Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

2011-01-19T14:47:00.000-07:00

Attention Liberal "Investigators"

Here's something the folks who claim the vitriol and rhetoric caused the Tucson massacre to occure need to watch. It's a little insight into one of their devils, that they might find revealing, (even though the people at the Today Show can't find the forest for the trees):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Specifically to Neal Rauhauser, I hope you had the balls to watch the WHOLE THING, (even though I seriously doubt that you will).

2011-01-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

Here's where the mainstream media gets the idea that Jared Loughner is a conservative:

If you can find some level of conservatism in that rambling bit of whacky-isms and disjointed thought, and make any court believe you have solid evidence, I will kiss your Back-side at the biggest intersection in town, and give you an hour to draw a crowd! Liberals are amazing! Simply Amazing!

God Bless,
Dan'L

2011-01-12T07:52:00.000-07:00

Extreme Bias Demonstrated

The leftist Mainstream Media has taken it upon itself to follow in the tracks of a poor example of a law enforcement administrator for the Pima County Sheriff's Office. As a Democrat, the good sheriff thinks that bigger, more intrusive government is the answer to all problems, both real and perceived. Isn't it interesting that the Pima County authorities were notified about a written death threat against this very same Congress Woman, yet they did NOTHING to prevent the follow-through by the perpetrator, and somehow this duly-elected moron steps up to the microphone, upon the completion of a press-conference by the FBI Director, and goes into a tirade that leads to this, and the media refuses to cover it:

Pray to God that none of these morons follow through on this ridiculous encouragement by the mainstream media!

God Bless,
Dan'L

2011-01-10T07:26:00.001-07:00

MSM makes it real, while excusing Criminal Acts

Claiming that the Arizona gunman, Jared Loughner, was motivated to kill by heated political rhetoric makes as much sense as buying into Mark David Chapman's contention that he was expected to kill by the character played by Jody Foster in “Taxi Driver.” Chapman and Keith Olbermann see a link – perhaps even Loughner sees a link – but we must consider both those sources with the evidence we are privy to, in order to make an intelligent analysis. The truth is people like Loughner kill because they are damaged as children and too mentally unbalanced and angry at society to be influenced by even normal considerations of self-preservation, no less by the tone of civil debate and the regular discourse of issues on the political table.

Candy Crowley of CNN, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, George Stephanopolous of ABC, Brian Williams of NBC, Katie Curic of CBS, and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona and the others trying to score a few political points by blaming political rhetoric are going down a very dangerous road both because it absolves the violent killers of full responsibility for their actions and because it aims to silence the passions that are an important part of public debate. Martin Luther King and his fellow civil rights activists used passionate and heated rhetoric to rouse the nation against white segregationists. They did so with a great degree of success. But, surely, such rhetoric did not make Dr. King and his colleagues partly responsible for the violent crimes of the Black Panthers and James Earl Ray. Surely, such rhetoric on the part of John Lennon did not incite Mark David Chapman. Likewise, if the rhetoric of Gabrielle Giffords is the cause for the actions of Jared Lee Laughner, society should have seen it coming and should have taken action before this mentally deranged lunatic committed such an atrocity.

The passionate words of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity., and others may be vindicated by history or condemned by it. But that is for the American people to decide as the debate plays out in the coming years, not for Crowley, Olbermann, Stephanopolous, Williams, Curic, and Sheriff Dupnik to decide by cutting off debate. Let the waste of human protoplasm known as Jared Lee Laughner own his actions, and pay for them in a righteous and proper manner, according to a jury of his peers. Anything less will be a complete miscarriage of justice.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2010-03-10T09:47:00.000-07:00

Something we should all watch and consider:

God Bless,
Dan'L

2010-03-05T20:26:00.000-07:00

Evaluating a psychological profile of a serial killer

Murder has been illustrated as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another" (Oxford dictionary, 1997, p.742). The definition of Serial killings on the other hand, is not so simple to define, for it takes on many different forms, and is brought on by many different states of mind. Holmes and De Burger (1988) have attempted to define serial murder as consisting of repetitive killings which are one-on-one with rare exceptions, where the relationship between the victim and the offender is that of a stranger or slight acquaintance, and the motivation to kill and apparent motives are lacking (p.138). As we will see, this is not an extremely accurate description, because the motivation and motives are not lacking at all, but are just shrouded. Rarely do any of these killers act for money, instead they do it for the thrill, sexual satisfaction and/or dominance they achieve in their own world.

A more specific profile of a serial killer has been presented by Apsche (1993) stating that most are white males in their twenties or thirties, who target strangers near their homes or places of work.

"According to criminologist Eric Hickey, who has assembled the most extensive database on demography of serial murder states that, 88% of serial killers are male, 85% are Caucasian, and the average age when they claim their first victim is usually around 28.5. In terms of victim selection, 62% of the killers target strangers exclusively, and another 22% kill at least one stranger. Finally, 71% of the killers operate in a specific location or area, rather than traveling wide distances to commit their crimes"(Apsche, 1993, p.16). Also, the F.B.I claims that to be classified as a serial killer, the person must first complete 3 separate murders, that are spaced by a duration they call "the cooling off period" which can vary from a few days to years. But one thing that very few definitions include is that for a killer to be known as a "serial Killer", they must have a particular method to their killings. For instance, Wayne Gacy, had the trade mark of gagging victims with their own underwear so that they would die in their own vomit.

To discover what makes a serial killer function, it is necessary to look back into their past, particularly their adolescent life. By looking at many and varied cases, it is evident that virtually all serial killers come from dysfunctional backgrounds involving sexual or physical abuse, drugs or alcoholism and their related problems. Many traits that seem to be universal in all these serial killers, though in varied amounts, include disorganised thinking, bipolar mode disorders, a feeling of resentment towards society brought on by their own failings, sexual frustrations, an inability to be social or socially accepted, over bearing parents and a wild imagination that tends to drag them into a fantasy world. In a chart of serial killer - childhood development characteristics - created by Ressler, Burgers and Douglas (1990), the three most frequently reported behaviors included day dreaming, compulsive masturbation, and isolation.

The daydreaming, which is brought on by an over productive imagination, tends to lead the way into the general fantasy world that the serial killer begins to live in to protect himself from any isolation he is faced with. At an early age, if a child is left alone, or forced to live in isolation whereby little attention is given to them for long periods of time, their minds become the object of their company, and thus begin the daydreams and the fantasy world (Ressler, Douglas and Burgess, 1990).This kind of isolation tends to breed feelings of inadequacy in some way or other in all serial killers. These feelings maybe masked by numerous artificial successes, but these feelings run deeper than the normal neurotic feelings of not being good enough. Essentially, these early life attachments which are known as ‘bonding’, set up a map by which the child will in later life react to others. In such cases, the children do not learn how to interact properly within their society, and at best, turn into mirror images of their isolators. A prime example of this can be seen in the case of Ed Kemper, whose mother condemned him to the basement of their home at the tender age of ten in fear that he would molest his younger sister (though he had not given his mother any reason to think this). Confused and angry as to why he was suffering this punishment, he turned to his fantasies, which may have started out as ‘normal’, but with the continued isolation they quickly became his dominant world.

At this point, it is important to acknowledge that the majority of all daydreamers will not find themselves turning into murderers in later years; and so too, not all fantasy life is pathological. In fact, ordinary, healthy human beings often dream about their hopes and pleasures, even those that are beyond their reach. "Some of these fantasies may include such deviant and bizarre sexual practices as fetishes, pedophilia, bondage, and rape…Because of their strong sense of conscience or concern over their public image, most will resist translating their desires into action" (Ressler, Douglas and Burgess, 1990). Detailed, ongoing research by the F.B.I shows that many convicted serial killers enact their crimes because of the incredibly rich, detailed and elaborate violent fantasies (including the act of murder) that have developed in their minds as early as the age of seven and eight. What distinguishes killers from ‘normal’ civilians is that the aggressive day dreams that have been developed as children, continue to develop and expand through their adolescence right into manhood, where they are finally released into the real world (Wilson & Seamen, 1992). Through the use of murder and mayhem, the serial killer literally chases his dream.

With each successive victim, he attempts to fine tune the act, striving to make his real life experiences as perfect as his fantasy (Apsche, 1993).

David Berkowitz, known as "The son of Sam", is a typical example of an average serial killer, and quiet normal in comparison to his other counterparts who have been known to eat their victims. From the years of 1976 through to 1977, he set out his reign of terror in New York City, by shooting over ten lovers who were parked in secluded areas. Upon being interviewed by John Douglas (a member of the F.B.I) at Attica State Prison, it was discovered that Berkowitz came from an adopted home, and upon discovering his real mother, was told by her that he wasn’t wanted. Originally being shy, insecure, and angry, he blossomed into a potential killer. He procured a large and powerful weapon, which in turn made him feel bigger and more powerful, and set about unknowingly to obtain revenge for what his mother had done to him.

In most cases, there is an event known as the "Pre-crime stresser", as discussed by Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1990). The pre-crime stresser can be looked at as the reason for why the person turns to killing as a form of release, even if the criminal does not realise the full extent of his motivations or fails to see the reasons behind the stress he feels. A clear example of this can be seen upon the questioning of Berkowitz who denied he had anything against women, nor did he have reason as to why he killed so many. In actually fact, his mother’s rejection was the stresser that ultimately turned him violent. He did not attack his mother directly (few serial killers ever attack the source of their resentment), but the majority of his killings where based on women who had a likeness to his mother.

Serial killers come in many different varieties. One which is driven by the desire to be acknowledged and feared is the "copy cat". As described by John Douglas (1996), they basically set out copying the actions of previously ‘famous’ serial killers who struck terror into people’s hearts. For example, in Wichita Kansas, the BTK strangler (Bind, Torture, Kill), has been said to have attempted following in the footsteps of Berkowitz. This particular issue has been much debated, with some people arguing that the BTK incidences took place prior to any of Berkowitz's. As to the accuracy of this concept, it is debatable, particular when evidence suggests that the BTK activities continued up until 1979, though the murders were said to have ended during 1977. It is not so much the celebrity statues that they so enjoy, but instead the ability to control the lives of thousands of area residents, who are held in their grip of terror. "Psychologically the thrill-motivated killer tends to be a sociopath, someone with a disorder of character rather than the mind. He lacks a conscience, feels no remorse, and cares exclusively for his own pleasures in life…It has been estimated that 3% of all males in our society could be considered sociopathic" (Fox & Levin, 1994, p.18).

Society generally is quick to place tags on serial killers. Many believe that they are psychotics who hear voices or see visual hallucinations, but this is a misconception as explained by John Douglas (1996). Most are not at all psychotics who have lost touch with reality, but instead psychopaths who are suffering from chronic mental disorders with violent or abnormal social behaviors. Only a small hand full, like Richard Trenton who believed he needed to drink other people’s blood to stay alive, are actually psychotics. And this group is so disorganised in its crimes that it is generally apprehended quite quickly.

One of the most hideous serial killers would undoubtedly have to be the sexual killer. Many specialists, including Douglas (1996) have agreed that the most crucial factor in the development of the serial rapist or killer is the role of fantasy. It has been suggested that the escalation from fantasy to reality in these instances, can be attributed to pornography. In response I would tend to agree, for pornography tends to build on the natural inner desires that exist within us all. The desire to have sexual intercourse is dominant in all males. The action of penetration brings on a sense of triumph and conquest . The only difference here is that these killers have not had the opportunity to learn intimacy due to childhood restraints, and they substitute intimacy with control (which they obtain by inflicting bodily harm to the other(the equivalent to the penetrating conquest) to counteract their inner desires for a mate.

As Dr. Richard G. Rappart, a forensic psychiatrist, writes that the mode of death is one where factors indicate that the victim has meaning to the killer and that the intimacy of the murderous act is part of a close bond between himself and the victim formed in the killers fantasy and delusions. A study by Samuel Yochelson and Stanton Samenow (1988) pointed out that a high proportion of serial killers are ‘highly sexed’ in childhood, and have been known to look into bathrooms through keyholes on females undressing, or initiated sexual games - sometimes amounting to rape - with girls at school.

As Jack Apsche (1993) makes clear, serial murderers see themselves as dominant, controlling and powerful figures. They hold the power of life and death, and in their own eyes, they perceive themselves as God. In their fantasies and their enactment of the murder, they become God. This is actually probably the only power they have ever had, and for this reason they savor and continue to persist. As B.F Skinner proved in ‘Science and Human Behavior’, once a killer has tasted the success of a kill, and is not apprehended, it will ultimately mean he will strike again. He put it simply, that once something good has happened, something that made the killer feel good, and powerful, then they will not hesitate to try it again. The first attempt may leave them with a feeling of fear, revulsion and remorse, as stated by Ted Bundy to psychologists on the eve of his execution in 1989; but at the same time, it is like an addictive drug. Some killers revisit the crime scene or take trophies, such as jewelry or body parts, or video tape the scenario so as to be able to re-live the actual feeling of power at a latter date. Many have been reported as saying that they had fallen into the power of the devil after several kills, which is contradictory to their initial beliefs that they were God. It is almost as though initially they believed that they would be powerful in that they had the choice in taking or sparing life, but as time progresses, and the kills mount up, they find they are driven to kill as though they have no choice. Apsche (1993) has noted that many killers have attempted to get help when they discovered they had little control. They appear to want to stop their actions, but regain control to avoid their discovery. This is possibly an example of a bipolar personality clash.

Ultimately, it is virtually impossible to detect a serial killer. Many seem to be quiet normal in their everyday lives, only some actually tend to act differently to the general population. Many have stated that it is easy to fool society, especially psychiatrists, by simply stating what they want to hear. Nor is there any way of detecting for certain who might become a homicidal maniac. But by comparing many past cases it is possible to put together a list of general personality traits that are common in serial killers, and that may prove useful in determining future killers. The F.B.I has its own list, but due to its unavailability I have prepared my own.

Traits that should be looked at when trying to decide if a person is a potential killer include: Social withdrawal, abnormal dependence’s on ones mother or ulcerated relations with ones parents, hypochondria or other attention seeking behavior including forms of clothing, delusional mind as to grandeur, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, inability to take criticisms, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert ones self, parental taunts as to ones inability to be sufficient (or as I prefer to call it - the Hitchcock ‘Psycho’ syndrome), mood disorders, and a general failing in attempts to succeed. Of course these are very general points, and even if someone had the majority of these (as I do), it would not necessarily mean that they would become serial killers, it is only meant as a point of reference.

As Freud once commented, a child would destroy the world if it had the power. In a sense the serial killer’s mind can be contrasted to that of a child’s for it has not had the opportunity to develop to that of a ‘normal’ adult. Instead, fantasy takes the place of reality, and it is almost always solely based on acquiring power. A majority of serial killings might have been avoided if the killers had been better treated in their youth. But then again, there is no concrete evidence that suggests this to be true. In all actual fact, most of the conclusions that have been made on serial killers are only speculations based on observations and interrogations of the subjects. But to be realistic, can we really trust anything that may come from the equivalent of a child’s mind filled with falsities created through fantasy?

References

Apsche, J. (1993). Probing the mind of a serial killer. International information Associates.
Douglas, J., (1996). MindHunter. Mandarine Publishing
Fox, J.A., & Levin, J., (1994). OverKill - Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed. Plenum Press
Hughes, J.M. (Ed.).(1997). Oxford Concise Australian Dictionary (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W. & Douglas, J.E., (1990). Sexual Homicide patterns and Motives. Lexington Books
Wilson, C., & Seamen, D., (1992). The Serial Killer. Carol Publishing’s
Yochelsen, S. & Samenow, S. (1988). The criminal personality. New York Press

2010-03-02T20:09:00.001-07:00

This has got to be the best quote of the year, . . . .

"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given
the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his
name, but that America gave him the White House based on
the same credentials."

**Newt Gingrich -- 2009**

2009-12-28T09:24:00.002-07:00

Rep. King: ACORN "Bigger Than Watergate"

Rep. Steve King says the ACORN saga is “the largest corruption crisis in the history of America” — yet he predicts Congress and the Obama administration won’t take action against the scandal-plagued community organizing group.

"It's thousands of times bigger than Watergate because Watergate was only a little break-in by a couple of guys," the Iowa Republican said in an interview with The American Spectator.

"By the time we pull ACORN out by its roots, America's going to understand just how big this is."

Hidden camera videos emerged in September showing ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) employees advising a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute how to establish a brothel and finance it with government grants.

But it also is accused of political corruption, election fraud, racketeering, money laundering, and countless other violations of the law, according to the American Spectator article written by Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

Rep. King, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Committee Chairman John Conyers will not investigate ACORN and a probe of the group is “not going to come out of” Chairman Charles Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee or Chairman Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee “or from anybody in the Senate. They're going to protect ACORN.

“Congress is deliberately dragging its heels on ACORN,” and Democrats in Congress are “using everything to protect ACORN because that's the machine that keeps them in office,” said King.

The congressman is especially angry over U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon's ruling in favor of ACORN on Dec. 11.

Gershon issued a temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN, ruling that the funding ban ordered by Congress was unconstitutional in that it singled out ACORN for punishment without trial. The Department of Justice has reluctantly filed an appeal.

Gershon's ruling is "sweeping and far-reaching, and she even opined that ACORN has some kind of an implicit right to future contracts because they've succeeded in bidding on contracts that were similarly competitive," King said in the interview.

He added that he doesn't hold out much hope that the Obama administration or Congress will decide to investigate ACORN, saying: "This is one-party gangster government and they know what they're doing.”

2009-12-20T15:09:00.004-07:00

Senator Nelson sold out to the Democrat Party, in favor of making the State of Nebraska the only State in all fifty, where a person can make 133% of the national poverty level and still qualify for Medicare.

This, and a very slight change in the abortion language, and he sells out to the pressures of the thugocracy of the Obama Administration. Shame on you, Ben, for bringing Shame on all Nebraskans, and Shame on you for ignoring the 67% of the citizens of your State, who trusted you to vote in their best interests, and who opposed the current Senate Bill.

With just two percentage points less, who supported the contents of the House Bill, how could you offer to discount those polls? Shame, Shame, Shame on you for selling out!

Your refusal to offer even a lame answer to the question of why there was a hurry to pass this terrible bill, was an indication of what you intended to do, several days before you announced your intentions to vote in favor.

Shame, Shame Shame!

2009-09-26T06:13:00.000-06:00

Recommended Reading Material:

2009-09-24T16:10:00.003-06:00

I can certainly sympathize with the great responsibility political leaders have in our country during this time of tragedy. I understand that they must be careful to do their part in restraining and discouraging any persecution of citizens of Middle Eastern descent. However, we have reached a point of "politically correct" insanity. When our country was founded, "toleration" never meant approval or agreement. Suddenly, many of our political leaders and media spokesmen have become theologians, teaching the country that there is no difference in the major religions and that it somehow "hatred of people" to teach that another religion is false.

The proper response of these leaders should be to say something to the effect of:
"There are many nominal Muslims in this country that reject the dangerous doctrines taught in the Koran and throughout fundamental Islam. They don't believe they should kill Jews or Christians. They don't believe they will be rewarded in Paradise for such atrocities. Nevertheless, we know that the world is filled with Muslims who do attempt to follow the Koran in detail. They believe the fundamental tenants of the Islamic religion. These people are dangerous. These people are to blame for the horrific events on September 11. I am not calling people to give up their beliefs. I am not calling you to accept the nominal form of the Islamic religion practiced by many in this country as true. No, in this country you have a right to speak your mind, to debate, and to peaceably make converts. This is one major thing that makes our country different than the dangerous Islamic countries. If everything is true, then nothing is true. However, I am calling people in this country to refrain from criminal acts of hatred or fear against people of Middle Eastern descent. We must protect our country from those who would seek to destroy it from without or within. But we must not start a mad witchhunt against law-abiding Americans simply on the basis of their skin color or style of dress. And as far as religion goes, you can't assume that every Muslim believes the same way."

I don't really expect to get such a statement out of a major political or media leader today. However, I do expect them to quit making theological statements that blaspheme the Christian God and the fundamental tenants of Christianity. These political leaders and media spokesmen have a right to their beliefs. If they want to believe in some form of Religious Syncretism, they have a right to it under the laws of our nation.

Yet, if they choose to use their platforms to teach a liberal, unbiblical "Sunday School Class" to the citizens of America, fundamental Christians also have the right and the responsibility before GOD to refute their faulty, Biblical interpretations:

2 Timothy 4:2 ...reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2 Timothy 4:3 ...For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2 Timothy 4:4 ...And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

John the Baptist once reproved Herod for his adultery (Mar.6:17,18). We must likewise reprove our noble leaders when they profess Christ and yet make statements or prayers that applaud "Allah" as a true "God", equal with the one true God of the Christian Bible.

If the current President, and/or his administration continues to approach the issue along the lines of his "previous religious studies," and he fails to acknowledge that we are fundamentally a Christian Nation, he will be ousted in the very next Presidential polling.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-11-12T19:50:00.002-07:00

If you can get through the accent, this is a very, very worthwhile interview with a former Soviet KGB Operative, turned defector. His words have real meaning, and you can equate them to what has been happening in the USA for the past thirty-five or forty years. It's amazing how much this resembles the contemporary Democrat Party activity of these past years, and what has happened during the most recent National Elections. Please pay particular attention to this man's advice. He knows what he's talking about.

It is our failure, as a nation, to understand things like this, that will lead us into the oblivion of the adage that "The people get EXACTLY the government they deserve!"

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-09-23T06:10:00.002-06:00

Are you better off now, than two years ago?

Remember back to the election results in November, 2006. Euphoria reigned: The Democrats won! The Democrats won! The people, according to the mainstream media, have sent a message to George W. Bush.

Excitement exploded in the Blue States, (those would be the states where the entitlements demographics are HUGE), democrats gushed with joy, and those who opposed the policies of George Bush beamed with pleasure.

We had much cheaper gasoline back then. Our bankers weren’t afraid of being called “racist,” or “discriminatory” as a label in their practice. The NASDAQ was over 14,000, and the financial future looked good. Food prices were low, and stable. So, was the unemployment rate.

Healthcare, although expensive, was still something most people could afford, and WalMart® was considering four-dollar prescriptions. In 2003 2% of the home mortgages were sub-prime. Last year nearly 22% were sub-prime. Above all, don’t forget who was in charge for that little change.

So what have the Democrats accomplished since then? Other than helping an upstanding citizen, and overall-Great American Attorney named Alberto Gonzales to get his pink slip, not much. Every now and then rumors circulate that the Democratic Congress will start investigations, order subpoenas, and all that good stuff.

Barak Obama wants us to think that he has no lobbyists on his campaign staff. I know that’s not true, but I can do the research, and since he brought it up, you should too; before casting a ballot in that direction. Have you ever noticed how many Democrats are actually proud that they are perceived to be completely devoid of character?

Many of my friends voted for the Democrats in 2006. After about 20 months of Democrats as the majority they’re still waiting for something of substance. How about you? Never allow any of the media’s talking heads to convince you that any candidate is the “end-all politician”, or the “National Savior.”

I’d say they’ve already had their bite at the apple, and the people of the media have failed us. Remember this: . . . . “Burn me once, shame on you! -- Burn me a second time, Shame on ME!”

God Bless,
Dan'L

2008-09-17T12:32:00.001-06:00

HR 6691 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6691
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 31, 2008
Mr. CHILDERS (for himself, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. CAZAYOUX, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. TANNER, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. ELLSWORTH, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. BOYD of Florida, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. SHULER, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. HILL, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. SPACE, Mr. BARROW, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. BOREN, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SALI, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. COOPER, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BERRY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. MAHONEY of Florida, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. HODES, Mr. SESSIONS, and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Enforcement Act'.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.
(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.
Section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'.
SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.
(a) In General- Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
`(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or readily restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties- Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.'.
SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Repeal of Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `any firearm, unless' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: `any firearm described in subsection (c).'.
(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:
`(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
`(2) A machine gun.
`(3) A short-barreled rifle.'.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `Registration requirements' and inserting `Firearm Possession'.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act- The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:
(1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
(2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).
(3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking `the District;' and all that follows and inserting the following: `the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.'; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking `which are unregisterable under section 202' and inserting `which are prohibited under section 201'.
(4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking `Any person eligible to register a firearm' and all that follows through `such business,' and inserting the following: `Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,'; and
(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
`(1) The applicant's name;'.
(5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `registration certificate' and inserting `dealer's license'.
(6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking `registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking `holding the registration certificate' and inserting `from whom it was received for repair';
(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking `and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm';
(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking `registration certificate number or'; and
(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).
(7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--
`(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and
`(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.'.
(8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `would not be eligible' and all that follows and inserting `is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.'.
(9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
`(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.';
(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
`(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.';
(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(D) by striking subsection (e).
(10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking `any registration certificate or' and inserting `a'; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking `registration certificate,'.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments- Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia'; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `registration and'.
SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.
Section 601(3) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `is the holder of the valid registration certificate for' and inserting `owns'.
SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking `that:' and all that follows through `(1) A' and inserting `that a'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.
Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking `a pistol,' and inserting the following: `except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a pistol,'; and
(2) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after `other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located' the following: `, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,'.
END

2008-09-10T09:14:00.003-06:00

CAIR, Seemingly innocent questioning of motives, Really working to twart efforts to stop terrorism

The Council for American Islamic Relations has been trying in vain to stop a counter- terrorism program in Sarasota Florida, aimed at providing first responders with information on subjects such as building safety, suicide terrorism, technologies against terrorism and more. [emphasis added]

This is part of CAIR's program to stop Security Solutions International (SSI) -- an organization that has trained more than 500 Federal, State and Local agencies since 2004.

SSI officials, CAIR attempted to stop a training program for cops and security personnel in Seattle last Memorial Day. Fortunately, they failed. "As Americans, we can not allow the civil liberties of our great country to be exploited by groups that are intent on creating a fundamentalist Islamic regime here in the USA", says Sol Bradman, CEO of Security Solutions International, the organizers of the Sarasota Sheriffs 3rd Annual Gulf Coast Terrorism conference being held in Sarasota from the 15th to the 19th of September for the benefit of Homeland Security professionals -- coming from as far as Australia to attend what is being called the most innovative terrorism prevention conference in the USA.

"This is not about incitement against Muslims, as CAIR wants us to believe. Our mission is to protect all Americans against terrorism but also against the abuse of our laws." This is Lawfare against US First Responders and therefore against the USA by the pseudo legal wing of the Global Jihad in America," says Bradman.

"The modus operandi is simple; use the freedoms and loopholes of the most liberal nation on earth to help finance and direct the world's most violent international terrorism cells," he added. Daniel Pipes, the Harvard Professor, publisher and head of the Middle East Forum, has consistently pointed out that CAIR is riddled with extremists and has been closely linked to organizations that have been convicted or individuals convicted of terrorism.

The group, that claims to represent US Muslims but is cited by many US Muslims as being a thinly veiled cover group for extremists, is losing membership.

Nonetheless, they mount campaigns to get training and other valuable help to US First Responders stopped, canceled, delegitimized and several jurisdictions have folded attempts to hold counter terror training.

On September 3rd, a Sarasota blog published an article claiming that sources have produced solid information that Morris Days, the Manager for Civil Rights at the CAIR MD/VA chapter, who was widely publicized by CAIR as one of its civil rights attorneys, was in fact not an attorney, and failed to provide services for Muslim American clients who came to CAIR for assistance and who paid for Days' services.

Not only has CAIR not revealed the facts about Days and his fraudulent, criminal behavior, but as of yesterday, September 2, 2008, the CAIR National office in Washington, D.C. continued to post articles at its website naming Days as an attorney.

The Florida representative of CAIR has been sending everyone in Sarasota pleas to stop the program under the argument that it represents an attempt to stereotype all Muslims as Terrorists.

SSI is well known for fair and balanced training at a highly professional level and actively discourages racial and ethnic profiling because this bad counter terrorism practice. Not only was CAIR Florida actively touting the innocence of convicted Terrorist, Sami Al-Arian but CAIR Florida also claimed that two students at South Florida University in Tampa were carrying 4th of July firecrackers in the trunk of their car but later the two admitted to carrying explosives for the purposes of committing terrorist acts.

Tampa has often suffered from the effects of Radical Islam. To counter this, SSI is offering a special day: "Allah in America".

Speakers such as Andrew Whitehead, the founder of Anti-Cair will attend and speak as a result of his ceaseless dedication in fighting radical extremism in the US, channeled through the Anti-CAIR organization including frequent posts based on investigative reporting that exemplify the very essence of Islamic radicalism, including repeated attempts to threaten our constitutional freedoms.

SSI's program, the Threat of Radical Jihadist to the World, prepared by a Muslim counter terror law enforcement officer from California will also be presented with an emphasis on CAIR and other extremist groups that operate under the guise of civil rights.

So-called anti-terrorist organizations, aligned with Islamic extremism, blatantly abuse the laws, freedoms and loopholes of the most liberal nation on earth to help finance and direct the world's most violent international terrorism cells.

The "Protecting the Homeland" organization charter embodies two main objectives: ceaseless dedication in counter-acting Islamic radicals who repeatedly attempt to threaten our constitutional freedoms, and channeling funds to educate US First Responders through sponsorship of training programs in the USA and Israel.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2008-08-17T18:40:00.002-06:00

$104,655.60 Ad in the Washington Post--
Here is someone with the money to fund a rebuttal to what Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, said recently that 'many Republicans have never done an honest day's work in their life'. The following full-page ad was placed in the Washington Post by a businessman named George J. Esseff, Sr. He paid $104,655.60 to run the ad and only did it because he is sick and tired of the way that 'the rich' are portrayed by liberals these days. It is a great read.

The Ad
Maybe you're a conservative Republican?
In today's America, ask a growing number of high school and college students, their teachers and professors, the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, 'What is a Republican?' and you'll be told '... a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment, the working poor....and all whom they exploit...'
I am a Republican - and I am none of those things....and I don't know any Republicans who are!

WHAT I AM, first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four, and an American who's proud of his country...and his country's heritage.

WHAT I AM is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.

WHAT I AM is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed first hand the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, shared what food they had with a half dozen other families who had even less.

WHAT I AM is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life. WHAT I AM is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the 'privilege' of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.

WHAT I AM is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears....and plenty of them..., made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years, employees who in turn were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.

WHAT I AM is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country ... and all for which it stands.

WHAT I AM is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today's world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them ... and the eyes of those who give them.

WHAT I AM is an American who's proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as 'politically incorrect' as it may be, there is evil in this world, and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted ... and it must be defeated.

WHAT I AM is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.

WHAT I AM is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America, racism in her people, class warfare in her society and 'political incorrectness' in her character.

WHAT I AM is a former Democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of the press, speech and dissent.

WHAT I AM is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.

WHAT I AM is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.

WHAT I AM is a ex-movie goer who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated 'entertainers' who have appointed themselves 'experts' in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions, much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.

WHAT I AM is an American who understands the difference between 'censorship' and 'choice.' Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same 'celebrities' receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is 'censorship.' What they seem incapable of understanding is that the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended, as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to and refuse to support those I don't. It is my right as an American, a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.

WHAT I AM is a voter, tired of politicians who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of 'attack ads' and 'negative campaigning;' and the news media who allow them to get away with it.

WHAT I AM is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith, and who's been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals in both private and public life whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what's best for them, rather than what's right, often times at the expense of many, including our national security.

WHAT I AM is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That's why I sincerely believe America needs, now more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice, when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.

WHAT I AM is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and to George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America's war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure.

WHAT I AM is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man, nonetheless, who though not always successful, has continually strived to do 'what's right' instead of 'what's easy.' A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of 'what's right' and 'what's wrong,' but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.

WHAT I AM is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a 'double homicide," but then refer to the abortion of her baby as 'pro-choice.'

WHAT I AM is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary 'leadership' qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists and war criminals (John Kerry). That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnamese prison), from speaking before an open session of the California Legislature as part of that state's 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the 'conservative' nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply....as well it should you. (Are you listening Mr. D?)

WHAT I AM is a man who feels the need to spend ONE HUNDRED & FOUR THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED & FIFTY FIVE DOLLARS ($104,655.60, tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world's poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that ... and more. Following the examples of my parents and grandparents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick ... and continue to do so ... and I'm not alone in that work.

WHAT I AM is someone who is paying for this announcement at my sole expense in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who through either ignorance or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, 'The rights of the governed exceed the power of the government.' For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with the Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors or delegates.

WHAT I AM is a man who understands, 'the American way of life' is a message of self-empowerment for all.

WHAT I AM is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.

WHAT I AM is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.

WHAT I AM is blessed to be an American .... and proud to be a conservative Republican.

2008-08-08T20:18:00.002-06:00

When World War Three Started . . . . .1979

This is not very long, but very informative. You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... That alarm has been ringing for years.

US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency.. The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 , killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America . In January 1993 , two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.A few months later in June of 1996 , another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania .. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America . How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.If you believe in this please send this link to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2008-07-08T05:44:00.002-06:00

Another Judge Stifles Christianity with the help of the ACLU

Christian groups are appealing a federal judge's ruling that bars the Gideons from distributing Bibles to students of the South Iron Missouri School District.

The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed. "In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech." Staver is asking the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Perry. He says that, to his knowledge, no other U.S. court has ever ruled that a private, third party should be given veto power over private religious speech.

2008-06-18T06:22:00.004-06:00

It's Time The News Media Shows Some Character

Marines 7 -- Murtha 0

“Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident to seven. ‘Undue command influence’ on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go.

“I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won't see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font The New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke.
“The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, and the rest of the anti-war drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their hands in shame. They won't, of course. Perpetuating the ‘cold-blooded Marines’ narrative means never having to say you're sorry.

“It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.”

- Columnist Michelle Malkin

Since you apparently will not see the folks over at the New York Times, . . . or the people who control the Associated Press, or even the bozos who don't like those terrible "T-Words" describing the combatants we encountered at the World Trade Center and all their followers, and future and wannabe combatants who hate everything about our beloved country, . . . stepping up to the plate, to show their high level of character, in admitting their bias and agenda-based news reporting, when they first ran the stories about Haditha, Iraq, and the horrid events that unfolded there, we feel that the above quote should educate you on the final truth of the matter.

Let's admit a couple of things: 1.) We are at war. 2.) While at war, we are occasionally required to support the troops who put their lives on the line, in order to protect our beloved country from the likes of those who came to kill us on September 11, 2001.

Those who don't agree with these two simple statements will likely be voting for the democratic candidate, this fall. Let's Pray for them to see the truth of these matters, and for their minds to be opened to the truth, so that they can properly cast their ballots in the interest of the continued good health of our country.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-06-08T12:48:00.004-06:00

WILL SUFFER A STUNNING BLOW

( even though it was a stunning defeat, yesterday, in the Belmont Stakes, the horse racing industry isn't suffering in the Great State Of Illinois, the home of the presumptive Democrat Nominee)

. . . . Should Barak H. Obama be elected to the highest office in the land.

While it may be just a coincidence, it is certainly instructive to read about how they do things in Barack Obama's home state of Illinois. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this sort of socialism take root nationally should B.H.O. make it all the way to the White House. Here's the (stinking) deal.

According to the Associated Press, the amount of money wagered at the state's horse tracks dropped from $835 million a year to $482 million from 1992 to 2005. So to prop up this dying industry, the Illinois state legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring the state's top four riverboat casino companies to take 3 percent of their revenues and give it to the ailing horse racing industry. Not all of the casino companies, mind you. Just the largest and most successful.

This is like forcing Burger King, but not Taco Bell, to give part of its profits to Tom's Greasy Spoon down the street simply because more people choose to eat at BK than TB or TGS. It is redistribution of wealth in its rawest form. From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. This is Karl Marx to the max.

And by the way, it bears pointing out that the riverboat casinos won't be paying this tax. The casinos will merely pass this tax increase along to you and me in the form of higher prices. So in the end, it's the private consumer who is really getting screwed here.

The casino companies challenged this rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistribution scheme in court, especially considering the fact that some casinos were hit with the horse tax and not others. Equal protection and all that. The good news is a judge agreed with the casinos last year and tossed the law out. The bad news is the judge's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court. The worse news is that the Supremes, in a supreme example of blood-boiling judicial absurdity, overturned the common-sense judge's ruling.

So the four riverboat casinos must now cough up some $79 million and give 40 percent of it to the state's five horse-racing tracks. The other 60 percent will go into "purses" to be awarded to the winning horses to "subsidize horse-breeding and training."

Seriously. How can anyone, especially so-called learned judges, come to the conclusion that it's OK to take money spent in riverboat casinos and give a portion of it to a struggling competitor to help feed Mr. Ed?

One can only imagine how President Obama would use this precedent on a national level. Why not charge Microsoft a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to smaller software companies which most of the public chooses not to use? Why not charge General Motors a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to mass transit services which few people use? Why not charge Bank of America a 3 percent tax and redistribute it to struggling local banks?

Or better yet, why not charge uber-liberal MoveOn.org a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to less well-funded conservative activist groups?

Yeah, that's the ticket!

2008-04-27T20:29:00.003-06:00

After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President. I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.

We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words "money" and "special interests" come to mind, among many others.

Here's the way I see it:Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois, which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.

You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American an for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth!

But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job!Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there.

The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people.

We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your "spiritual mentor".

BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a "discouraging word" in the 20 years you attended there.

Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades.

[Even the most powerful woman in America, Ms. Oprah Winfrey, got disgusted and walked out on your campaign. I am usually an Oprah fan, and I often agree with her stand on many things, (not to include her overzealous endorsement, early in this election cycle), but still, in the end, she did the right thing.]

Now YOU look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallies and never once heard the "N" word. Yup! . . . And Bill Clinton "did not inhale". Mr. Obama, puleeze -- reach out and grab you up some REALITY!

Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you. I am deeply sorry, that in a county teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.

Now, did I mention Bill Clinton?

AH YES! This brings us to MRS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, who this candidate really is, in spite of all the other names she may care to call herself.

This "feminist" piece of work of course would like to be referred to as MS.and we all know who wears the pant suit in that family.

MS. Clinton, (sugar), it is just as depressing to realize that there are dozens of women who would also make great Presidents. But, fortunately, the horrible state of the selection process has selected YOU. Ms. Clinton, I'm sorry, but you could not tell the truth if we water boarded your worthless ass!

Still you play the role of the "embarrassed but dignified noble wife".What utter malarkey, and shear gobbledegook! I am not voting for you for a world of reasons, but the main one is the same as my not voting for Senator Obama. You persistently insult my intelligence. It COULD be conceivably possible that you did not know about Monica Lewinsky, extremely remote, but possible if we stretch our imaginations a bit. But you turn around and then ask me to believe that you also did not know about Paula Jones and the legion of other women who were chewed up and spit out by your lecherous excuse for a husband. Puleese turn off this broken record!!!

But let's set aside your hubby's flagrant peccadilloes. The real reason I will never vote for you is that I don't think the country can survive EIGHT MORE YEARS of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Sandy Berger stuffing his socks with classified intelligence, Janet Reno's goon squad, and the myriad other corruptions that seem to stick to you like your ugly face. So our former President can't keep his dick in his pants. The REAL issue is that he committed perjury under oath when he lied about it and the pathetically-attempted cover up that followed. As I said at that time, "I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night! I think I'm smart enough to see right through your attempts to obfuscate the real issues."

Like you, he is totally incapable of telling the truth. He could not do it if you to rtured him, and in voting for you, we would get the BOTH of you, all over again. The same folks who could have taken out Osama Bin Laden over 4,000 dead Americans ago!

And please stop telling me that you have "8 years of experience" to lead us. You were the freakin' first lady already, not the Commander in Chief. Jeez! The sum of your "experience" is that of the most worrisome and incompetent meddling in the history of the White House. You even cursed your pitiful staff and the Secret Service agents who were and still are unfortunately charged with risking their lives to protect your worthless, thieving hide, and all at the expense of other people who have to work for a living.

Your single pathetic platform is to finance the illegal drugs, alcoholism and bad habits of the very lowest and most irresponsible freeloaders in America and to then "garnish the wages" (your own words) of every law-abiding and hard-working American to pay for it. This disaster you refer to as "Universal Health Care". Where have you been the last 30 years?

I have but two questions for both you and your democrat adversary: Did you not see that socialism is a failure wherever it has been tried? Did you not notice that the Soviet Union has collapsed since it gave no reward to those who worked the hardest for the fruits of their own labors to pay for those who will not?

It is interesting to see all the dead bodies that you and your hubby have left in your wake. Suicides, mysterious deaths, cover-ups that make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur. The utter contempt and unbelievable arrogance of some of your strongest supporters, most notably the recently resigned and disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, the epitome of hypocritical and malevolent arrogance gone wild, one of your most ardent, wealthy and powerful political supporters. A man the news media refuses to admit IS a "super delegate" in your own political machine, a fine example of your own, "adopted," State of New York. No wonder you moved there to run for Senator! The environment there is perfect for the likes of you!

Yes, I would vote for a woman, but I will NOT vote for YOU!

This leaves us with Senator John McCain.John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit loony, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years; ---- I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.

Think about it . . . We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon.

We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabers at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. Call your enemies over at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, and ask them to attend -- they'll want to know why, so just make up something innocuous. It'll give them reason to make up some terrible headlines. They will cover it, with enthusiasm. I want ALL of these "world leaders" to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America.

I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and those other radical fundementalist Muslim assholes in the sheets, the Saudis.On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED.

For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him.

Just my kinda guy.

I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate.Good choice. I want a JEW whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America. When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was "nothing special". Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the "average American", and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot for on Election Day for John McCain -- warts and all.

God Bless America,
Dan'L

Remember: Human life is precious and begins at conception.

2008-04-02T11:46:00.002-06:00

IN THE STREETS OF IRAQ WE STARE EVERY DAY INTO THAT WOLFS EYES WHOM IS KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR.

The sun beat like a hammer, not a cloud was in the sky.
The mid-day air ran thick with dust; my throat was parched and dry.
With microphone clutched tight in hand and cameraman in tow,
I ducked beneath a fallen roof, surprised to hear "stay low. "
My eyes blinked several times before in shadow I could see,
the figure stretched across the rubble, steps away from me.
He wore a cloak of burlap strips, all shades of grey and brown,
that hung in tatters till he seemed to melt into the ground.
He never turned his head or took his eye from off the scope,
but pointed through the broken wall and down the rocky slope.
"About eight hundred yards," he said, his whispered words concise,
"beneath the baggy jacket he is wearing a device. "
A chill ran up my spine despite the swelter of the heat,
"You think he's gonna set it off along the crowded street?"
The sniper gave a weary sigh and said "I wouldn't doubt it,"
"unless there's something this old gun and I can do about it. "
A thunderclap, a tongue of flame, the still abruptly shattered;
while citizens that walked the street were just as quickly scattered.
Till only one remained, a body crumpled on the ground,
The threat to oh so many ended by a single round.
And yet the sniper had no cheer, no hint of any gloat,
instead he pulled a logbook out and quietly he wrote.
"Hey, I could put you on TV; that shot was quite a story!"
But he surprised me once again — "I got no wish for glory. "
"Are you for real?" I asked in awe, "You don't want fame or credit?"
He looked at me with saddened eyes and said "you just don't get it. "
"You see that shot-up length of wall, the one without a door?
before a mortar hit, it used to be a grocery store. "
"But don't go thinking that to bomb a store is all that cruel,
the rubble just across the street — it used to be a school.
The little kids played soccer in the field out by the road,"
His head hung low, "They never thought a car would just explode. "
"As bad as all this is though, it could be a whole lot worse,"
He swallowed hard; the words came from his mouth just like a curse.
"Today the fight's on foreign land, on streets that aren't my own,"
"I'm here today 'cause if I fail, the next fight's back at home. "
"And I won't let my Safeway burn, my neighbors dead inside,
don't wanna get a call from school that says my daughter died;
I pray that not a one of them will know the things I see,
nor have the work of terrorists etched in their memory. "
"So you can keep your trophies and your fleeting bit of fame,
I don't care if I make the news, or if they speak my name. "
He glanced toward the camera and his brow began to knot,
"If you're looking for a story, why not give this one a shot. "
"Just tell the truth of what you see, without the slant or spin;
that most of us are OK and we're coming home again.
And why not tell our folks back home about the good we've done,
how when they see Americans, the kids come at a run. "
You tell 'em what it means to folks here just to speak their mind,
without the fear that tyranny is just a step behind;
Describe the desert miles they walk in their first chance to vote,
or ask a soldier if he's proud, I'm sure you'll get a quote. "
He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded,
then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added;
"And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak,
that we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak."

God Bless,
Dan'L

2008-03-27T16:03:00.002-06:00

When Veterans Leave

When a good Veteran leaves the 'job' and retires to a better life, many are jealous, some are pleased and yet others, who may have already retired, wonder.

We wonder if they know what they are leaving behind, because we already know. We know, for example, that after a lifetime of camaraderie that few experience, it will remain as a longing for those past times.

We know in the military life there is a fellowship which lasts long after the uniforms are hung up in the back of the closet.

We know even if he throws them away, they will be on him with every step and breath that remains in his life.

We also know how the very bearing of the man speaks of what he was and in his heart still is.

These are the burdens of the job. You will still look at people suspiciously, still see what others do not see or choose to ignore and always will look at the rest of the Military world with a respect for what they do; only grown in a lifetime of knowing. Never think for one moment you are escaping from that life. You are only escaping the 'job,' and merely being allowed to leave 'active' duty.

So what I wish for you is that whenever you ease into retirement, in your heart you never forget for one moment that 'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God,' and you are still a member of the greatest fraternity the world has ever known.

(Photo credit -- Unknown photographer captures one of many veterans attending a Teddy Kennedy speach, at a local Massachussetts VFW Post)

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-03-14T17:10:00.002-06:00

THIS WILL REALLY SCARE THE HECK OUT OF YOU - BUT DOWN DEEP YOU ALREADY REALIZE IT. THE QUESTION IS - WHAT TO DO?

(visit the web site at the end, and decide for yourself, how you can respond)

I got this from a friend--I had seen many of the statistics discussed in this short movie, but this puts it together very impressively.

I think we are in BIG trouble in America and I don't see much chance of stopping the decline.... Everyone needs to watch this movie....This is a poignant, yet chilling message. It's a "must watch" video, that lasts about 3 minutes, and needs to be forwarded all across America ! Don't leave the first screen, it will open automatically.

What kind of world are our future generations going to face? After the video finishes, click on "Enter The Site" -- scroll down halfway to see a map of the United States , that clearly defines where the Muslims have set up Al-Queada terrorist cells in all but a few states!

http://www.usawakeup.org/

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-03-06T08:06:00.003-07:00

The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.

His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his Followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a "Uniter." The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing.

Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. Barack Obama is no Billy Graham, however.

On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were Catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, But for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.

Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

· He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
· He voted No on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
· Supports affirmative action in colleges and government.
· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.
· Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and In college.
· His religious convictions are very murky.
· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il andMahmoud Ahmadinejad.
· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
· Opposed the Patriot Act.
· First bill he signed onto that was passed was campaign finance reform.
· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
· Supports universal health-care.
· Voted Yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal Immigrants.
· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
· Voted Yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
· Voted Yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
· Voted with Democratic party 96 percent of 251 votes.
· Is a big believer in the separation of church and State.
· Opposed to any efforts to privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax
· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not mention these facts to anyone. You have just rationalized your way through them, and told yourself they were just plain wrong, or didn't matter.

If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be Prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great country.

We have limited time to save America and her Supreme Court as we know them. Never forget that inaction is action. Don't lose sight of these facts, and be governed accordingly.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-02-23T09:22:00.003-07:00

Should we be worried?

Just a question that we should ponder, during the upcoming elections.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-02-23T09:05:00.002-07:00

Video of IED made of 155mm round, used by insurgent militia members, who fall victim to their own intelligence.

Four in Iraq militia decide to dig a 155 MM IED round out of the ground using their AK-47s to help excavate.

"Results?" I hear you ask... "You gotta be kidding me" is my reply.

http"//www.liveleak.com/player2.swf?token=18f_1201000704

God Bless our troops!

Dan'L

2008-02-23T08:26:00.003-07:00

What is the definition of the American Armed Forces Veteran?

A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - isSomeone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check madePayable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to andIncluding my life'That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who noLonger understand it.- Author Unknown

You may also enjoy the video at this site: http://www.tampa.defendersmc.org/public/reveille/reveille.html

God Bless Our Troops!

Dan'L

2008-02-10T10:10:00.000-07:00

Military Death Statistics for OUR SIDE

Bet you didn't know the following:

I surely did not..

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afganistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of US military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ........ 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 ........ 1,999
1988 ....... 1,819
1989 ........ 1,636
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .........1,787
1992 ........1,293
1993 ....... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 . . . . . . 8 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
1997 ......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 ......... 1,984
2000 ........ 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 ........ 1,007 . . . . . . 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 ........ 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ........ 919
2006.......... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war?

And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities.

These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities.

Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie.

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:

European descent (White) .... 69.12%

Hispanic ................................ 12.5%

Black..................................... 12.3%

Asian ..................................... 3.7%

Native American .................. . 1.0%

Other ..................................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) .... 74.31%

Hispanic ........................... 10.74%

Black ................................... 9.67%

Asian .............................. . 1.81%

Native American ................. 1.09%

Other .................................... . 33%

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf (Please look at this report site if you have the chance.)

Now ask yourself these two questions:

1. 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never provide statistics like these?'

2. 'Why does the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

You do the Math.

These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2008-01-30T13:33:00.000-07:00

Abraham Lincoln once wrote that if America were to ever fall, it would not be due to an enemy attacking us from without, but an enemy attacking us from within. Given his perspective of a nation torn asunder by the Civil War, his words are worth noting.

Islamic terrorism is, of course, a serious, global threat that we must – repeat, must – defeat. But there is another threat to our safety, security and liberty that we must also defeat – the threat of Cultural Jihad and how it is aided by the forces of “political correctness.”

Those of you who follow this issue closely know this is not new information. You know Cultural Jihad in Great Britain and France – aided by political correctness – is well advanced. You know it is on the march in Canada, to which the writer below refers, and it has taken root in America.
So it bears repeating, over and over, that we must be vigilant against the threat that lies within – a threat the writer below refers to as “Suicide by tolerance.” We must be vigilant to stand up and proudly defend the core values that produced the greatness of Western Civilization. For as another great American, Thomas Jefferson, wrote: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Suicide by Tolerance

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=9bc47f81-355d-4802-b2dd-d6b1d7a809c2&k=30870

Walt Kelly, the cartoonist and satirist once had his famous character Pogo say, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

In the clash between the West and Islam, that is increasingly true. We are our own worst enemy.

Those of us who care about the survival of Western civilization occasionally rage about the way Muslim organizations feign outrage in the media at the tiniest slight. We grind out teeth when those organizations file human rights complaints against the writings of the likes of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. We warn against our governments permitting the implementation of shariah law and against the insidious teachings of radical imams at mosques and Islamic community centres on our own continent.

But really, could radical Islamists take over unless our elites let them?

True, the Alberta human rights complaint against Levant was brought by something called the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), and the one against Steyn was initiated by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), both of which make it look as if Muslims are behind these attacks on our free speech.

Yet would either grievance have gone anywhere in the absence of government-sponsored, tax-supported agencies that encourage vocal advocacy groups to lodge formal complaints against their foes, and then pay their way?

Imagine the fleeting lives of such complaints in the absence of laws -- passed by liberal Western politicians, not professional Muslim cause-pleaders --granting them legitimacy?

The Syed Soharwardys (ISCC head) and Mohammad Elmasrys (CIC boss) of the world might rail on to a sympathetic reporter or two about the indignations the Levants and Steyns are causing their religion, but without the backing of modern Western governments and the politically correct functionaries who pull their levers, open their money spigots and crack their whips, such complainants would be trees falling in the forest with no one there to hear. For most readers, listeners and viewers the response would be turn the page, switch the station, flip the channel.

It wasn't the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIRCAN) that sent chief CIBC economist Jeff Rubin for Muslim sensitivity training three years ago after a bank financial report offended the particularly pugnacious, litigious Muslim organization. It was Rubin's fearful, PC bosses at CIBC.

Yes, CAIR-CAN, the CIC and the ISCC delight in taking full advantage of the official avenues open to them to criticize and intimidate their foes, but they didn't create those avenues and there is little they could do if our governments and politically correct corporations decided to close them tomorrow.

The best example of what I mean surfaced this week from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency ( BECTA).

Shoo Fly publishers of Newcastle has produced a very innovative, interactive software version of the Three Little Pigs -- a 3D book designed to encourage young children to develop critical thinking abilities. It has won several awards, but was not approved by BECTA because "the use of pigs raises cultural issues." In particular, the company was told, "Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community," out of concern the pig images would be upsetting.

British papers were instantly filled with headlines such as "PC gone mad! Muslims devour Little Red Riding Hood."

But, of course, Muslims had done no such thing. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain told the Daily Telegraph, "We are not offended by that at all," and called on British schools to welcome the books.

I am not saying radical Muslims pose no threat to our way of life. Of course if fundamentalist Muslims had their way we would all become converts, or at the very least servile dhimmi living at the whim of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims who protested in the Western world two winters ago against the Danish cartoons of Muhammad were not driven by our own PC elites to take to the streets carrying signs with slogans such as "Death to those who dishonour the Prophet."

Still, their fundamentalist vision would go nowhere legally, culturally or politically without our governments, politicians, bureaucrats and experts bending over backwards to appear sensitive and reasonable.

Call it suicide by tolerance. The Western world with its institutions of democracy and the rule of law, with its advances in science and medicine, its progress in individual liberty, its historic devotion to reason and its developments in culture and the arts will disappear because its own elites could not be proud enough of its achievements to defend it from within.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008-01-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

I presume that I am not the only one to question the obviously very exaggerated and completely illogical media reports of Iraqi casualties? Here is the source and the motivation. I hope all will read. It is beyond comprehension how the media could air this because it is so impossible. The merest thought process would expose it as a fabrication.

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby011408.php3

God Bless,
Dan'L

2008-01-14T09:42:00.000-07:00

Here are some interesting numbers from the Iowa Caucuses.

If you listened to the Main Stream Media, there was a TERRIFIC TURNOUT for Democrats at the Iowa Caucuses AND MAJOR CHANGE is in the wind.All FOUR of the TOP Republican Candidates EACH exceeded the TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST for ALL Democrats.

In fact, it appears that NO Democrats even bothered to show up in Nine of the 1781 Iowa Precincts.

All 1781 Precincts reported Republican votes.

THERE WERE ALMOST 9 TIMES THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES VERSES THE DEMOCRAT CAUCUSES.

Democrats & Republicans
Obama 4688 Huckabee 40841
Edwards 4194 Romney 29949
Clinton 4089 Thompson 15904
Richardson 298 McCain 15559
Biden 147 Paul 11817
Dodd 4 Guiliani 4097
Kucinich 0 Hunter 524
Gravel 0 Tancredo 5

Total Votes 13420 118696

WHY DIDN'T THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA REPORT THESE NUMBERS? THEY WOULDN'T BE BIASED WOULD THEY? THEY WOULDN'T BE AFRAID THIS WOULD MAKE DEMOCRATS LOOK BAD WOULD THEY?Looks like it is time to change a popular phrase. New version: "There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Main Steam Media Reports."

God Bless,
Dan'L

2007-12-30T15:57:00.000-07:00

Confused? Read this:

Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

After doing the necessary research, I now find that propaganda to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

http ://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school Education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayer:.

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the southern
border. Homeland Security Report:

http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin:

http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly one million sex Crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States:

http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

Are we THAT stupid???

If this doesn't bother you then just forget about reading this message.

If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward the link to my blog to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof. Or just cut and paste it into an e-mail..

God Bless,
Dan'L

2007-12-30T12:28:00.000-07:00

Free Comments & Graphics

2007-12-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

As California goes, so goes the rest of the country.

Open Your Eyes!

This just in from the L.A.Times

Interesting, and this is only one State out of all fifty. . . . . (But we should remember that this is the Speaker of the House's state! ---- The one who works in Washington, D.C.)

If this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will:

From the Los Angeles Times:

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.

(There are 10.2 million people in Los Angeles County alone, not including the highly populated San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura, or Orange County or the six other counties of Southern California).

(All of the above are facts printed, and supported, by the Los Angeles Times -- you have to imagine the statistics from counties other than Los Angeles.)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are a nation of fools for letting this continue. Electing someone to replace the Speaker of the House would be a step in the right direction, as would eschewing all candidates for President who cannot articulate a viable plan to handle the illegal immigration issue.

WHY CAN'T WE SEND THEM HOME?

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

First, send an e-mail link to this website to at least two other people, . . . .100 or more, would be even better. Everyone should keep this in mind, as we approach the election season. If we don't, we are fools!

God Bless
Dan'L

2007-12-17T15:52:00.000-07:00

Drafting Guys over 60
New Direction for the war on terrorists.

(Special Thanks to my buddy, Jeff, for sending this brilliant idea)

'Send Prior Service Vets over 60 '

I am over 60 and the Armed Forces thinks I'm too old to track down terrorists. (You can't be older than 42 to join the military.)

They've got the whole thing backwards. Instead of sending 18-year-olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able to join a military unit until you're at least 35.

For starters:
Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.

Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. 'My back hurts! I can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry!'

We are impatient and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.

An 18-year-old doesn't even like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell. Besides, like I said, 'I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical son-of-a-bitch.

If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser.

Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we like soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.

They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training. I can hear the Drill Sgt. now, 'Get down and give me er ... one.'

Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy, too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.

These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way.

Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten cowards who attacked us on September 11. The last thing an enemy would want to see right now is a couple of million pissed off old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
If nothing else, put us on the border and we will have it secured the first night. Share this with your senior friends. It's purposely in big type so you can read it.

God Bless,
Dan'L

(Thanks again Jeff)

2007-12-15T21:48:00.000-07:00

PLEASE READ THE TEXT BELOW BEFORE YOU OPEN THE VIDEO ATTACHMENT!

Canadian Snipers

Video of Canadian snipers wiping out Taliban snipers in Afghanistan. The video shots were not made through the shooter's telescopic sight -- They were made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right next to the sniper and helps the sniper find and home in on the target.

Canadian snipers fire special 50 cal. McMillan tactical rifles which are bolt-action weapons with five-round magazines. The .50 cal. Round is about eight inches long and about an inch in diameter. The bullet itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long.

Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban sniper is lying on top of the peak in front of you, . . . when you hear the shot fired watch closely what happens. Replay the video if you need to, in order to see the action, at the point of impact. Remember, . . . . the Canadian sniper is about a half-mile from the target.

A Canadian sniper in Afghanistan has been confirmed as hitting an enemy soldier at a range of 2,310 meters, at the time the longest recorded and confirmed sniper shot in history. The previous record of 2,250 meters was set by U.S. Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam in 1967. The Canadian sniper was at an altitude of 8,500 feet and the target, across a valley, was at 9,000 feet. Canadian sniper units often operate in support of US infantry units, which are very grateful for their help. The record lasted only one day, until another Canadian sniper hit an enemy soldier at 2,400 meters (8000 feet).

The Canadian snipers were the only Canadian troops operating without helmets or flak jackets as they had too much other equipment to carry. Each three-man team has one sniper rifle and three standard Canadian C7 rifles, one of which is equipped with a 203mm grenade launcher.

God Bless Our Troops,

Dan'L

2007-12-15T15:51:00.000-07:00

Tokyo Rose

The other night we watched a movie called, "Flags of our Fathers." During the movie, I pointed out the radio broadcast of " Tokyo Rose"

She had the best music on her station. During World War II the Japanese developed a way todemoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt wouldwork.

They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she wouldbroadcast this same message packaged in different ways. The Japanese hoped it would have a negativeimpact on the American GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message?

It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.

2. This war is illegal.

3. You cannot win the war

Does this sound familiar today? It is because we are being bombarded by Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo Obama, Tokyo Nancy, Tokyo Murtha, etc., etc. . . . and they have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc., to our troops.

The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. . . . . . Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too.

Think about it!

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-12-12T18:58:00.000-07:00

Another Moron Celebrity
Brittany's got nothin' on the Lead Stoner

Filed under: Men's Health, Celebrities

He's 64 and a father to seven kids with four different women, but that hasn't deterred Mick Jagger from wanting to become a father again with current gal pal L'Wren Scott. And the skinny senior has apparently adopted a new healthy diet to increase his fertility odds, according to this article.

What's on his list of must-have fertility foods? Avocados, for one. They're believed by the Aztecs to improve men's sexual prowess. He's also drinking lots of goji berry juice, which is known in some circles as 'fruit Viagra.'

I've never heard of either of these being good for fertility, but hey -- whatever works.

The author of this little news blurb, asks, "What do you think of Mick's fertility plans?"

You really shouldn't ask me that. I specialize in the investigation of people who can easily be described as "less than wholesome parents." I've seen the gamut from complete wastes of protoplasm dead-beat dads, to mothers who would rather have a drink, or smoke a joint, or see some waste of protoplasm boyfriend, than to spend even a few minutes of quality time with their own child/children.

I'm also in the process of putting together a book on the subject, which we hope to be ready to present to the publishers by the second week of February of 2008. My co-author is my partner and significant other, Cindy Sorensen. She is an accredited Criminal Profiler, not unlike those FBI agents, you see on the CBS hit television show, "Criminal Minds." She is one of 236 accredited profilers, nationally.

In the early 1950s, as a nation, we began to excuse the behavior of mothers who wanted to increase their standard of living, by taking a job outside the home, calling it a "career." Through incrementalism, we have softened our national position on these matters, with absolutely no thought of what it has done to the children.

When a child goes into the institutionalization of "day care," the parents are promised the world, when it comes to how their pride and joy will be cared for, doted over, fed, diapers changed, loved, played with, and mommy goes away with a real warm-fuzzy about having done the right thing. Not so much!

Truth is, the day care industry has few governmental controls in most jurisdictions, and even less, in the remainder. All of them tell their clients what the clients want to hear, when it comes time to sign on the dotted line. In reality the care provided is less than optimum, and could NEVER match that of a real parent, no matter what.

That same incrementalism is what led to the recent homicidal maniac named Robbie Hawkins, to kill eight innocent people, and wound five others, before killing himself, in what any normal-thinking human being would call, "a tremendously callous act of cowardice." Fact is, he didn't see it that way. He thought that he'd be admired, . . . and even scarier, . . . HE IS!

Even though he's dead, he is admired by his peers, a group of kids that grew up under very similar circumstances. A group of kids that went into foster care, or the day care institutionalization, at an early age, who grew up in a broken home, divided by a completely clueless court system, to live with BOTH mom and dad, . . . not knowing what it's like to have your own room, to sleep in the very same bed every night, . . . who grew up knowing that they didn't have a value that would be equivalent to that of their parents standard of living.

A whole generation of children have grown up under nearly identical circumstances, and they're allowed to play violent video games to the point of addiction, and they live in a world of complete fantasy, with practically no consequences for their actions, except to hear a few notes of sinister music, accompanied by the words, "Game Over!" But, guys like Robbie Hawkins don't get the opportunity to play again, as his parents threw him away when he was three years of age, and the system of government that took responsibility for him, completely dropped the ball. Thirteen fellow citizens paid a very high price for those mistakes, and we need to hold someone responsible.

Robbie Hawkins was a textbook example of what has happened to the fabric of our society, through the implementation of a very liberal approach to the responsibilities of parenthood. I fear that the Mick Jaggers and Brittany Spears of this world are creating a new set of role models for the children of our perpetuity to look up to. Do you suppose they have given any thought to those aspects of parenthood?

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-12-09T15:55:00.000-07:00

In Memory of Cousin Mike

Michael D. Mattox, age 57, longtime Council Bluffs Fire Fighter, passed away December 8, 2007 at his home.

Michael was born in Council Bluffs on February 22, 1950 to Stephen A and Charlene Holly Mattox.

Mike graduated from Abraham Lincoln High School in 1968. He joined the Fire Department and spent 33 years on the Council Bluffs Fire Department retiring in 2005.

Mike and wife Carol Robinson Mattox were married on June 26, 1976. During Mike's life, he was active in Boy Scouts, served as treasurer for 20 plus years for Local 15 Fire Fighters Union, served on the board of the United Credit Union, was past Grand Marshall of the Pride Day Parade, was a team member of Circle Of Friends Relay for Life Team, member of Iowa Professional Fire Fighters and loved trivia.

Mike is survived by wife, Carol, sons, Adam and Stephen, all of Council Bluffs, Mathew and wife Karris, of Waterloo, Iowa, brother, Stephen E Mattox and wife Pat, of Houston, Texas. He is preceded in death by his parents. Visitation Tuesday 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Cutler-O'Neill-Meyer-Woodring Funeral Home. Memorial services Wednesday 11:00 a.m. also at funeral home. Luncheon to follow immediately at St. Peters Social Hall.

Family suggest memorials to Circle Of Friends Relay For Life Team.

Mike made his mark on his community. He was a hero as a firefighter. He will be missed by thousands.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-12-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

Shattered Soul

Wednesday, December 05, 2007: Omaha Nebraska woke up today with wall-to-wall coverage of a visit from President George W. Bush, today. All local programming was pre-empting the regular daily fare on television and radio. Later, that silliness is broken by the sound of gunfire inside one of Omaha's upscale shopping centers, in one of the most upscale stores. At 1:44 p.m., the shots rang out, leaving thirteen innocent victims in the wake of terror on the second and third floors of the Von Maur store at Westroads mall. Suddenly, a young man who had been a nobody all his life; self-described as a "burden" on his family, and bent on making his mark, and "going out in style," had pre-empted the Presidential visit -- pre-empted the pre-emptor, if you will. He was making one, final mark on the society that had let him down. From mid-afternoon on Wednesday, to late Friday night, nearly all local programming was directed at the now-recognized new World Record for Mass-Murders in a Shopping Mall,

Then, on Saturday, December 8, the Online version of the Council Bluffs, Iowa "Daily Nonpareil" carried a banner for a reader poll. It read as follows:

Do you think there is anything that can be done to prevent tragedies such as the Westroads Mall shootings?

Yes, more gun control.
No, gun control isn't the problem.
Yes, more education and programs for troubled youths.
Yes, family members should be there to help.
I agree that some of the above will help.
I don't know that anything can be done to stop similar shootings.

Allow me to submit that there ARE certainly solutions to the many issues that come forth, after such a tragic event as a World's Record Mass Murder for Shopping Malls.

It becomes apparent in the aftermath investigations that the perpetrator was a shattered soul, who has suffered innumerable trauma, in both the physical and mental senses, and was a disconnected child, after becoming a foster child at age three. His life's history show that he had been abandoned, time and time again, and that the outcome of those traumatic events leads to a special kind of mental illness, that he really had very little control over.

Now, I'm not saying that the gunman wasn't responsible for his actions, but the most important people in his life had let him down in really special ways, that led to his becoming a sociopath, and ultimately a psychopathic personality, who had a genuine need to be noticed for once in his life. He found a way to make his mark, and because of all the mistakes that had left their marks on his psyche, he decided to select a day when the most powerful man in the world was in town, and he selected one of the most upscale stores he could think of, and he may have even tried to time the event, so that it would have the most impact on what he perceived to be the kind of people he had developed a special hatred for.

He was what some talking heads would call "a very troubled, yet normal, child, who just apparently lost his way," (actual quote, used by a local television station, the night of the tragedy). In reality, he was the product of a broken home, a terrible divorce, and two parents who either didn't want him, at age three, or couldn't handle him, at that horrible age. As his life progressed, he became part of a system that "treats," but cannot "cure" issues such as his, mostly because there's no money in a "cure," yet the dollars keep a steady flow, when "treatments" abound. The actual welfare of the patient is truly the least of the concerns of those in charge of that system. These events indicate that the system needs to be changed, and new methodology found, to educate young parents that there are consequences to a marriage gone awry, there are young victims who are innocent of wrong-doing, in many of those cases, and the ramifications of abandoning children is a life-long trauma that it's rare to overcome.

Interesting that every single madman of late, (over the past twenty years), who took a gun, and decided to kill innocent people, whether we understand that he/she wanted to make a point, was, at some point, addicted to violent video games -- no exceptions -- every single case, from Columbine to Portland, OR to Virginia Tech, to Florida to Omaha's Westroads Mall. One would think that would be common knowledge, but it's not. We also learned that Robbie Hawkins was a "gamer," and that he enjoyed a number of different video games. Any bets on whether they were of the violent variety?

Given that foresight could be as clear as hindsight, the case of Robbie Hawkins is an absolute textbook example of an emotionally disconnected child, who grew up to become a monster that no one is willing to accept responsibility for, . . . yet there are evidentiary tracks that point toward a number of people and institutions who should have owned more of the task they are, . . . . or WERE, charged with.

Let's face it people, . . . since the early 1950s, the liberal approach to the American lifestyle has been to allow anyone who's a parent to work outside the home, a traditionally MALE role, so that the standard of living could be raised to new levels. The approach creates a need for what we now call "day care." I've even heard parents justify the use of day care as the reason for needing a second, or even a third vehicle, and therefore the need for Mom to work outside the home -- leaving the chore of motherhood to someone else.

Just this past week, our agency met with a client and his attorney, to familiarize them with a psychological strategy for trial, in a divorce and custody matter. We were told that the courts now hold that the use of multiple day care providers is a perfectly acceptable approach to custody decrees, nowadays. This is SOOOOOOO tragic. Imagine, as an adult, having to spend every night at a different motel, in a different city, in a different environment. Now, imagine that you have a language and customs issue added to the mix, to make it interesting. That's what it's like for a child to have to spend his/her day going from day-care to day care, never knowing what the sheets will feel like, how long you can sleep, what is to eat, how your body will accept it, or what is expected of you, how you should respond to any given input, and all under differing conditions of all sorts. This is complicated by the fact that a child is always in the learning mode, adjusting to different people, defining personal needs, (most of which are very basic, and very, very necessary), and compounded by the lack of the love and adoration of a loving parent, when you really need them. Sometimes you just have to wonder if judges and attorneys have any souls, themselves. They certainly have been jaded to the point of losing the ability to ask basic questions and apply common sense, when it comes to giving parental advice.

Last week, we noticed that a local prosecutor has dismissed numerous charges against a man with a history of pedophilia, leaving in place one charge of "lascivious acts with a child," as a matter of plea bargain. the news story said that the prosecutor had "been in contact with the families of the victims of the charges that were being dismissed." Phooey! It's also acceptable for the courts to just release these dangerous people onto the streets of our cities and towns, to find more victims, sometime in the future. Apparently it's just NOT common knowledge that pedophilia is an INCURABLE mental condition, and that there are no psychologists who can come forward to present documented evidence of a cured case of pedophilia, IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY! But, our courts find the situation untenable, and don't know what else to do.

Maybe those judges are in the wrong business. Maybe the fact that there are NO CASES of mass murders committed in public places where violent video games played NO part, will become en grained on the minds of attorneys and judges, all across our great country, and our legislators will find a way to make these things illegal.

But it would be so much easier, if parents would just BE parents, instead of working on their own narcissistic behaviors, and increasing their standards of living, beyond what they can afford, at the expense of their children. And, . . . . the cycle continues to degenerate into more mass murders and more shattered souls.

By centering our children in the "day-care environment," and diminishing all family values, . . . by abandoning our children to a corrupt system of governmental supervision of mental health and the internal cash-flow of that system, we have created a new generation of kids who have no real value for life, . . . who will just as soon kill someone, in order to be noticed, . . . who really have no reason to live, because their parents threw them away, in favor of a higher standard of living. We as a society will pay the price for such a liberal approach to parental responsibility. there will be more of these killings, and more clueless television reporters making mindless jabber, about "normal, yet troubled, kids; who have just lost their way."

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-11-21T20:19:00.000-07:00

The story of the first Thanksgiving

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out. "The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" That was thought injustice. "Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?" 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.

"The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" Now, aside from this blog, have you heard this before? Is this "being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this?" What if the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton had been exposed to these lessons in school? Do you realize what we face in next year's election is the equivalent of people who want to set up these original collectivists communes that didn't work, with nobody having incentive to do anything except get on the government dole somehow because the people running the government want that kind of power. So the Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune. And that's Thanksgiving.

And every American should read George Washington's first Thanksgiving address and count the number of times God is mentioned and how many times he's thanked. None of this is taught today. It should be. Have a happy Thanksgiving, folks. You deserve it. Do what you can to be happy, and especially do what you can to be thankful, . . . . because in this country you have more reasons than you've ever stopped to consider.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-11-16T17:33:00.000-07:00

ACLU, Muslim Groups ResistAnti-terror Measures Again

The Los Angeles Police Department announced plans Thursday to map Muslim communities, hoping to identify people who might be liable to succumb to – as Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing put it – “violent, ideologically based extremism.” Downing said that the LAPD would work with a Muslim partner, and added: “We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities.”

The ACLU of Southern California, an association of Muslim lawyers called Muslim Advocates, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California and the Council on American Islamic Relations wrote to Downing that “singling out individuals for investigation, surveillance, and data-gathering based on their religion constitutes religious profiling that is just as unlawful, ill-advised and deeply offensive as racial profiling.” And also, “the mapping of Muslim communities...seems premised on the faulty notion that Muslims are more likely to commit violent acts than people of other faiths.” [emphasis added]

Of course they aren’t: that’s why we see Presbyterians blowing themselves up in crowded restaurants, Buddhists flying planes into buildings, and Amish waving placards crowing that they will soon dominate the world. The mapping of Muslim communities is sensible in light of the violent acts committed around the world – over 9,000 separate attacks since 9/11 – in the name of Islam. But political correctness has kept law enforcement officials (and the media) from asking the hard questions they should ask of Muslim leaders in the United States. Absurdities abound. One police official lamented: “We’ll come back from a Kumbayah meeting with a local mosque and realize that these guys who just agreed to help us are in our terror files!” Cleveland Muslim leader Fawaz Damra signed the Fiqh Council of North America’s condemnation of terrorism — and was later deported for failing to disclose his ties to terrorist groups. [emphasis added]. Damra was never expelled from his communities in Brooklyn, New York, or Cleveland despite having said at a 1989 Islamic conference that “the first principle is that terrorism, and terrorism alone, is the path to liberation.”

Peaceful American Muslims have not moved to expose, expel, or separate themselves from those who hold such sentiments. [emphasis added]. There is no wall of separation in the American Muslim community between Muslims who accept American pluralism and want to live ordinary lives and those who hold to the ideology of jihad and the subjugation of infidels held by Osama bin Laden. And authorities have not investigated the presence of such sentiments at all, despite the fact that they could be a reliable indicator of who might commit violent acts in the future and who might not.

Are there really jihadist sympathizers in American mosques? Yes. Sahim Alwan, a onetime leader of the Yemeni community in Lackawanna, New York and president of the mosque there, has the distinction of being the first American to attend an Al Qaeda training camp. Maher Hawash’s transition from secular Intel exec to jihadist was accompanied by an increase in his Islamic fervor and frequent mosque attendance.

This doesn’t mean that every Muslim in the United States is secretly plotting a jihad attack. But would it really be wise to risk everything on the assumption that none are?

The outrage of the ACLU and the Muslim groups over “the faulty notion that Muslims are more likely to commit violent acts than people of other faiths” founders on the fact that many Muslim groups have actually declared their desire to commit violent acts in the United States. We would be foolish – suicidally so – not to take all necessary steps to protect ourselves accordingly. If American Muslim groups were genuinely concerned about the unfair targeting of Muslims, they could direct their efforts to making concerted efforts to work with law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists in the United States, and to turn Muslims in America away from the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism. [emphasis added].

The fact that they do not do this, and instead work against genuine efforts to protect this country from a catastrophic attack, is revelatory. Despite their complaints, this mapping should continue, and expand.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-11-08T11:17:00.000-07:00

TWO Dodges

Yessiree, I've now acquired two Dodge pickip trucks, and I love both of them. Each has its own characteristics that make it special to me, but for their intended uses, they perform any task I ask, with all my trust, due to their dependability, strength, reliability, design characteristics and engineering.

Both have unique traits that make it special for me, not withstanding the attractive styling and high quality of materials and workmanship of the American Auto Worker built into each one. As you may have noticed, in February of this year, I bought the 2005 Dodge Ram 1500 SRT-10, with it's big V-10 engine and high performance tires as a fun truck to drive, and show off with. It now has just over 7,000 miles, and sits happily in my garage, covered by a taylor-made, special polyester cover, waiting for springtime, when it will roll out onto the driveway for its first 2008 cruise.

The daily driver is the 2004 Dodge Dakota Quad-Cab. It's 4.7 liter engine, (287 cubic inches for you old-school guys), does pretty well as a daily driver. It has just over 50,000 miles, and was a repossession item, acquired from the original lender, after three successful reposession assignments from it's only other owner. Although it was abused in its previous life, the minor body damage was repaired by the professional body-shop guys at Searle Body Shop in Omaha, NE. Previously owned by a man who was apparently a very good employee, (having a great evaluation by his supervisors, and never missing a day's work in over ten years), he was also a drunk, and didn't drive very well, once he had imbibed his daily limit. Consequently, some minor body damage was incurred, and had to be repaired, once we had title to the Dakota. After an additional $1300 in minor repair jobs, covering all four sides of the truck, we now have a great little daily driver, with plenty of capacity for being a very good work truck for years to come. I always called the Quad-Cabs with the nick-name, "Sissy Trucks."

No More.

This thing is anything but a panty-waist. It has four-wheel drive, and 265/75/R16 tires mounted on factory cast-aluminum wheels, (three of which have some small degree of road-rash, due to the previous owner's inability to judge where his tires were, while he was violating the DUI laws), and a towing package, as well as ice-cold air-conditioning, 4-speed automagic transmission, power everything, (except seats), and my add-on Garmin Navigation, (via Garmin dash-mounted model S530), and new tires and brakes all around. I even acquired a spare 16-inch spare wheel, matching the cast originals, to mount the spare tire, located under the rear bumper, on a crank-down cable. The driving lights were missing in action, when I got the truck, so I replaced them, also. They are attached to the original wiring harness, and operate just like the originals, from the headlight switch. I added several accessories, to include a bed net tie-down system, several tow chains/straps, and upgraded jack/wrench combinations. Interior additions include a halogen rechargable Mag-Charger flashlight, stainless steel dash trim, and a Glow-Master lighted gauge cluster that improves the look of the original dashboard gauges.

I also added an air-horn from the folks over at Harbor Freight. It sounds much better than the original wimpy factory horn.

Additions for the SRT-10 have been limited to changing the door/tailgate handles from black plastic to stainless steel/aluminum and the addition of bright stainless mirror covers, to highlight the factory black plastic rear view mirror housings, and a couple of very fancy license plate frames, just to accent the Nebraska University Vanity Plates that read "SRT-10," and a racing-style gas door made of polished billet aluminum, and bright stainless steel tailight frames.

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-11-04T09:46:00.000-07:00

You aren't going to believe this.

Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds!

Alas, it is true -- all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening.

Take special note of the last paragraph. Is she really this whacked out?

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as '...just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer.'

"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class."

She went on to say, "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets."

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded, "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs. There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class. Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income t o flow to the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401Ks, and the stock market she replied, "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous. How much of this 'trickle down' ever gets to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich, and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower income tax payers off the rolls and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities.

For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profit taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as Americans."

Use this link to send all your friends to see what this lady is trying to do to their money:

http://herkimer-snurd.blogspot.com/

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-10-25T12:05:00.000-06:00

You Ain't Gonna Like Losing

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter.

The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty.

Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in.

Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and
entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted. And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.

A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 911, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam.

It has been estimated that about one-third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.

So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war.

The military is at war.

America is at the mall.

2007-09-14T06:46:00.000-06:00

To my fellow police officers, former, active, and retired; this one really hits home.

You're Not A Cop Until You Taste Them

Author unknown

The department was all astir, there was a lot of laughing and joking due to all the new officers, myself included, hitting the streets today for the first time. After months of seemingly endless amounts of classes, paperwork, and lectures we were finally done with the Police Academy and ready to join the ranks of our department.

All you could see were rows of cadets with huge smiles and polished badges. As we sat in the briefing room, we could barely sit still anxiously awaiting our turn to be introduced and given our beat assignment or, for the lay person, our own portion of the city to "serve and protect," It was then that he walked in. A statue of a man - 6 foot 3 and 230 pounds of solid muscle, he had black hair with highlights of gray and steely eyes that make you feel nervous even when he wasn't looking at you. He had a reputation for being the biggest and the smartest officer to ever work our fair city.

He had been on the department for longer than anyone could remember and those years of service had made him into somewhat of a legend.

The new guys, or "rookies" as he called us, both respected and feared him. When he spoke, even the most seasoned officers paid attention. It was almost a privilege when one of the rookies got to be around when he would tell one of his police stories about the old days. But we knew our place and never interrupted for fear of being shooed away. He was respected and revered by all who knew him.

After my first year on the department I still had never heard or saw him speak to any of the rookies for any length of time. When he did speak to them all he would say was, "So, you want to be a policeman, do you hero? I'll tell you what, when you can tell me what they taste like, then you can call yourself a real policeman."

This particular phrase I had heard dozens of times. Me and my buddies all had bets about "what they taste like" actually referred to. Some believed it referred to the taste of your own blood after a hard fight. Others thought it referred to the taste of sweat after a long day's work. Being on the department for a year, I thought I knew just about everyone and everything.

So one afternoon, I mustered up the courage and walked up to him. When he looked down at me, I said "You know, I think I've paid my dues. I've been in plenty of fights, made dozens of arrests, and sweat my butt off just like everyone else. So what does that little saying of yours mean anyway?"

With that, he merely stated, "Well, seeing as how you've said and done it all, you tell me what it means, hero." When I had no answer, he shook his head and snickered, "rookies," and walked away.

The next evening was to be the worst one to date. The night started out slow, but as the evening wore on, the calls became more frequent and dangerous. I made several small arrests and then had a real knock down drag out fight. However, I was able to make the arrest without hurting the suspect or myself.

After that, I was looking forward to just letting the shift wind down and getting home to my wife and daughter.

I had just glanced at my watch and it was 11:55, five more minutes and I would be on my way to the house. I don't know if it was fatigue or just my imagination, but as I drove down one of the streets on my beat, I thought I saw my daughter standing on someone else's porch. I looked again but it was not my daughter as I had first thought, but merely a small child about her age. She was probably only six or seven years old and dressed in an oversized T-shirt that hung to her feet. She was clutching an old rag doll in her arms that looked older than me. I immediately stopped my patrol car to see what she was doing outside her house at such an hour by herself. When I approached, there seemed to be a sigh of relief on her face. I had to laugh to myself, thinking she sees the hero policeman come to save the day. I knelt at her side and asked what she was doing outside.

She said "My mommy and daddy just had a really big fight and now mommy won't wake up." My mind was reeling. Now what do I do? I instantly called for backup and ran to the nearest window. As I looked inside I saw a man standing over a lady with his hands covered in blood, her blood. I kicked open the door, pushed the man aside and checked for a pulse, but unable to find one. I immediately cuffed the man and began doing CPR on the lady.

It was then I heard a small voice from behind me, "Mr. Policeman, please make my mommy wake up." I continued to perform CPR until my backup and medics arrived but they said it was too late. She was dead. I then looked at the man. He said, "I don't know what happened. She was yelling at me to stop drinking and go get a job, and I had just had enough. I just shoved her so she would leave me alone, and she fell and hit her head."

As I walked the man out to the car in handcuffs, I again saw that little girl. In the five minutes that has passed, I went from hero to monster. Not only was I unable to wake up her mommy, but now I was taking daddy away too.

Before I left the scene, I thought I would talk to the little girl. To say what, I don't know. Maybe just to tell her I was sorry about her mommy and daddy. But as I approached, she turned away and I knew it was useless and I would probably make it worse.

As I sat in the locker room at the station, I kept replaying the whole thing in my mind. Maybe if I would have been faster or done something different, just maybe that little girl would still have her mother. And even though it may sound selfish, I would still be the hero.

It was then that I felt a large hand on my shoulder. I heard that all too familiar question again, "Well, hero, what do they taste like?" But before I could get mad or shout some sarcastic remark, I realized that all the emotions had flooded the surface and there was a steady stream of tears cascading down my face. It was at that moment that I realized what the answer to his question was.... Tears.

With that, he began to walk away, but he stopped. "You know, there was nothing you could have done differently," he said. "Sometimes you can do everything right and still the outcome is the same. You may not be the hero you once thought you were, but now you ARE a police officer."

For the Christian ~ "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev 21:4

You're Not A Cop Until You Taste Them

________________________________

May God Bless you all -- Be safe out there!

Dan'L

2007-09-12T07:32:00.000-06:00

This is an EXCELLENT essay; well thought out and presented by Raymond S. Kraft, a writer who has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials.

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.

America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.

The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.

Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs-they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe , then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra. (goal)

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East-for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win-the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC-not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades; Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to be killed here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945-a 17-year war-and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war.

WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP-adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater-a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons, unless some body prevents them from getting them.

We have four options . . . .

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if IranâEUR(tm)s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America

OR

4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years.

Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week-for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

The stakes are at least as high. . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why . . . . They would be killed.

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

God Bless America.

Dan'L

2007-04-18T07:32:00.000-06:00

Gun Laws in America

Horrible News

I watched the horrific news yesterday as so many of us did. Thirty-three dead. It was the largest number of dead in any shooting of its type at any educational institution in this nation’s history. I sat in horror, just as so many did.

This should have never happened. No such tragic event of this sort should ever happen. But human nature being what it is, this and others like it do happen and will again. I know that’s hard to swallow, but it’s true!

Let’s face it -- gun control played a great role in this. The rush to ban guns from campus, including law enforcement and everyone else, partly caused thirty-three dead.

Virginia is one of the majorities of states that restrict ANY armed person on campus, including peace officers. Although there are a few differences, Iowa and Nebraska both suffer similarities in the laws dealing with weapons in school zones and on campus. Yes, that’s right, even cops are not allowed to carry on campus. What kind of crazy stuff is that?

Thirty-two died while running, hiding, pleading, crying and dying. We have seen the news and know how bad it was in part at least. Running, hiding, pleading, crying, and dying does not make for a good defense. Making people have to react that way is a crime in itself!

No one helped those at Virginia Tech during the massacre. No one came to their rescue with a weapon of their own. No one returned fire.

I understand there was a great help after it was safe by medical students and others, but where were the heroes while the gun was blazing? I know where they were. They were either off campus, because they were not allowed on grounds if they had their weapon, or else they joined the other victims because they legally and lawfully locked their weapons in the trunks of their cars.

Gun control kills. Political correctness kills too.
This is what we saw in Virginia. Thirty-three dead!

Did the gun control law that said we don’t carry our LEGAL weapons save those in Virginia? No, it did not. The only people that followed the law left their guns at home. The only violator of the law was the gunman. That is the way it always works with gun control and political correctness.

BTW, for those that still think we need waiting periods because it will stem gun violence, they need to rethink it. The piece of excrement that gunned down the other thirty-two had his gun for well over a month. Then he took the cowardly way out and killed himself! So much for tough sentencing laws!

I have already seen and heard from the gun control groups and persons that want “more gun control to make our nation safer.” I hope those that think this way grow up real quick. Only the law abiding types will follow that kind of law. The bad guys do not care what the law says. In the state I live and work in we have about 160,000 people locked up in our prison system that figure they do not have to follow the law. Duh!!!!

And if any of you want me to believe you want some of those inmates/prisoners released because you think most of them are not so bad, maybe you will be so fortunate as to have them parole next door to you and your family. I figure you will have a quick change of heart.

Making Police PC
Are you aware that very many campus police are not allowed to carry a weapon on grounds and are yet expected to enforce laws on campus, including those when the bad guy has a gun?

OK, let’s see how that works. A bad guy shows up on campus (you know, the one that was not planning on following the no gun laws) while carrying his favorite illegally obtained handgun, shotgun, or rifle. The unarmed campus police officer, or other peace officer that is not allowed to carry his weapon on the politically correct campus is then expected to do what? Maybe he will tell the bay guy he will write him a ticket? Maybe he will threaten to pull his campus library card? No, I am afraid those things don’t work.

Let me tell you how making peace officers PC works. It does not.

People cried out that police used their handguns too often. So, they used batons more. People cried out that batons were too mean, and so they were told to use tasers. Tasers are now too evil so now what, they are to say, “Please Mr. Bad Guy, try to improve your behavior?” I don’t think so. That was tried in kindergarten. It did not work.

Side Note: If the LAPD had been still allowed to use a choke hold in the early 90’s, I don’t think the Rodney King thing would have ever happened quite the way it did.

Police Role/Citizen’s Role
The role of police is to do the best they can with the tools they have to “Serve and Protect” as we are told. Most of the ones I have met want to do exactly that. But the truth is, you can not take away the tools they have and expect them to function as the police.

Here is the other thing most of the PC types do not get. The police can not possibly be every place at once. And no one would want that. We as regular citizen’s have a responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, and to some degree, those around us.

Cain, (as in the one who killed his brother Able) asked once if he was his brother's keeper. When times are right, the answer is yes.

I bought and read a book a bit back called “Dial 911 and Die.” Wow, what a wake up call that simple book was.

The general premise of the book is to give the police the tools they need to do an effective job. But, ultimately YOU must be ready, because you may be the only help available.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment right to bears arms. More so, I believe it is a God Given right to defend myself and those around me.

For those that want gun control, I recommend brain control instead. It costs a lot less and is more effective in the end.

Now nobody can say for certain, but if it had been legal for students, employees or faculty members with permits to carry guns on the campus, is it at all possible that there might be some students alive today who didn't make it through the carnage? Do you think the actions of the Virginia General Assembly stopped the gunman from getting his guns and carrying them to the campus? Of course not. Reports are that the guns had their serial numbers scratched off. The were acquired outside of the normal channels of commerce and illegally carried to the Virginia Tech campus. The law meant nothing to the shooter. It meant something to the victims though, and perhaps that's why there wasn't one person anywhere near the shooter with a gun that might .. just might have been used for self defense.

There are those out there who think that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus is an absurd idea. Why so? Just how is a college campus that much different than our society as a whole? Diverse people living together in common environment pursuing different goals. Where's the big difference? What is so special about a college campus that students should not be allowed to own firearms? What if some student in the dormitory had a gun? What if he heard the argument in an adjoining room and had accompanied the student advisor when he went to quell the disturbance? Could that student with a gun have stopped this carnage before it even began? We'll never know. But is there anyone out there who can say for a certainty that the day might have played out quite differently?

Some of the less educated will come forth with lines of thought like "We don't want to return to the wild, wild west." Why not? What research have you put into your clever little "wild, wild west" line? Do you know anything about the actual crime rates in the so-called wild west? Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most American cities now? And why would that be? . . . Because people were armed, for one thing. People were armed, and the bad guys knew that people were armed. Tell me, . . . just what chance do you think a lone gunman would have had in those days in lining up people against a wall and then calmly picking them off one by one. No, . . . I'll tell you. Slim to none. Oh he might get off a shot or two, but by then he would be the object of some rather intensive target practice.

And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation? Again .. check the statistics. People with concealed carry permits are among the most law abiding people in the nation. Oops ... another little preconception shot to hell, so to speak.

Let me ask you another question. In fact, . . . let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? . . . Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? . . . Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm.

Now believe it or not, there ARE people out there (we generally call them “liberals”) who would say; "Oh no, I don't want anyone else to have a gun! They might try to shoot the killer and innocent people might get caught in the crossfire!" Well you can try to find a rational basis for that argument from now until hell freezes over, and you will fail. There is no rationality in that argument. It's an argument based in mindless hysteria.

Okay, now let's couch the argument a bit differently. Let's say you are the parent of a college student. You get a call from the campus police saying that your child is being held hostage in a classroom on the campus. The hostage-taker has a gun and has already shot one student. The police tell you that they have developed a plan whereby they are going to be able to sneak a gun into the hands of one of the students in the classroom, a student known to the police to be proficient in the use of a handgun. Before the police can take this step they need the unanimous consent of the parents of the students in that class. While you're thinking it over the hostage-taker executes another student. Okay, . . . your decision. What do you say? Are you going to say "No, I don't want any of those students to be armed. I don't care how qualified they are with a gun." Or are you going to allow the gun to be passed to the student.

Now if your answer is that you would allow the gun to be passed to the student, they please explain the rational for the position that the student in question should not have been permitted to have a gun in the first place with a concealed carry permit? You may have difficulty in understanding this, but it really is rather difficult to arm these students after the fact. And insofar as the shooter is concerned ...you do understand that there is no way in hell to have prevented him to come on to that campus with guns once he made up his mind to do so, don't you?

Here's another question for you to ponder. What if the Virginia legislature had passed HB 1572 and it had been signed into law? Then the shooter would have known that there was a strong likelihood that there would be some students, professors and administrators on the campus with a gun. Is there any chance at all that this might have caused the shooter to set aside his plans for carnage? Can you say for a certainty that things would have played out as they did?

Pray for the families of those that died needlessly. They did not deserve this. Pray for America and that we get over the political correctness demon, and begin to get it right.

Hopefully I will see some of you at the range!!!

God Bless,

Dan'L

2007-04-14T16:17:00.000-06:00

Well folks, . . . if you've known me for any length of time, you already know that I'm quite a motorhead. If you know anything about motorheads, you also know that we're kinda loyal to certain things from our experiences over the years, and as most motorheads will find a way of getting the things that they've always dreamed of getting, and I'm no different. I'm finally the proud owner of a brand new Dodge Ram 1500 SRT-10 pickup truck. I come into this windfall as the result of my 60th Birthday. It is a gift from the sweetest woman I've ever known, my dearest sweetheart, Cindy.

This thing has 505 cubic Inch V-10 engine, with 550 Horsepower at 5900 RPM and 575 pounds of torque at 4600 RPM, and it's driven through a six-speed manual transmission. It has a top speed of 158 mph. It's also got a really neat navagation system built into the radio that has an amplified woofer mounted directly behind the center arm rest that puts out 518 watts of stereo sound. It's flame red in color, as you can see, and it's the fastest thing I've ever owned, outside of one or two race cars. Billed by the folks at the Guinness Book of Records, it's supposed to be the world's fastest production pickup truck. I would venture to say that outside of a few very high priced exotic cars, costing thousands of dollars more, this thing will beat any vehicle normally seen on city streets in this part of the country, INCLUDING those silly looking Z-06 Corvettes. The tires are 305-40-YR22 Pirelli P-Zero Scorpions costing $396 each. Trust me when I tell you that this truck will stay up with any NASCAR race truck, up through all six gears, and have plenty left over, for the finish line.

Here are the factory published specifications for my truck, (keep in mind that I've made some minor modifications, such as headers and exhaust, as well as a couple of intake mods, and a different engine controller chip, to account for the differences):

Truck Specifications
Vehicle Type -- Two-seat, performance pickup
Engine
· Type: 10-cylinder, 90-degree V-type, liquid cooled
· Displacement: 8.3-liter (505 cu. in.)
· Horsepower: 500 bhp @5,600 rpm
· Torque: 525 lb.-ft. @4,200 rpm
Transmission
· Manual, six-speed with Hurst shifter mechanism and linkage
Dimensions
· Wheelbase: 120.5
· Box Length: 6'3"
· Track, Front: 68.5
· Track, Rear: 67.9
· Overall Length: 203.1
· Overall Width: 79.9
· Overall Height: 74.4
· Fuel Tank Capacity: 26 gal
· Curb Weight (estimated): 5,000 lbs.
Wheels and Tires
· Tires: Pirelli Scorpion Zero 305/40 YR 22
· Wheels: Forged aluminum "Viper-style" 22 x 10 inch
Performance (estimated)
· 0-60 mph 4.9 sec.
· 0-80 mph7.96 sec.
· Standing ¼ mile 12.8 sec. @111.2 mph
· Top Speed 156 mph

It's truly GREAT to be sixty years of age, and enjoying my second childhood!

God Bless,

Dan'L

2006-02-08T09:12:00.000-07:00

What's it like, living in the Land of Lunacy??

(February 08, 2006) - Let's say a guy pops into a neighborhood 7-11 and buys himself a tall cup of "Oh Thank Heaven" java. He drinks it while walking down the street, then tosses the empty cup on the sidewalk.

You're a cop and your city has decided to crack down on littering. So what do you do? Anywhere else on Planet Earth, you give the litterbug a citation and tell him to knock it off.

But we're talking about Oakland, California, here.

No, if you're in anti-business Oakland, California, you fine the 7-11 store which sold the cup of coffee in the first place. And every other 7-11 store, whether any of its patrons ever toss a food wrapper on the ground or not.

I'm serious. Oakland City Councilwoman Jane Brunner has proposed a new tax on fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to pay for cleaning up the city's streets. "It's not fair that the residents have to clean up after a fast-food establishment that's making a profit," Bruner tells the Associated Press. Apparently it's also unfair to make the litterbugs themselves pay for it, especially when there are greedy, deep-pocketed corporate devils raking in all that dough-re-mi out there.

You'll be shocked to learn that Ms. Brunner is an employment attorney who previously worked for the business-hating electrical workers union and who now provides sexual harassment training when she's not out stumping for "affordable" housing. Oh, and she's a former public school teacher.

What?? No tree-hugging??

Compounding this absurdity, it turns out that the worst litter problems reportedly occur around high schools and middle schools. According to Brunner, though, instead of taxing the schools whose "patrons" are the actual cause of the litter problem, she's going to launch an "education" program to teach students about the cost of littering.

And California wonders why the rest of the nation thinks they're a bunch of kooks?

Here's how you can contact Ms. Brunner; however, please remember that overheated and profane rhetoric actually makes US look like the wackos, so despite the idiocy of her ordinance, let's keep it civil . . . .

Councilwoman Jane Brunner
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
One City Hall Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: (510) 238-7001
Fax: (510) 238-6910

E-mail: jbrunner@oaklandnet.com
Staff e-mail: jhorner@oaklandnet.com or zwald@oaklandnet.com

2006-02-06T06:42:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't you like to see Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts questioning the Democrat Senators to determine their qualifications for Public office?

Just imagine matching the IQs of the Senators and the Judges!

The questions might go like this, . . . .

Judge Alito (JA): "Senator Kennedy, I see from your official resume that you attended Harvard University, . . . "

Senator Kennedy (SK): "Yes, Your Honor, I certainly did."

JA: "Did you graduate?"

SK: "Your Honor, I respectfully ask that you not pry into my personal life, . . . "

JA: "Is it not true that you were expelled from Harvard for violatingthe honor code, to wit, you hired someone to take an exam for you?"

SK: "Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record that I disagree with this line of questioning. I ask the chair to order the Judge from askingquestions about my private matters, . . . "

Senator Specter, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee: "Answer the Judge's questions. He answered all of yours, . . . "

JA: "Senator Kennedy, we have on hand a transcript of the session ofthe university's honor council attesting to your fraudulent examinationand subsequent expulsion from the university, . . . . "

SK: "I have had all I can take of this line of unreasonable questioning. (turning to his chief of staff, microphone still on), remind me to ask Al Gore how he managed to keep his early departure from Vanderbilt University Divinity School away from the eyes of these religious nuts..."

JA: "Wait, Senator Kennedy, I want to ask you about the 26 phone calls you made from a motel room the night Mary Jo Kopecne drowned in your car at Chappaquiddick, when you said you were asleep all night, . . . " [Kennedy shuffles his papers, stuffing them into an old leather briefcase, and flees the hearing room in a huff, with ten staffers in tow]

Senator Specter: "Chief Justice Roberts [CJR] will now interrogate Senator Biden [SB}, Democrat of Delaware, . . . "

CJR: "Senator Biden, is it not true that you were expelled from law school for plagiarizing another student's work?"

SB: "Wait, Ted, I am going with you, . . . " [Biden flees the hearing room]

Senator Specter: "Judge Alito will now interrogate Senator Feinstein, Democrat of California, . . . "

JA: "Senator Feinstein [SF], why did you vote for the former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan of West Virginia [Robert Byrd] to be the Democrat Senate Majority Leader in 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992?"

SF: "Wait, boys, I am going with you, . . . " [Feinstein flees the hearing room ]

Senator Specter: "Since Senator Schumer seems to be hiding under the table, I must adjourn, . . . . We stand in adjounment until our dear friends, (ahem, ), ummmmm, . . . . grow some cajones!

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-31T07:58:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006 1:02 a.m. EST

Bill Clinton Urges Dialogue with Hamas

Ex-president Bill Clinton is urging the U.S. to establish a dialogue with Hamas in the wake of its upset victory in last week's Palestinian parliamentary elections, saying it would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because they may have killed people "in a way that we hate."

"You've got to find a way to at least open doors," Clinton told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Saturday. "And I don't see how we can do it without more contact."

In quotes picked up by the Associated Press, Clinton said Hamas might "acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that."

He then complained: "One of the politically correct things in American politics ... is we just don't talk to some people that we don't like, particularly if they ever killed anybody in a way that we hate."

Addressing complaints that Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel, Clinton explained: "We need to be practical here . . . It took the Palestinian Authority years before they took [the same vow] out of their charter."

In comments reported by Agence France Press, the former president said there was a good chance, instead, that Hamas "may wind up like the IRA and Sinn Fein."
He also argued that Palestinians who voted for Hamas weren't necessarily endorsing the terror group's aims.

"For every one person who said they voted for Hamas because they wanted to see Israel destroyed, there were one hundred who said they just wanted a change and better life," he insisted.

***************************************************************

VRWC ANALYSIS: William Jefferson Clinton is making this ridiculous stand, against perennial U.S. Policy, as well as all conventional wisdom about negotiating with terrorists, or anyone who supports terror; in order for his wife to obtain a few million dollars from Arafat's minions, in campaign contributions, for her "non-campaign" for the White House in 2008. Anyone who thinks this isn't a distinct possibility, (or even a probability), hasn't many functional brain cells.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

A POODLE'S LAST GASP

Normally, I don’t like to cover dog-stories on VRWC, (especially the gruesome kind), but . . . .with United States Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is cruising toward confirmation, and expectations are that he’s to be confirmed next Tuesday, . . . enter the Poodle.

All indications are that all 55 Republican Senators will vote for him, and even a handful of Democrats, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. This one should be a slam-dunk. But the French-looking puppy-dog, and some other Democrats are steamed. You see, they put on a big show at the confirmation hearings, . . . but nobody cared.

They grilled Alito, he held up under fire and all the left succeeded in doing in those hearings was to make his wife cry. The Poodle is upset about that! John F. Kerry, who, by the way, is running for president in 2008, has decided it's time to make some political hay over the issue. He wants to filibuster the vote, currently scheduled for Tuesday morning at 11.

The only problem?? . . . . He doesn't have the votes!

Even none other than Illinois Senator Sticky Dicky Durbin observed as much: "One of the first responsibilities of someone in Congress is to learn how to count. Having made a count, I have come to the conclusion it is highly unlikely that a filibuster would succeed."

You can bet Sticky Dicky will have a wet finger in the air, if this comes to fruition, . . . So there sits The Poodle, . . . twisting in the wind. Just like his 2004 presidential campaign, . . . he just can't get any respect.

He did bring up Ann Coulter's name on the Senate floor, saying that because she liked Alito's nomination, that was reason enough to stop it.So Senator John F. Kerry is trying to rustle up support for a filibuster. No matter, . . . the Senate Majority Leader Frist says he will change the rules to ban the procedure, . . . the so-called "nuclear option," . . . if these Democrats try it.

The Poodle just cannot win.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-24T15:58:00.000-07:00

Local Discussion Becomes Less Than Congenial

You decide who went there, first!

01/24/2006
" Your Views Column: (Printed today in the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil)

We need soldiers to fight real enemy

I have decided to answer Brian Letner's letter published in "Your Views" on Jan. 3. It is ok with me that he idolizes Dan Larsen, President Bush and Fox News, but his accusations, like his insipid and shallow remark that since myself and others do not support Bush and the war in Iraq, that "we must support the enemy," lack logical thought.

He also accuses those of us who care about our brave soldiers as being "anti-war whiners." Some think it is OK for a soldier to die for the whims of a president who perceives himself to be the crown jewel of the universe and whose war in Iraq is and will continue to haunt America and increase terrorism for many years to come. We need every soldier that we have to fight the sinister forces wanting to harm America and a soldier dying looking for non-existent WMD in Iraq cannot help!

I have seen my youngest son leave to fight this god-forsaken war and he will be going again. It would seem to me that just possibly the cheering should be a little more muted, considering the facts that let up to this war!

Since Letner's only news contact with the world is Fox News, I will share the following: As of this writing, we have lost 2,178 soldiers, had in the area of 16,500 wounded, killed 30,000-plus innocent citizens of Iraq, and spent untold billions of dollars while the future of Iraq is in serious doubt and will not be a "buddy" to America as advertised by our glorious leaders! Apparently the Bush lovers quit watching the world news after the "mission accomplished" speech. Finally, Brian, you mentioned that your opinions are "worth sharing" and I am wondering why you do not practice what you preach, or is this "right" only extended to those who hover in darkness under the cloak of "compassionate conservatism"?

Bill Pelton,
Council Bluffs

Reader Opinions:

Dan Larsen Jan.24, 2006

Bill says “Some think it is OK for a soldier to die for the whims of a president who perceives himself to be the crown jewel of the universe and whose war in Iraq is and will continue to haunt America and increase terrorism for many years to come.” Goodness! Does Pelton have any evidence of any of that, or his he just pouring pure partisan poultry manure to imply his lunatic view of the current state of affairs.

He goes on to say, “We need every soldier that we have to fight the sinister forces wanting to harm America and a soldier dying looking for non-existent WMD in Iraq cannot help!” That tells me that he actually thinks that’s the only order coming down from command staff, in theatre. There must not be any communication between he, and his son, ehh?

Watching something other than CNN, (recently thrown out of Iran, for failing to support their world-view, but then, a few hours later, they lived up to their reputation, and caved in), ABC, NBC and the prize-winners, over at CBS. I’ll bet Brian Letner is about to tell you you’re wrong about his viewing habits, . . . but it’s not surprising at all, since you’re wrong about nearly everything else dealing with international affairs. Bill will be quick to tell us just how much of a failure those democratic elections have been, over there. After all, those ballot boxes didn’t eliminate any terrorists, and he’ll challenge us to prove that negative, just like the WMD issue. If we ask nicely, maybe Pelton will tell us in a little more detail about how he knows what’s going to happen, years from now, in Iraq.

On the one hand, Pelton wants us to leave Iraq, immediately, and on the other, he implies we have to “quit killing innocent civilians in Iraq.” Hey, Bill! The innocent civilians you mention; does that number include all the cowardous terrorists, who wear no uniform, have no army, who represent no government, and are one and the same, with those you and your ilk would afford Geneva Convention Benefits?

Hmmmmmm? Oh, . . . and why does the term “Compassionate Conservative” bother you, so much? God Bless,Dan’L

Don Malick Jan, 24 2006
(From the AP)

Updated: 4:53 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006
WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

Does this mean that maybe Dan Larsen IS wrong about our capabilities? By the way, this is not a biased report, but a study funded by the Pentagon.

*************************************************

I don't know, Malick. Let's ask the guy in the photo, above what HE thinks, . . . SHALL we??

God Bless,
Dan'L
*************************************************

Jim Thorn Jan, 25 2006

"Goodness! Does Pelton have any evidence of any of that, or his he just pouring pure partisan poultry manure to imply his lunatic view of the current state of affairs.

"Dan, this complaint -- which you've raised several times in the past few weeks -- might carry more weight if you were in the habit of offering evidence in support of your own opinions. I reviewed the archived copies of the five letters you've had printed in the past 60 days. In that time, you have shared evidence-free "pure partisan poultry manure" on a wide variety of topics.

The only time you offered clear objective evidence in support of one of your opinions was in a dispute about whether Carnegie and Ford were philanthropists. (You did once try to use your own opinion about John Kerry as evidence "proving the hypothesis" of another of your opinions about Kerry, but I hope you'll understand why I didn't count that one.)

Skip Lambert Jan, 24 2006

It's really no wonder we are having such a warm winter with all the "hot air" that eminates from Larsens right wing rants. His propensity to perpetually "pollute" has a silver lining after all.

God Have Mercy,
SkipL

2006-01-22T11:09:00.000-07:00

Stuck on "Stupid in America"

I hereby bequeath VRWC's January 2006 Nobelest of Journalism Award to ABC’s John Stossel for his 20/20 report entitled “Stupid In America: How We Cheat Our Kids,” a blistering expose of the government education system in the United States today.

As my good friend, Neil Boortz says, "For those of you who learned American history education from a public school," . . . you might be surprised to know that in 1775 most colonists did NOT support separation from England. Many actually preferred remaining as subjects of the King. They were called “Loyalists.” They wanted to continue working within the existing system, but maybe with a few “reforms.” They were opponents of independence. They were anti-freedom.

Then along came a guy named Thomas Paine and his pamphlet titled “Common Sense.” As Gregory Tietjen notes in his introduction of a reprint of this immortal historical document, Common Sense “immediately became the moral and intellectual touchstone for American colonists struggling to articulate their case for independence from England.” The pamphlet enjoyed unprecedented distribution; the “first printing of several thousand copies sold out in days, and the second, with additions, sold just as quickly.”

Many historians consider publication of Paine’s Common Sense to have been the turning point of public opinion against the status quo and for a break from the King. In that regard, we can only hope that John Stossel’s “Stupid in America” has the same effect over 230 years later.

Stupid in America has the potential for becoming the “moral and intellectual touchstone” for Americans who have been fighting for independence from the tyranny of government schools in this country for many years now. As in 1775, most Americans today harbor a belief, more a hope, that education under the current system isn’t all that intolerable; that we just need to tinker around the edges a bit with a tweak here and a tweak there. Oh, and more money, of course.

Stupid in America obliterates that flight of fancy (click here to watch excerpts: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1491217).

I won’t go into the details and content of Stossel’s actual report here. Rather, I’m suggesting that education patriots who have long supported a break from the public school monopoly may now have a modern-day version of Common Sense with which to finally turn around the majority of public opinion. Stupid in America needs to be distributed far and wide. Every elected legislator in the country ought to watch it, as should every concerned parent and taxpayer. The case for complete and total education independence will no longer be arguable after watching this report by anyone but blind loyalists of the current system.

It’s time to choose sides. To spit or get off the pot. No more fence-sitting. You’re either with us or against us. You’re either for total freedom, choice and independence from the government school monopoly or you’re an education “Loyalist,” deserving of disdain and derision. And that especially goes for our modern-day Lobsterbacks, the teachers union.

These militant foot soldiers of the status quo, as exposed in Stossel’s report, will stoop to any level in defending their monopoly control over our kids’ lackluster education - and they are 100% committed to crushing anyone who dares threaten their power. It’s time to strip away the Suzy Sunshine face they portray in public and expose them for what they and their agenda really and truly are: Anti-education. Or at least, anti-education excellence. These people are Masters of Mediocrity. At best.

And if you are a teacher who belongs to the teachers union, thus helping to perpetuate with your dues their iron grip on the current system, you, too, are anti-education. There’s just no nice way to put it. It’s well past time for you to...quit...the...union.

All of this might sound harsh if you haven’t yet watched Stupid in America. But once you see this eye-opener, you, too, won’t be able to help coming to the conclusion that the education monopoly in this country must be obliterated - not just accommodated or reformed - once and for all. Which makes it all the more important for education patriots to assure the widest distribution and circulation possible of Stossel’s Stupid in America.

In the words of Thomas Paine, "It’s just common sense."

Congratulations Mr. Stossel. I think you may have stuck a nerve!

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-22T08:08:00.000-07:00

Look out Teddy! Here comes trouble! (. . . in the form of your Love Child)

A couple days ago, Senator Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, perhaps the most repulsive politician in Washington in recent years, said that he was going to cast his vote against Samuel Alito because, according to Teddy, Judge Alito was "itching to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Is this a personal issue for Kennedy?? I'd ask that readers of the VRWC consider the fact that the latest edition of The National Enquirer tabloid spins the tale of an Edward Kennedy love child, a now 21-year-old male name Christopher. I wonder if the child ever knew his dad likes to walk around in his print boxers, carrying a goblet of Scotch whisky?

(Let's see, . . . that would make young Christopher elegible for some serious medical
insurance benefits, courtesy of the American taxpayer, because his Daddy was a
Senator when he was conceived -- Can we say DNA tests may be the order of the
day, if those bennies become necessary??)

The Enquirer story says that Kennedy urged the child's mother to have an abortion, but she refused. Perhaps Kennedy is working hard in the Alito matter, in order to keep his options open in the event this one blows up, or in case(s) of any future indiscretions. Now, if the mainstream media would just pick up on the lead by the Enquirer, and go out and do some REAL investigative journalism, (something the VRWC thinks may well be extinct, when it comes to liberal proponents engaged in governmental affairs).

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

Two Celebrities Just Cannot Keep Their Mouths in Check -- First, George Clooney and then Starr Jones

Let's start with the second of the two: Starr Jones has told viewers that the war on terror is nothing more than a clash of male egos between President Bush and Osama bin Laden, the NEW YORK POST reports.

Yesterday, the co-host of ABC's THE VIEW told viewers during a discussion of bin Laden's latest audio tape:"You know what? At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper."

She even suggested that Bush hold some kind of talk with the man behind 9/11. "I won't trust him, but anything that gives me the opportunity to seek peace, I would at least check it out. "People make deals with the devil all the time. We make deals with people we don't like," she said.

"You don't negotiate with terrorists," said Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the show's youngest host.

"You don't negotiate," Jones interrupted, "but I do think you figure out when there is a solution that's diplomatic that doesn't result in [loss of] human life. "What do we have to lose to check it out?" Star said.

"You know what?" she then added, "At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper at some point."

"This isn't somebody whipping it out," shot co-host Meredith Vieira.

"You know what, I'm a little tired of posturing back and forth," Jones replied.

Now, let's move on to George Clooney, who earlier this week was awarded the Golden Globe for Best Actor, and he just could NOT resist the opportunity to display his politics, while accepting the award.

And, the father of controversial Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now responding to Clooney for what he’s describing as a “glib and ridiculous attack” on his son.

Frank Abramoff, in a letter addressed to Clooney and sent to The Desert Sun this morning, said he was watching the Golden Globes Monday night when Clooney, during his acceptance speech for best supporting actor, thanked Jack Abramoff “just because” and made a comment about the lobbyist’s name.

“Who would name their kid Jack with the last words ‘off’ at the end of your last name? No wonder that guy is screwed up,” Clooney said during the internationally televised awards show.

In the letter, Frank Abramoff furiously defends the name, saying his son is named after Frank’s father. In the two-page letter, he calls Clooney’s acts a “lapse in lucidity” and an “obscene query.” In a telephone interview with The Desert Sun this morning, Frank Abramoff said Clooney was “an idiot” and described the actions as “pure, unadulterated stupidity.” “You want to make fun. You can do that, but you don't make fun of someone else's hardships and misery,” the 78-year-old Abramoff said. “We’ve gone through quite a bit in our family. But the political end of it and the media end of it and all the other areas are one thing. When you see something like that on a show for 500 million people, it was not only a slap in my son’s face but in my father’s.”

Clooney’s representative in Los Angeles declined comment, saying he had not seen Abramoff’s letter yet. Jack Abramoff’s spokesman, Andrew Blum, also declined to comment.

In the letter, Frank Abramoff says he “wonders how your father would respond, were the roles reversed.”

Clooney’s dad, Nick, is an Augusta, Ky., resident who ran unsuccessfully for Congress and now writes a column for the Cincinnati Post. In a phone interview with The Desert Sun today, Clooney said he wasn’t surprised by his son’s “off hand and flippant” remarks, but did relate with Frank Abramoff’s concerns.

“I understand what it is like to have one's son criticized in a very public way,” Clooney said. “It's very painful and it's very difficult. “The difference here, and it must be said, is Mr. Abramoff's son, instead of pursing some positive efforts to do what he hoped would change the climate of the American politics has confessed and has been convicted by that confession of subverting the political process,” Clooney said.

“It’s not Mr Abramoff senior’s fault that he turned out to be who he is any more than it is to my credit that my son turned out to be what he turned out to be.”

Here's the Open letter:
An open letter to actor George Clooney from Frank Abramoff, Rancho Mirage father of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff:

Oh how far Hollywood has fallen. When you rose to accept the Golden Globes best actor award earlier this week, you decided to take a gratuitous slap at my son, my family and even my dear departed father. Is this the tradition of Gable, Bogart, Pacino and Burton? Are you the heir to the dignity and greatness of Hollywood’s past, or more likely a portent to a depressing and horrific future?

Your glib and ridiculous attack on my son, Jack, coupled with your obscene query as to the choice his mother and I made in naming him brought shame and dishonor on you and your profession.

What drove you to this lapse in lucidity, I can never know, but you need to know that your words were deeply hurtful to many innocent and decent people — who love my son and who cherish our family.

We have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. The blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son.

The fact that you would spend those few moments accorded to you, as an honor for your work as an actor, bashing his name and his family, is astonishing. How do you sleep at night, other than, perhaps with the drink which you lamented not having at that early hour. Funny, it was very hard for us little people in television land to tell whether you had indulged in the bottle or not.

My son was named after my beloved departed father. His name, too, was Jack Abramoff. And, were he alive today, would be standing firmly behind his namesake, as his entire family and many more true friends than you will ever know.

Not that it matters to you, I am sure, but the worst part of your tirade is that it played out in front of many young people, including my sweet 12-year-old granddaughter, one of Jack’s five children. Jack did not waste his time watching the garbage spewing from your mouth, but his daughter did. You drove her to a fit of tears. Are you proud of that?

For four generations, our family has worked hard to serve this country we love. I enlisted as a young man of seventeen into the United States Navy, so I could serve my nation in WWII. My brother did the same, and we both served in South Pacific. My son dedicated his life to patriotic and religious causes, which have made this nation great. He gave unsparingly of his time and resources to help those in need. You spend your days ridiculing our nation and our traditions. You mock those who serve our nation and its flag. You revile my son and publicly try to humiliate him in front of a national audience.

I have news for you George Clooney — one day the truth about my son will come out and there will be a lot of people in your industry and others lined up to apologize for their efforts to destroy him and our family. You won’t be in that line, though, be cause the plague of arrogance and falsehood will surely continue to blind your eyes and cause your tongue to disgrace the parents who brought you onto the earth.

One wonders how your father would respond, were the roles reversed.

One wonders whether your children would delight in someone lampooning your name and besmirching your reputation.

You have brought yourself to a low unparalleled by the greats of your profession.

Shame on you.

FRANK ABRAMOFF
Rancho Mirage, CA

2006-01-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

Food for Thought:

(Published in the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, [linked below], as “Media Should Leave Cronkite Alone” on January 19, 2006)

A couple of things caught my attention over the January Holiday weekend.

First, there seems to be an awful lot of bipartisan talk about the use of force against Iran, over their obvious development of a nuclear bomb. I'd like to point this out, because none of the Democrats will remember anything they're currently saying, if force becomes a necessity. Just pointing out that words have meaning, and parsing the historical effect of them seems to be a current trend among those on the left. Shouldn't we hear some thoughts from our local pundits, on the matter, or will they simply remain quiet, leaving the decisions to George W. Bush, for later critical review?

Secondly, I couldn't help but notice that the formerly revered and self-avowed liberal commentator, Walter Cronkite took it upon himself to announce that "it's time for the U.S. to leave Iraq." Maybe he hasn't noticed that the vast majority of America stopped listening to him, decades ago. Senility is something that a family member should try to monitor, don't you think? No wonder Charlton Heston's family keeps him sequestered. It's the right thing to do.

Cronkite also opined that he should never have retired, and given up his job at CBS to Dan Rather. He pointed out that "Rather never really worked out, all that well," and said that he's still available for rehire, if they really want some experience to replace Rather on a permanent basis. He also said that he's regretted that retirement announcement since about twenty-four hours after having told his bosses at CBS, (proving my senility point). Why can't the media just leave the likes of Walter Cronkite and Charlton Heston alone?

Dan Larsen
Council Bluffs

Reader opinions:

Jim Thorn Jan, 19 2006
While you're earmarking things for future recollection, Dan, note your statements about Cronkite for your own future complaints about "personal attacks." At no point do you actually engage any point raised by Cronkite, you merely criticize him personally -- and inaccurately as well, since whether one agrees or disagrees with him he is plainly not suffering from a tragic degenerative disease like Heston.

As for using force against Iran, I'm happy to go on record for you. I have no blanket objection to the use of force in international relations, but I do feel that force should be used only when ethically justifiable and when realistically practicable.

All of the force options I'm aware of having available against Iran would almost certainly be counter-productive. Similar spellings notwithstanding, Iran is far larger and far better-armed than Iraq was, its nuke operations are too widespread for an Osirak-style surgical airstrike to have any reliable effect, and -- to be blunt -- we have inadequate resources available to use on a large scale against Iran because we're already painfully overstretched next door in smaller, weaker Iraq.

I will actually be surprised if in the case of Iran even the Bush Administration is foolish enough to do more than talk force for their political base while they walk diplomacy.

Now you go on record, Dan. Exactly what military action(s) do you propose employing against Iran?

Dan Larsen Jan. 20, 2006
I’m sorry, Jim. If you’re unfamiliar with Cronkite’s track record, the search is only a google away. I often forget the level at which liberals like yourself view these things. Until sometime in the early 1990s, (a full decade after he retired), Cronkite was viewed by nearly all recognized media polling as the most recognized and reliable source for any/all news and opinion. But time marches on. Maybe you cannot remember those statistics, either, but you don’t’ seem to put the same criticism toward my commentary on Heston, because you DO remember his record. I’m sure you’ll find the search to be enlightening.

I see you’ve managed to straddle the fence, rather nicely in your non-position statements, too. Saying that “all the force options . . . against Iran would most certainly be counter-productive,” is nicely worded and allows you plenty of wiggle-room, to pull out the partisanship and politicize the issue at a later time. Thanks. It’s a wonderful demonstration why America should never consider election of a member of the Democrat Party to the leadership of the Free World.

As far as my position on this issue, let’s just point out two things: 1) I’m not the person who continually takes a position, only to flip-flop to the opposite side, when things go badly; and 2) I needn’t posture a position because that is the reason it’s so important to elect a President in an intelligent and deliberative way, just like happened in the last two national elections. Trust me, when I tell you, Jim – even though the Republicans have lots of problems doing what they were elected to do, those red states aren’t turning blue in the immediate future, partly because of the way Howard Dean is running your party, but mostly because you guys cannot seem to articulate a position of strength on any particular issue, except abortion.

Now that the Alito hearings are over, shouldn’t there be some performance/satisfaction polling on Senator Chappaquidick, Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein, or the “plantation” comments by Senator Clinton?

God Bless,
Dan’L

Jim Thorn Jan, 20 2006
As usual, Dan, you respond to things I never said and avoid answering the direct question I asked you.

First, I never said Cronkite isn't liberal. I said he isn't senile, which is what you accused him of so you that could avoid addressing his actual statements in any substantive way. And I didn't say Charlton Heston has a tragic degenerative disease because he's conservative; I said it because he's been medically diagnosed as having Alzheimer's.

Second, the position I took isn't fence-straddling. I said "all the options I'm aware of" because this small box doesn't afford enough room to detail them all and because there must be some I haven't thought of. I did detail two that won't work: an Osirak-style bombing strike and an all-out invasion. Then I asked you which specific military actions you recommend, and you dodged the question by throwing up your usual smokescreen of non sequiturs and false accusations.

Third, you apparently accuse me of flip-flopping, although it could be that you just threw in an irrelevant snark at John Kerry for no apparent reason because it's a nervous tic you suffer from, like Tourette's. If you did mean me, though, please specify the issues on which you accuse me of flip-flopping.

As for Hillary's "plantation" comment, I found it appalling; I'm not a fan of hers, although I still like her far better than your guy.

2006-01-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Usama bin Laden offers a truce!

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A Pakistani security official on Thursday said at least three top al-Qaida operatives were believed killed in a U.S. missile strike last week, including an explosives expert on the U.S. most-wanted list and a close relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to media, said Egyptian Midhat Mursi was among the three top al-Qaida figures who were present in Damadola village at the time of the attack and whose bodies were believed to have been taken away by sympathizers.

The U.S. Justice Department says on its Web site that Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, is an expert in explosives and poisons who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad.

The Web site also says Mursi has written training manuals containing recipes for crude chemical and biological weapons, some of which were recovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The site says Mursi's exact whereabouts are unknown but adds that he may be residing in Pakistan, and offers $5 million for information leading to his arrest.

The Pakistani official named two other foreign militants as suspected killed in the missile strike: Abu Ubaida, whom he said was the main operations chief for al-Qaida in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, which lies opposite Pakistan's Bajur tribal region where Damadola is located; and Abdul Rehman al-Misri, a close relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.
He stressed that their bodies have not been found.

"We do not have any evidence to prove that they have been killed, but we have indications that they were there and were among those bodies that were taken away," the official said, declining to elaborate.

A second Pakistani security official confirmed that security agencies were investigating the three men as possible victims of the air strike Friday which officials have said targeted but missed al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top aide.

Officials say the attack also killed 18 local residents.
Pentagon officials said they had no information on the reported identities of the dead and CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said the agency could not comment.
The New York Times and ABC also reported that al-Zawahri's son-in-law was believed killed in the strike, but provided a different identity.

Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said the government believed some foreigners were killed in the attack, but authorities had not retrieved their bodies so their identities have not been confirmed by DNA tests.

"As far as our information is concerned, we confirm that there were some foreigners who were killed," Ahmed said. "But regarding their names, we are investigating."

Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the bodies may have been taken by a local pro-Taliban cleric, Maulana Faqir Mohammed, who also is being hunted by authorities.

Provincial authorities said sympathizers took the bodies of four or five foreign militants to bury them in the mountains near the Afghan border, thereby preventing their identification.
"Efforts are under way to investigate further," said Shah Zaman Khan, director-general of media relations for Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

He said authorities were also looking for Faqir Mohammed and another prominent pro-Taliban cleric accused of harboring militants. Both men were allegedly in Damadola and survived the assault.

Intelligence officials say al-Zawahri is thought to have sent some of his aides in his place to an Islamic holiday dinner to which he'd been invited in Damadola on the night of the attack.

Hours after the attack, an Associated Press reporter visited the village, which consists of a half-dozen widely scattered houses on a hillside about four miles from the Afghan border.
Residents said then that all the dead were local people and no one had taken any bodies away. However, it appeared feasible that bodies or wounded could have been spirited away in the darkness after the attack, which took place at about 3 a.m.

Islamic custom dictates that bodies be buried as soon as possible, and the reporter saw 13 freshly filled graves with simple headstones and five empty graves alongside them _ apparently prepared for more dead. When the reporter returned the next day, the five empty graves were filled in, apparently because no more bodies had been found in the rubble.

The only tidbits of official information that have surfaced since then have come from provincial authorities, and they have yet to give a list of the dead. But Pakistani intelligence officials have said they also believe some of those killed were Pakistani militants and that their bodies were also removed from the scene.

A Pakistani army official has told the AP that some bodies were taken away for DNA tests _ information at odds with reports from provincial authorities. The federal government has not confirmed the report about DNA tests.

Pakistan maintains it was not given advance word of the airstrike, which was reportedly carried out by unmanned Predator drones flying from Afghanistan, and has condemned it as killing innocent civilians.

Thousands have taken to the streets in protest over the attack, denouncing the U.S. and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who ended Pakistan's support of the Taliban regime in late 2001 and has himself been targeted by al-Qaida attacks.

*******************************************************************
Yet, if you're a Democrat, you believe that there is absolutely NOTHING being done by our military, that could possibly be construed as "a positive step toward resolution of the issues surrounding the real reasons why we're involved in this War on Terror, (hint: Google the term "September 11, 2001 Terrorism").

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-08T20:11:00.000-07:00

Light shines on Truth in Texas

Some times the light of day actually shines through . . . . .

A couple of pictures are worth several thousand words:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush’s ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.

Frankly I'm amazed the DNC/AP allowed these photos to see the light of day.

Usually their photogs do their (unlevel) best to angle their cameras and crop their pictures to make Mother Sheehan always appear to be at the center of a worshipful swarm.

I’m afraid someone is going to be in hot water for letting us glimpse the truth.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2006-01-02T07:13:00.000-07:00

America OnLine takes a poll among subscribers and get's less than optimum results.

Click this link, to see those results, and then read the article those results precipitated:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051227031109990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

School Textbooks Tackle the Clinton Impeachment
By BEN FELLER
WASHINGTON (Dec. 27) - The impeachment of former President Clinton is in a gray area of history, too long ago to be a current event, too recent to be judged in perspective.

Yet history is already judging Clinton in the place where millions of students get their information about him -- textbooks.

Seven years after he was impeached in a scandal of sex, perjury and bitter politics, Clinton has become a fixture in major high school texts.

The impeachment is portrayed in the context of his two-term tenure, a milestone event, but not one that overshadows how Clinton handled the economy, crime and health care.

The most commonly used texts give straightforward recaps of Clinton's toughest days, with some flavor of how it affected the nation. Absent are any the lurid details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that spiced up daily news reports and late-night talk shows as the scandal and impeachment played out in 1998 and early 1999.

"It should not be in the book for titillating purposes or settling scores," said Alan Brinkley, the Columbia University provost who has written or contributed to several history text books. "It should be in the book because of its significance to our recent history."

Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001, the growing-up years of today's high school students. Even today's oldest high school students were only 10 or 11 during the height of the scandal, and today's middle schoolers were just approaching or entering first grade.

So, for students, the impeachment is literally a subject for the history books.

"This is very difficult for everybody, because it's so fresh," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, an independent research group that reviews history texts used in schools. "It's easier to nail down history like the transcontinental railroad. With Clinton, you're dealing with material that has by no means been settled."

The House impeached Clinton on charges of lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice to conceal his affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern. Although he was acquitted in a Senate trial, Clinton was branded as the second president impeached for conduct in office.

The topic is covered briefly in middle school texts. McGraw Hill's "The American Journey" offers a description that is representative of other accounts - balanced and methodical.

"Although there was general agreement that the president had lied, Congress was divided over whether his actions justified impeachment," the book says.

In McDougal Littell's "The Americans," a high school text, the topic merits two paragraphs. The same book gave more space to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

"The American Vision," a McGraw Hill high school book written by Brinkley and others, spends five paragraphs on Clinton's impeachment and one more on his uncertain legacy.

"Compression is a tremendous challenge," Brinkley said. "Five paragraphs on a topic is a lot for all but the most important issues."

Sometimes, the language gets blunt.

"A History of the United States," a Pearson Prentice Hall high school text, refers to the impeachment scandal as "a sorry mess" that diminished Clinton and his rivals.

Polls showed most Americans did not believe Clinton's "tortured explanations of his behavior," the book says, but also did not think his offenses warranted his removal.

By the time students get to college, the textbooks, as expected, offer more sophisticated detail of the impeachment and the way it all changed American public life.

Yet at all levels, the salacious details of the Lewinsky affair are nowhere to be found.

Middle school texts describe it as "a personal relationship between the president and a White House intern." In high school books, it is Clinton's "improper relationship with a young White House intern," or Clinton "denied having sexual relations" with an intern.

Students don't need the bawdy details to grasp the impeachment struggle, said Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian and professor at American University. But they do need textbooks that present the issue with as much depth as is practical, he said.

"The books not only influence the students, they influence the teachers," he said. "And given that many students don't go on to college - and even those who do may not revisit the material - the textbook may be their most significant impression."

*************************************************************************

So, "It should not be in history books for titillating purposes or settling scores," said Alan Brinkley, a history book writer. "It should only be in the book because of its significance to
our recent history."

Apparently, bringing our country to the abyss of moral degeneracy is of no significance to history writers. Clinton's adulterous affairs, highlighted by Juanita Broderick's charge that Bill Clinton raped her when he was Arkansas Attorney General and she was a major Clinton fundraiser, is of no significance to history writers.

Of course, these same historians have no problem with accusing Thomas Jefferson with illicit sex that happened over 200 years ago and with no proof. The slave involved, Sally Hemings, never accused Jefferson, it was all talk. If history is interested in all talk, there is plenty surrounding Clinton -- it would take an entire book, or two, or more.

I've always felt that when this history was recorded, Clinton's extra marital affairs would be watered down . . . . Not to mention using the oval office for a motel with a young
intern, his lying under oath and the conspiracy for a case of obstructing justice.

We all know that academia is well over 90% liberal and will bend over backwards to protect their own . . . . and sadly, that includes most historians.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2005-12-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

Score One Point For Democracy, . . . Three Points For Terrorism

It's sad, even tragic, that for every good thing happening in the War on Terror, we seem to take several steps backward at home. Our enemies no longer have any need to attack America directly -- they have the services of the moguls of the "mainstream" media and the political Left, (sometimes synonymous).

Despite the Left's continued attempts to portray that war, especially any event within the Iraq theatre of operations, as a failure or disaster, and that country is well on its way to becoming the focal point of a spreading Middle-Eastern democracy -- the only realistic answer to terrorism's root cause. Two critical tests remain for the Iraqi government: 1.) Whether they can form a stable government out of the 275 members of Parliament that have recently been elected, and 2.) Whether its members can effect a smooth transition of power when their term of office ends in four years.

Events are taking place in the Middle-East that have never happened in that region before, and never quickly and smoothly, anywhere else on the planet. I’ve tried to point out to several leftists, over the past few weeks, that it was seven years between the end of the American Revolution and the time our own Constitution took effect in 1789. If ratification had been thrown open to a popular vote as it was in Iraq, the process would certainly have taken well over a decade. How can three years be termed a "failure" by any but the childishly impatient standards of our contemporary Liberals??

No reasonable person expected this process to take less than three to five years, even without the meddling of Iran and Syria -- not to mention the terrorists and their "war on this evil principle known as democracy."

The Coalition government appointed a representative group of Iraqis to write a temporary constitution; Iraqis voted under that constitution in January 2005 to elect an interim government of their own. The interim government wrote a permanent constitution that was ratified by 79% of the voters in October 2005. Iraqis recently turned out in overwhelming numbers, coming from all factions and ethnic groups, to vote for their first democratically-elected government -- the first such government in the entire Arab world. Now the members of the Iraqi Parliament will have the chance to participate in a give-and-take representative governing system such as we have... well, no one said a democratic government was perfect, but it's certainly better than a fascist dictatorship. Iraqis have bootstrapped themselves from a collapsed totalitarian government to free elections under their own constitution in less than three years, with our help.

On the other hand, home politics have forced what can only be seen as victories for our enemies in the War on Terror, offsetting our amazing successes abroad. Democratic Senators are filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act -- a piece of legislation hated by the Left for no good reason. Not one single instance of abuse of any citizen's civil liberties under the Act has ever been verified. All the Patriot Act really does is allow the same methods used for investigating organized crime, serial killings and drug rings to be used when investigating terrorism. Yet some Senators are working to undermine the Patriot Act, on the shaky grounds that they think can see a way someone might possibly figure out how to abuse it somehow, though it may take a concerted effort of the entire Federal government to do so. If the Patriot Act is not renewed, key provisions expire at the end of 2005 -- and those who block it will be partially responsible for any future acts of terror that could have been prevented by it.

Aiding the Democrats in their effort to undermine the President are, of course, the moguls of the "mainstream" media. Just as the Senate went into heated debate over renewing the Patriot Act, the New York Times decided to attack the President for allowing wiretaps of phone conversations in America several years ago. Ramping up unfounded fears of unconstitutional government activities is a sure way to pressure Senators to let the Patriot Act lapse. The story (coincidentally printed just in time to aid sales of the author's upcoming book on the subject) claims that the President unlawfully allowed the NSA to listen in on foreign conversations involving American citizens without getting an advance court order. The only part of the claim that's untrue is the word "unlawfully."

It turns out that not only was the action authorized under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), but that some of the members of Congress pretending to be shocked by this revelation were kept apprised of the NSA's actions all along. Though FISA contains a clause preventing secret surveillance of a "United States person," the character of someone who might be an "agent of a foreign power" -- which includes anyone working with a terrorist group -- should logically pre-empt that designation. Naturally, if America's security agencies are prevented from tapping American phones even when used by terrorists, all the terrorists need to do is pick up some disposable cellular phones with American numbers and throw them away after one use, before a court order to tap them can be obtained. Thanks to the New York Times and whoever leaked information about a secret, legal tactic to gather information on terrorist activities, this will probably become standard operating procedure for terrorists in the future.

Last, but certainly not least, is the protection for terrorists recently advanced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and agreed to by President Bush. This is a blow to US efforts to glean information from captured terrorists. McCain wants to prevent the US from using torture or "degrading treatment" to coerce terror detainees to surrender information. McCain's answer to critics is that the President could simply authorize breaking the law under extreme circumstances. Well, then, what's the point of writing such a law in the first place?? Laws should not be written just because they sound nice and get a US Senator media approval. That's a poor use of my tax dollars.

The torture part is not a problem -- the US does not condone the torture of anyone, not even terrorists. The question is what constitutes torture.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defined torture in 2002 as inflicting severe pain, organ failure or permanent damage that was "specifically intended." The Left has used that definition (since broadened to exclude some highly aggressive methods) arrived at by Gonzales' legal team to slander him as "condoning torture" ever since. Gonzales expressed no personal opinion on the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, however. Mere discomfort or fright is simply not torture, despite the Left's hypersensitive caterwauling, and can lead to cooperation by breaking the subject's morale. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a high-ranking al-Qaeda leader (and 9/11 planner) captured in 2003, lasted all of two-and-a-half minutes before breaking down under the "water-boarding" technique, which simulates drowning but has no lasting physical effect.

The word "degrading," however, is far too ambiguous and subjective to be used without definition. Many on the Left feel that the terrorists themselves should get to decide what's "degrading." If a terror suspect objects to wearing handcuffs, not being able to choose his own clothing or having a woman anywhere in sight range, he could term his treatment "degrading" -- and many on the Left would accept that as a proper description. Personally, I feel it's degrading to Americans to be forced to treat terrorists as honorable opponents who follow any sort of honor code.

There can be no reasonable objection to aggressive interrogation techniques that force subjects to reveal information that saves American lives, as long as real torture is not involved. Name-calling, orange jumpsuits and rap "music" should certainly not be defined as "degrading" (although the rap could easily be classified as "torture.")

If we're going to get anywhere in this war, we have got to stop treating terrorists with kid gloves, cease granting them rights and privileges they don't have and don't deserve. Why would any captured terrorist give up information, knowing that there's nothing we can do to him to make him talk -- not even keep him up past his bedtime?? The fact that terrorists think we're too soft and spineless to fight back was the reason they kept attacking us with increasing ferocity and confidence through the decade culminating in 9/11.

Were they right, after all?? . . . Don’t ask your favorite leftist, . . . if you want an honest answer!!

God Bless,
Dan'L

2005-12-09T07:25:00.000-07:00

DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin

By Ann Coulter

Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week, which came as a surprise to people who think it's normal for a prosecutor to have to empanel six grand juries in order to get an indictment on simple fund-raising violations. Mr. Earle will presumably assemble a seventh grand jury as soon as he locates someone in the county who hasn't served on a previous one.

It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means he concluded that -- even if the jury finds everything Ronnie Earle alleges to be true -- no crime was committed.

Obviously, this was a huge victory for DeLay and, as The Washington Post put it, "a slap at Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle." (More bad news for Ronnie Earle: Today President Bush said the embattled Texas D.A. was doing "a heck of a job.")

Or, in the words of CNN's Bill Schneider on what this means for Tom DeLay: "Not good." In the expert analysis of Schneider, it was "not good" for DeLay to have charges thrown out because it would have been even better if all the charges had been thrown out. It also would have been better if the judge had dismissed the conspiracy charges and given DeLay an ice cream cone.

But that doesn't mean having criminal charges against you dismissed is, I quote, "not good." And they think Fox News has twice CNN's ratings just because it's fair and balanced. The accountants at Fox could give a more penetrating legal analysis.

In the past few years, all TV news has become less biased due to the salubrious influence of Fox News. But Bill Schneider isn't backing off one inch! Watching Schneider is like entering a time machine and seeing how news was reported in the '80s. CNN ought to start broadcasting Schneider's appearances only in black and white.

According to Schneider, the judge's failure to dismiss the money laundering charges proves "obviously, on at least one charge the judge disagreed" with DeLay's claim that the prosecutor was politically motivated. Schneider's entire understanding of criminal law was apparently shaped during the Ally McBeal years.

Schneider would have said more, but he had to run off to file a story about how 4.3 percent growth, 215,000 new jobs, record productivity gains and continued growth in real estate prices were "not good" news for the economy.

In fact, all we know as a result of the judge's ruling on Monday is that the remaining charge against DeLay, if proved, would at least constitute a crime.

To repeat what you might already have heard in third grade: In America, the validity of criminal charges is determined by the trier of fact after a trial. A judge is not authorized to dismiss a criminal indictment handed up by a grand jury just because the prosecutor is a political hack.
This is true even if the prosecutor had to spend three years and empanel six grand juries to get an indictment.

It is true even if the same prosecutor also indicted Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison days after she was elected to the U.S. Senate, but after spending a year holding press conferences in which he called Hutchinson a criminal, still had no evidence and folded his hand.

It is true even if the prosecutor is participating in a documentary about a brave liberal prosecutor (Ronnie Earle) exposing a black-hearted Republican (Tom DeLay) -- which wouldn't make much of a movie if no charges were ever brought.

Thus, for example, Earle's baseless charges against Hutchison -- like the remaining charges against DeLay -- were not dismissed before trial. What happened was, the trial date came and Earle had no evidence. The judge ordered the jury to acquit.

Earle never admitted he had no evidence against Hutchison. Instead, he made a preposterous request of the judge. He asked the judge to issue a pre-emptive ruling declaring all documents that Earle planned to admit throughout the trial admissible -- without allowing the judge to know what those documents were or allowing the defense an opportunity to object. Obviously, the judge said he would have to see the documents first and decide admissibility on a case-by-case basis.

So now and forevermore, Earle claims his case against Hutchison was watertight, but because the judge ruled against him, he was prevented from presenting his "evidence" to the jury.

Remember that when liberals call Bill O'Reilly a "liar" because he won a Polk award, but one time he got confused and called it a Peabody award.

2005-12-07T06:20:00.000-07:00

DEMOCRATS ENDORSE DEFEAT IN IRAQ

Democrats are losing all semblance of self-control, and are finally coming right out and saying exactly what they believe in the debate over the war in Iraq.

Yesterday, we heard from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. His stunning statement: we are not going to win the war in Iraq. Dean joins the John Murtha wing of his party which calls for the unconditional surrender of the United States to Islamic terrorists in Iraq.

I’ve been expecting something like this, for weeks now. I'm sure the terrorists are lifting a cup of goat's milk to Chairman Dean today.This goes beyond politics and strays into the territory of the dangerously partisan. Right now there are 160,000 American troops in Iraq. They are there to fight a war that Congress (including a vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans) gave the president support to wage. In just under 3 years, we have liberated Iraq, deposed the dictator there, held elections and drawn up a Constitution. By any measure in the history of warfare, Iraq is a success. . . . In other words, for all intents and purposes, . . . we’ve won!

In just eight days the Iraqi people will elect their own leaders under their own constitution. Not bad, in spite of what the Democrats want you to believe. And what about those terrible numbers of casualties?? During the run-up to the war, there were retired generals on TV saying the US faced tens of thousands of casualties in the Iraq war. Since Baghdad fell, that number is a few thousand. Still way too many, but far short of estimates.

Despite the wishes of the Democrats, we have, in essence, WON the war in Iraq. All that’s left is training their military and police how to maintain a decent democratic society, through conventional rule of law.But Howard Dean wasn't finished with just the moronic rant about not winning. He went on to compare Iraq to Vietnam, even though there is no palatable comparison. He then called for troops to be redeployed. Redeployed, in case you don't know, means withdrawn from Iraq. Last time I checked, Howard Dean wasn't, and has never been, a general in the U.S. Army. He should stick to politics and medicine.

Can you just imagine how the Islamic terrorists and the insurgents must have felt when they heard these words from the chairman of the American Democrat Party?? These insurgents and terrorists have been gathering evidence for some time now that the Democrats were their friends. Now how must they feel? Not only is the leader of the party demanding withdrawal of American troops, but he's declaring the terrorists to be the winners! I think it’s time to begin to question these folks’ patriotism, . . . don’t you??Is there some obscure office at the Democratic National Headquarters where some of the more ardent members of the pro-Saddam crowd are planning for the Democratic delegation to head to Baghdad to celebrate the return to power of Saddam Hussein??

Let’s consider the possibilities, here. What are we supposed to do, to make Chairman Dean happy?? Should we let Saddam out of jail, and return him to his palaces?? What about buying him some nice, new, bullet-proof Limousines?? We could offer him an opportunity to re-start the “Oil for Food” program, so he could rebuild his millions of Iraqi Dinars and American Dollars back to pre-ouster levels. He could adopt a couple of his worst sociopaths to resume the work that his poor sons were interrupted from completing, too. Shouldn’t we just call our generals, and tell ‘em to pack everything up, and get the hell out of Baghdad?? Couldn’t we just call those local Imams, and tell ‘em we’re leaving Faluja, Mosul, and Kirkuk, offer ‘em up some nice letters of recommendation, and wander off, back to our C-130s, load our equipment, and leave?? I’m not sure even France would endorse such a plan, at this stage, . . . and, I KNOW Spain and Italy wouldn’t!

But Howard knows that he’s got the endorsement of millions of Americans on the left, who are apathetic enough, as long as there’ve been no more terrorist attacks inside our borders, to just sit back and let him rant, and let him run his ignorant mouth to the extent that he endangers our troops, and the successful mission they’re on.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2005-12-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

THIS IS HOW THE "LOYAL" OPPOSITION THINKS

By now you must know that a group of so-called "peacemakers" have been abducted by Islamic terrorists in Iraq. The abducted "peacemakers" were part of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams. Their own website makes it clear that they are a hard left-leaning organization. Now four of their members are being held by Islamic jihadists. See: http://www.cpt.org/

Now, just let me ask, . . . are these peacemakers upset with the Islamic terrorists who have taken their compatriots hostage?? Well, as a matter of fact, no, . . . . they're not. They're upset with both the people and the government of the United States. Radical Islam has a definite and stated course of action when it comes to Christians (whom they call, “non-believers”). They are either to be converted, subjugated and taxed, or killed. Well, these particular “non-believers” have now been captured and are being held hostage. That would be the subjugation part. Will they be killed?? Will they convert?? Of course, it is possible they could be released if the Islamists determine that would be in the best interests of the jihad, but remember that, contrary to what you read in American media, things are NOT going very well for the jihadists in Iraq, right now. But these fellow members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams don't seem to have any problem at all with the Radical Islamic extremists who have captured their comrads. They're upset with none other than the United States, of course! Here's a statement that the Christian Peacemaker Teams released:

"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the
actions of the US and UK governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the
continuing occupation and oppression of its people."

Now, maybe some of you leftists can tell me, just how is one supposed to deal with or interact with intellect of this nature?? These are people who have stood by Palestinian terrorists and who condemn the oppression of the U.S. Border Patrol agents who try to keep our borders secure. Now, in this particular case, they're solidly on the side of the insurgency in Iraq. That means that they are supporting the terrorists’ ideals and goals over there. Yet, they blame you and me for this predicament they find themselves in! Someone please explain this to me.

For those of you reading this, with even a slightly conservative perspective on all things political, this is the intellect of the left. All that is bad that is happening in the Middle East, and in the world, is the fault of the evil United States. Our attempts to bring the rule of law and a popularly elected government, (as opposed to a ruthless dictator/murderer/sociopath), to the people of Iraq constitutes oppression and occupation. Our attempts to secure our borders amount to nothing more than oppression of poor Mexicans. Sure, these people have the right to be out-of-control lunatics, but where is it written that we have to treat them as worthy of serious consideration?? They're lunatics. Let's ask our friends in the journalistic world to recognize them as such, so that we can direct our attentions to things more important, . . . like killing the diabolical terrorists who took them.

May God Bless these people, who seem to be victims of their own, warped, sense of loyalty, patriotism, and morality.

And, may God Bless America!

Dan'L

$

2005-12-01T20:05:00.000-07:00

WILL ANYONE SAY THAT MOVEON.ORG LIED?

Probably not . . . . because Moveon.org is a liberal organization . . . . just about as liberal as you can get without changing your name to socialism.org or peaceatanyprice.org.

Here's the story. Moveon.org was running an advertisement on its website calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq: i.e., calling for surrender. As the narrator of this ad was talking about American troops they showed a picture of British troops --- saying that they were Americans. Deceptive?? Well, let's look at the way they handled it, . . .

You could tell they were Brits because one of them was wearing shorts . . . . not part of the American GI uniform. When Moveon.org learned of the error they tried to alter the photograph by darkening the British fatigues to look more like American fatigues, and by photoshopping a new pair of pants on the soldier wearing shorts!! This, of course, was a deliberate and premeditated attempt to be completely deceptive. The very thing the left is so fond of attributing to George Bush.

Later, when their attempt to deceive was discovered, they just eliminated the picture altogether. You can get the entire story here.

And if you want to see the altered pictures, they are available here.

Enjoy.

God Bless,
Dan'L

2005-11-29T08:01:00.000-07:00

The Moron known as Ted Turner is at it again

He took time out from flipping bison burgers and worrying about the financial success of his newest investment on West Dodge Road, in Omaha, Nebraska the other day to regale us with his opinions on the war in Iraq.

According to the guy who's also known for being one of Nebraska's biggest non-resident-non-taxpayers, the country of Iraq is not better off without Saddam Hussein. This should come as no surprise. As we have since learned, Saddam Hussein was quite the buddy of Turner's CNN for a long time. The TV network that Ted started did their best to hide Saddam's atrocities in exchange for media access. WhaddaSurprise, ehh??

Now, with their sugar daddy sitting in prison, they no longer have the edge. (see commentary below, for more scintilating quotes from the Moron Turner), . . . But what has to be most depressing to Ted is that Iraqis are now living in freedom. They now have more clean water, electricity and schools than they did before the war. There have been free elections. A Constitution has been drawn up. We have won the war.

I guess we should cut Ted a break, . . . he hasn't been this depressed since the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union broke up. Oh, and some ballsy journalist should ask him if Iraqi women were better off being raped by the Fedayeen. Perhaps what Ted meant to say was that CNN was no better off now than it was when Saddam was in power. That might be quite a bit more accurate!

Here are some other fine quotes from the Moron Turner:

"I ended the Cold War"
( 6/7/2005 ) Ted Turner – never known for his modesty - claims credit for helping end the Cold War, saying his 1986 Goodwill Games eased international tensions through sports competition. "I thought, between sports and news and television and friendship, that you could end the Cold War," he told a conference of CNN employees and contributors marking the network’s 25th anniversary. "And by God, we did."

"Propaganda tool of the Bush administration"
( 1/25/2005 ) Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II. Turner made those fiery comments in his first address at the National Association for Television Programming Executives' conference since he was ousted from Time Warner Inc. five years ago. The 66-year-old billionaire, who leveraged a television station in Atlanta into a media empire, made the comment before a standing-room-only crowd at NATPE's opening session Tuesday. His no-nonsense, sometimes humorous, approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter.

"Hijackers were motivated by world poverty and were brave at the very least"
( 6/19/2003 ) Media mogul Ted Turner Monday praised the firefighters, rescue workers and police officers for their courage on Sept.11, but said he thinks the terrorist themselves were brave because New York's World Trade Center crumbled and the Pentagon in Washington was partially destroyed.

During a speech at Brown University in Providence, R.I., Turner, founder of CNN, said the hijackers were motivated by world poverty and "were brave at the very least.

"The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life," he said.

Turner added that he thinks the terrorists "also might have been a little nuts." (From an article dated 2/12/02)

2005-11-28T08:01:00.000-07:00

Democrats Speak Out on WMD

Perhaps Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) should have done some research before charging the Bush administration with "manufacturing” and "manipulating” pre-war intelligence relating to Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

In particular, Reid should have researched statements made by several prominent members of his own Democratic Party.

Republicans have circulated numerous pre-war Democratic statements on weapons of mass destruction since Reid blurred the line between the claims of the Democratic Party and the slanders of Michael Moore. Reid on Nov. 1 invoked Rule 21, accusing the Bush administration of purposely misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then so too were many leading Democrats.

The following is a list of statements made by prominent Democrats on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program:

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

****Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

****Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

****Congressional Record , October 8, 2002

President Bill Clinton
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

****Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."

****Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

****Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Vice President Al Gore
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

****Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."

****ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."

****Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 23, 2002

Secretary Of State Madelyn Albright
"Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.”

****Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people."

****CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998

Defense Secretary William Cohen
Cohen appeared on ABC’s "This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.

Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts ...

One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.
VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.

Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.

Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it.

****"This Week” on ABC, November 16, 1997

2005-11-28T00:01:00.000-07:00

Terrorists and tyrants

By Victor Davis Hanson

As American casualties mount in Iraq, politicians at home now fight over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President George W. Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida — and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons — and illogical for even more.

Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet — the Clinton-appointed CIA director — warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."

Seventy-seven Senators apparently agreed — including a majority of Democrats — and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: ". . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly still, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas — terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s — were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists' efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions — and can't even do that without the clandestine help of illegitimate regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provide money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region — and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty — deflected popular anger over their own failures on to the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to "fight terror" earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing "friends."

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans, and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war — we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq — but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. No wonder that wherever there are elections in the Middle East — Afghanistan and Iraq — legitimate governments there have the moral authority and the desire to fight Islamic terrorism.

Americans can blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons we went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side now attack American soldiers — and why an elected Iraqi government is fighting with us.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and military historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.