Prowler column has learned that the Los Angeles Times intends to publish a story that would attempt to link former Sen. Fred Thompson to a Washington-based, pro-abortion organization. Thompson, through a spokesman, is said to go on the record in the story as having no recollection of ever doing work for the organization in question during a period in 1991 when the first Bush administration was in power.

During that time, Thompson, was "of counsel" at the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C. (meaning he was not a partner, but was provided an office for his use, in part because Thompson's own practice was based in Nashville, TN), and was used by the firm's partners as a "draw" for clients and potential clients, according to a source at the firm familiar with the arrangements with Thompson and others with the "of counsel" designation. ...

In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was "hired" by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate "sherpa" during the confirmation process.

If the Times and its sources want to launch attacks on Thompson, they'll have to do better than this. Lawyers represent clients, and sometimes they do so for ideological support -- but most of them do it to earn a living. Even if Fred had done work for NFPRR, his political position on abortion has been rather clear. According to Project Vote Smart, Fred got solid zeroes from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, while the National Right to Life Committee have Fred a 77% rating.

That's a man who supports abortion whole-heartedly? Check out his record on this and other things here.

The next big thing that the leftinistras are going after Fred for is, now hold your hats, folks, this is going to make you laugh, he has a wife who is younger than he is.

Will Her Face Determine His Fortune

By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: July 8, 2007

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.

“You have a situation where a candidate happens to have an attractive wife, therefore it’s open season for smutty thoughts and lowbrow humor, and no concern for the fact that this is a wife and mother, a professional woman?” said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official who is a consultant and the chief media adviser to the Thompson campaign. “One picture on the Internet and all of a sudden she’s reduced to being a bimbo?”

WHOAH! Say WHAT? Fred Thompson married a younger woman? So what? My grandfather on my father's side of the family was twenty something years older than my grandmother. It's a common thing. Hollywood CONSTANTLY puts older leading men in roles opposite younger leading women. How many women out there are NUTS over Harrison Ford. How many for Mel Gibson, DESPITE his recent brush with infamy? Check out this list for examples. In MY mind, it says a LOT about the man's stamina and outlook on life that he IS married to a woman nearly a quarter century his junior. OUTSTANDING. And if they are as happy as they come across as being, outstanding, indeed, to both of them.

Personally, and no offense to Laura Bush, but after having Hillary Clinton in the White House, and now THRUST in our faces again as a Presidential candidate HERSELF, would it be such a BAD thing to have an attractive younger First Lady? I don't THINK so. Especially not when she HAS the political savvy to have worked as a Senate aide AND as spokeswoman for the RNC.

Could it be that Hillary feels outclassed? GASP! I hope so.

Come on, leftinistras. Trying to make a bad thing out of something GOOD in a man's life?

Disgusting and appalling.

Shame on you.

And besides, didn't we already HAVE a President with a trophy wife when Jack Kennedy was in office (yes, I went there, I SO went there, I held back as long as I could but had to come back and add this question in. I WENT THERE). Makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Pack your bags, Lamar...

Lamar Alexander, I remember when you walked 1,000 miles across the state of Tennessee in a red and black flannel shirt in your bid for Governor of Tennessee. I remember SEEING you walking down the street in the Fish Fry parade in Paris, Tennessee, smiling and waving at people along the route, shaking hands and the like.

It worked, you won two terms as Governor.

I remember your presidential bids in 96 and 2000. You had my support until you withdrew from the races, knowing it was an uphill battle that you couldn't win. You had my vote when you ran for the senate...

I tried calling your office to let my word, one of your constituents in this state, someone who VOTED for you, be known.

Thousands of us tried to call your office over the last few days.

From Thursday until Monday I got a busy signal.

People calling into talk radio shows across this state, Steve Gill primarily among them, reported the same. You know Steve Gill. You were on his show this morning, skirting questions and dancing around issues. That pissed your voter base off even more, those of us who could stomach listening to you talking out of both sides of your mouth after yesterday.

Busy signals, Lamar.

I don't recollect your predecessor, Fred Thompson, ever having busy signals when people tried to call in.

NOT FOR FIVE DAYS.

I know I don't speak for every Republican in this state, but I can tell you this. There are a LOT of us who are FURIOUS with your "yes" vote yesterday. You didn't listen. I can't prove that your phones where off the hook, but that's the speculation amongst the people who PUT YOU IN OFFICE.

I don't believe we'll be repeating that mistake.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Another Veteran Speaks Out

This was forwarded to me in my email, and I thought I'd pass it along. It speaks volumes.

Insight of a Sergeant Major
J.D. Pendry, CSM, U.S.Army (retired)

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.

Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"... the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should re-deploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine sir. You wouldn't amount to a pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese which led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we will run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New YorkTimes particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's axis of idiots. Your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don't get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

This is long but this retired CSM lets it all hang out! This should be sent to every person in the USA and that includes the President and the rest of our country's leaders...It's time we as Americans stood together!

WELL SAID, Sergeant Major.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


This letter has also been cross posted at Miss Beth's Victory Dance, Take Our Country Back and Conservative Thoughts.

Please feel free to pass thing along.

.

Having the intestinal fortitude to call it like it is...

If you've ever followed Fred Thompson at all through the years, you know he's not a man with any qualms about speaking his mind, and calling things as he sees them.

The past three weeks, the world watched anxiously as events unfolded in the Iranian capture of fifteen British sailors and marines. Mr. Thompson has some very, very apt words to say at RedState about that situation, which while seemingly resolved now, leaves the world with the question of, regarding Iran, "what will they do now?"

The Pirates of Tehran

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Please do keep reading . . .

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."

It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.

I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.

There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.

We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.

Damned right it should. The Iranians have already announced that they have every intention of doing it again when they have the chance.

Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings
By Gethin Chamberlain, Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman, Sunday Telegraph

Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.

The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: "The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.

"Iran has come out of this looking reasonable. If I were the Iranians, I would keep playing the same game. They have very successfully muddied the waters and bought themselves some more time. And in parts of the Middle East they will be seen as the good guys. They could do it time and again if they wanted to."

Americans also expressed dismay that the British had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf while its tactics are reassessed.

Yeah, the Iranians really learned a hard lesson from all of this, didn't they?

WAKE UP, AMERICA! And WAKE UP, GREAT BRITAIN as well. NATO, take a stand, dammit, that's what you were created for.

I know it's easy to armchair quarterback things, but when people who STUDY politics and political strategies are saying this, and when the Iranians themselves are saying that they're going to continue, I think that's a pretty damned clear indication that THE IRANIANS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE unless they're stopped. We have to stop pussy-footing around with them and hold them accountable for their criminal activity. Enough is enough.

Mr. Thompson, your country needs you. Right now the blogsite is not taking an official stand in supporting a candidate, but my support, especially as a fellow Tennessean, is for Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

The Eagles are Gathering in North Carolina

The "Flash in the Pan" is flashing again. I said the other day that we, the veterans of the United States armed forces, are tired of sitting quietly. We will be heard. And it seems that people are interested in what we have to say...

UNC-Chapel Hill to Host Pro-America Rally with GOE

The Gathering of Eagles together with the Conservative Women’s Voice of UNC-Chapel Hill is proud to announce a pro-America event!

UNC and GOE will unite and Support our Troops, Support their mission, and Support the United States of America!

This event is NOT a counter-protest. This is our time to make our voices heard! This is our time to speak out, and let the world know that we are PROUD to be Americans, that we are PROUD of our military, that we are PROUD to live in the Land of the Free because of the Brave!

What the GOE along with Rolling Thunder and others did on March 17th was a spectacular beginning. We will show the world that we are here to stay! We will be the Silent Majority NO MORE!

WHEN: Saturday, April 28th, 2007
Noon-3:00PM
WHERE: Polk Place, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Come join us for live music and speakers, including Iraq war veterans and UNC students. Check back for more details on presenters and musician–coming soon!

Of course, the event is free and open to the public, so if you are in the area or plan to be, feel free to join us! We are still trying to raise money for the event as well. Please consider a contribution to the Gathering of Eagles, or directly to the Conservative Women’s Voice of UNC. For GoE contributions, see the sidebar on the right. For CWV contributions, contact Anthony Stevenson via CWV -at- unc -dot- edu.

That’s CWV@unc.edu!

Checks may be sent to Gathering of Eagles, Box 291; Chocowinity, NC 27817. They should be made payable to “GOE” and noted “For UNC Rally.”

Directions to UNC-CH can be found here:
http://www.unc.edu/visitors/directions.html Information on parking
will be here available here soon, so check back for updates.

Polk Place is located off South Road on campus, next to the Wilson Library. An interactive campus map can be found here:
http://www.unc.edu/tour/LEVEL_2/polk.htm

The Eagles Will Soar–Again!

Can I get another WHOOWAAHH?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Gathering of Eagles update...

I said some time back that a great number of us who are veterans of our nations armed forces are fed up and disgusted with the cut and run, defeat and retreat mindset that has infected our media and is bleeding over into our nation.

We've had enough.

I know I don't speak for all veterans, as one frequent commentor on our site likes to point out, but I dare say that I do speak for the majority, and, with a tip of the hat to Victory Caucus, here is the proof; the Eagles are Gathering...:

Statement From the New Chairman of GOE, Captain Larry Bailey, USN (Ret.)
March 29th, 2007 | Category: Briefings
Thank you, Harry Riley, for the magnificent job you have done in getting “Gathering of Eagles” off to such an astounding start. Without you, the job wouldn’t have been done so well. You were just perfect for the job at hand, and America is in your debt. Thanks again.

Eagles, this has been one amazing trip, and it ain’t over. Just thinking about how swiftly thousands of patriotic Americans came together and assembled at The Wall in Washington blows my mind.

Harry Riley and I spoke by telephone in late January or early February and agreed that Jane Fonda’s and Cindy Sheehan’s March on the Pentagon was not going to be given a free pass as Fonda’s was in 1967. Less than two months later, thousands of us demonstrated that the leftists were not going to dominate US policy like they did in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

This time, America was going to register its disapproval, and, by goodness, WE DID! The tens of thousands of us who gathered near The Wall to protect that sacred memorial sent a resounding message to Fonda, Sheehan, and Code Pink that we will NOT stand idly by while the honor of our defenders of freedom is besmirched.

We honestly planned to be a “One-Note Charlie” and go home after registering our disagreement with the America-hating crowd that sullied the ground of our nation’s capital. However, the impact of the victory we experienced made us thirsty for more of the same.

It is therefore with great pleasure that I confirm to all of you that we are here to stay. We don’t know exactly what we will do or when and how we will do it, but you can be sure that America-loving patriots are going to be proud to be a part of our effort!

We intend to go on the offensive or defensive whenever our “kitchen cabinet” of Eagles from across the nation decides collectively that a time for specific action has come. We are currently looking at a major “Support the Troops” gathering back in DC over the Memorial Day weekend in conjunction with “Ride to the Wall,” “Free Republic,” “Rolling Thunder” and other like-minded organizations.

Having tasted victory on St. Patrick’s Day 2007, we intend to make a diet of it. Stick with us, and we will work miracles.

Can I get a WHOOOWAHHH?

I also want to include a posting from Gunny Krueger stating his IN COUNTRY observations on the situation in Iraq:

A Message From GySgt Krueger
March 30th, 2007 | Category: Guest Authors
A word from [Gunnery]Sergeant Krueger, USMC, to Speaker Pelosi:

How can you even think of pushing forward legislation to set a withdrawal date for US forces from Iraq? Do you know how much you embolden the insurgency here in Iraq? YOU ARE JEOPARDIZING THE LIVES OF US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WITH YOUR ACTIONS. You and your fellow Democrats are causing the Al Qaeda supported insurgency to use more catastrophic attacks against us and Iraqi forces. You will see more SVBIED’s with chlorine gas, more VBIED’s against civilians and security forces every time you and other Democrats open your mouths. You will have to live with yourself and try to sleep at night knowing all the defeatist propaganda you have spewed forth is nothing more than ammunition for Islamic extremist groups around the world and more US deaths. The ! unsuspecting people who support you know nothing of what goes on over here; you fill their heads with nonsense and talk of pullout to appease them. The only thing that will happen is the establishment of an extremist Islamic state where sharia law is the law of the land and no one is safe.

Read the rest of Gunny Krueger's posting here, it's very moving and very on target.

Our veterans during the Vietnam era were confused and didn't know how to react, respond, or what to think when they saw the protests going on in our country, the degrading and vile treatment of their younger brothers returning home to be greeted with hatred. We live in a different time, a different generation. We will NOT sit idly by and be called "baby-killers" by the SAME people who are all FOR abortion. We will NOT sit idly by and allow our troops to become political tools.

We have a voice, and it's a rather large, firm voice. We expect to be listened to. Not to put too fine of an edge on it, but if it wasn't for us, Mrs. Pelosi, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Reid, and all you others out there trying to use those of us who still wear the uniform as chess pieces, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, politically, or the platform and structure that put you people INTO your offices...

Shape up.

Or we'll make sure you're fired next time around.

We are your veterans. We are the ones who offered to put ourselves on the line, in harms way, to protect the freedoms of this great nation. We expect to be listened to, and to be respected. We've never asked for it before, but that time is over. We will be heard.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

.

Taking an Unconventional Approach

General David Petraeus has taken command in Iraq and has begun developing his command staff, a group of high level officers with PhD’s in their fields, intellectuals, thinkers, and strategists. So why is WAPO critical of his command staff before they’ve even taken full charge of the situation?

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, is assembling a small band of warrior-intellectuals -- including a quirky Australian anthropologist, a Princeton economist who is the son of a former U.S. attorney general and a military expert on the Vietnam War sharply critical of its top commanders -- in an eleventh-hour effort to reverse the downward trend in the Iraq war.

Army officers tend to refer to the group as "Petraeus guys." They are smart colonels who have been noticed by Petraeus, and who make up one of the most selective clubs in the world: military officers with doctorates from top-flight universities and combat experience in Iraq.

Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents, who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way.

"Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war," said a Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers.

This is something that I’ve been saying for quite some time now. If we’re going to be fighting an unconventional war, then who better to run the operations than those trained in unconventional warfare? But to call this an “eleventh hour effort? I wasn’t aware that WAPO was world renowned for making policy or for their skills in military strategy.

But there is widespread skepticism that even this unusual group, with its specialized knowledge of counterinsurgency methods, will be able to win the battle of Baghdad.
"Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military war college, who said he thinks that the general will still not have sufficient troops to implement a genuine counterinsurgency strategy and that the United States really has no solution for the sectarian violence tearing apart Iraq.

"It's too late to make a difference in Iraq," agreed Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has advised the U.S. government on the war effort.

Mind you, Hoffman has impressive credentials. By the same token, so does Hillary Clinton. Just a thought. I’m not saying anything about Hoffman’s politics; don’t read that into what I’m saying. What I AM saying is that credentials don’t always make someone right.

That being said…

Haven’t we done enough criticizing of our troops and their leadership, especially in light of the President stating that there have been mistakes made in Iraq and that there will be a redirection of how things will be run? Shouldn’t we be offering General Petraeus and his staff our support and giving them the go-ahead to resolve the situation so that things can begin, maybe, hopefully, to settle down?

I’m so tired of hearing how the American people are “worn out by the war.” Worn out my ass. We’ve not experienced rationing, blackout periods, or curfews, like our grandparents did during the Second World War. We haven’t HAD the hardships of the Great Depression. Our troops haven’t been sent overseas to spend years in combat until the war is finished. They’re rotated in and out of the region. I know some have spent two or three tours of duty in the Middle East, but that’s NOTHING compared to the way we sent troops over to Europe and into the Pacific during WWII. They went with no IDEA when they were coming home.

And since when do our troops need US to protect THEM? As a veteran, I find that insulting. The job of the military IS the defense of our nation, from all threats, foreign and domestic. That’s what they train for. It’s what they sign up for. It’s what they are READY for. The military is in place to defend the civilian populace; the civilian populace DOES NOT NEED TO DEFEND the military from our enemies. What kind of BACKWARD thinking is THIS?

Elitist thinking.

Leftist thinking.

Unreal.

If you people think that radical extremist fascist Islam isn’t a threat, let me refer you back to 11SEP2001.

If that isn’t a full indication of a clear and present danger, what the FUCK is it going to take to wake people up?

General Petraeus, you have my full support, Sir, good luck as you attempt to fight off the political quagmire so that you can do your job.

For the rest of you, I leave this posting with the words of General George Patton: "Lead me, FOLLOW me, or get the HELL out of my way."

'Nuff said.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.