Seeking Freedom and Liberty


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2006 June
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Ludwig Von Mises
Townhall.com
National Debt Clock

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Get A Sticker Too

Page Title

Welcome to my page, this page is for my views on politics, religion and anything else that catches my fancy. I would say over all I am a political moderate, the reason I say that is because I will swing from one side of the spectrum to the other. So if you see something that contradicts something else, let me know and I will try to explain. Thanks and Enjoy!!!!

Defination of All American
06.18.06 (12:51 pm)   [edit]

Will someone tell me what the defination of the All American "look" is?  Because I could have sworn that there really isn't one.  For me the All American look is different for every person.  Thats what makes America so great! 

I am no big fan of the ACLU but this one time I will support them:

 

ACLU Probes Six Flags Hairstyle Ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating complaints from more than a dozen black employees at a Six Flags theme park who were told their hairstyles were inappropriate.

 

In this story the kid cut off 2 feet of his hair!  He must have really wanted that job!  Because if it was me, I would not have cut my hair because it sounds like the hired him knowing that his hair was that long.  Besides, no one would have seen his hair, he would have been wearing a big Sylvester or Donald Duck head!

 I just don't get it.

 
I just don't get it
06.18.06 (12:23 pm)   [edit]

She is going to get herself killed.  Who?  The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks that is. Here is the latest garbage coming out of her mouth:

 "The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

 You don't have to love the country you live in. You have the right to your own opinion.  Some of us care about our country, some of us care about where we live and love our country.  If she doesn't understand that then she needs to go back to school and take some history lessons.

Here is Merriam Websters defination of Patriotism:

love for or devotion to one's country

I blame her parents really.  For not making sure she understands what loving ones country's means.  She doesn't understand what our forefathers did to make sure she had the right to believe what she believs.  Does she realize there are a lot of people in this world that would love to be able to just have the right to make what I consider ignorant and stupid comments like hers?

But its obvious that she doesn't understand.

The death threats made against her?  I think the FBI has better things to do, than follow up on comments made by people that are even more ignorant than she is.

 
Respect
06.17.06 (10:36 pm)   [edit]

Here is an intresting view on respect. I found it at the following website

 http://www.jknirp.com/guard25.htm" title="http://www.jknirp.com/guard25.htm" target="_blank"http://www.jknirp.com/guard25...

The Meaning of Respect

According to Romano Guardini

Respect comes from the German word ehrfrucht, meaning both fear and honor.

Respect is a strange word, this combination of fear and honor. Fear which honors; honor which is pervaded by fear. What kind of fear could that be? Certainly not the kind of fear that comes upon us in the face of something harmful or that causes pain. That kind of fear causes us to defend ourselves and to seek safety. The fear of which we shall speak does not fight or flee, but it forbids obtrusiveness, keeps one at a distance, does not permit the breath of one's own being to touch the revered object. Perhaps it is would be better to speak of this fear as "awe."

 
Judges Usurping legislation
12.14.04 (4:13 am)   [edit]

It’s amazing that 200 years ago they were concerned about this issue. Thomas Jefferson said the following:


"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson


Federalist Patriot No. 04-50
Monday Brief


I think that our founding fathers would be horrified if they seen what Federal Judges are doing these days. I believe that Samuel Adams would be shouting for the Tree of Liberty to be fed the blood of these Judicial Tyrants.


His cousin understood liberty very well when he said the following: "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." --John Adams


It may come down to blood some day in the future. Our country may find itself involved in another civil war and I can almost guarantee that our Europeans “allies” will sit back and watch while they like their lips to see if the USA falls apart so much they can come in and pick up (apart?) whats left of this country all under the guise of helping us rebuild.

 
Getting Serious About Syria
12.14.04 (4:09 am)   [edit]

I would like to know what our government is going to do about all of the “resistance” (read insurgent fighters) that are being trucked in from Syria? If according to what William Kristol in his article for The Weekly Standard titled “Getting Serious About Syria”   is correct then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and taken care. Fighters are coming out Syria in a flood and it doesn’t seem like its being taken serious enough in my opinion.


 


"WE WILL pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
George W. Bush, Address to Congress,
September 20, 2001


 


I think it is safe to say that Syria can be considered a hostile regime and something needs to be done. But before anything can be done our military forces need to be doubled in my opinion and we need to do anything we can, up to and maybe including reinstating the draft to get this problem resolved.

 
"enforcement seems to be his middle name."
12.12.04 (10:37 am)   [edit]

From reading the following article it would seem the IRS is trying to become what it once was before the 1998 Restructuring Act according to the article IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said in his confirmation hearings that he would drive the IRS enforcement of tax collection to "Historic Levels."


Now I don't know about the rest of you but that has me very concerned. I feel I am a law abiding tax payer. I don't try to cheat the IRS (read Federal Government) out of what is due. My concern is if I make a mistake what will happen? Well again according to the article, the IRS is not going to be so helpful in educating me in how I made the mistake. Instead they are just going to enforce the law with out helping me figure out what I did wrong. Which in my opinion is what they should do.


========================= ==================


IRS Increases Pressure on Taxpayers



Written By: Dan Pilla
Published In: Budget & Tax News
Publication Date: November 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


Recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data show the agency is returning to the more stringent enforcement levels of the early and mid-1990s, but the oversight committee in charge of the service is still not satisfied. The IRS is now under pressure from a variety of sources to squeeze more taxpayers harder and more consistently.


On August 3, upon release of the 2004 Annual Report of the IRS Oversight Board, IRS Advisory Committee Chairman Roger Harris said he wants the IRS to "touch more people" through enforcement action. He said he believes that effort is justified based on the report, which claims one in five people "now believe that [tax] cheating is acceptable."


This has added fuel to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson's quest to restore the IRS enforcement machine to what it was 10 years ago. During his confirmation hearings in April 2003, Everson promised the Senate Finance Committee he would restore IRS enforcement to "historic levels."


"click here to read more"

 
Lawmaker Sparks Immigrant Licensing Debate
12.08.04 (3:21 am)   [edit]

This is the last paragraph from an article on Foxnews.com's website. And I do oppose giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses because it would legitimize them being here. They are breaking the law everyday they stay in the United States. They crossed the border illegally. Don't reward them by giving them a legal document saying they can drive legally in the state!!! Rightfully the feds stayed out of this issue. Read the whole article to see what I mean.


------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----


Polls in California and Arizona show a majority opposes issuing licenses to illegal immigrants, arguing the permits legitimize and invite more illegal immigration.

 
The Price of Being American
12.07.04 (4:28 pm)   [edit]

Pretty good essay about the price of being an American.


========================= ========================= =====================


(What the Left needs to understand about the Right)


December 1, 2004


by J.B. Williams


Yes, being a member of the freest society on earth comes at a price, and each of us will pay that price one way or another. Being American means many different things to many people, but at a glance, the Right understands it means being free to be ourselves in every respect, and freedom is never free.


It’s important that we first agree on what America is. America is the most prosperous nation on earth. It is also the most generous nation on earth, and the most powerful nation on earth. All of its power, all of our generosity, comes from our prosperity, and all of our prosperity is a direct result of our freedom.


If men are not free to prosper, then a nation is doomed to destitution. The idea that wealth can be redistributed by force, that it should be, in the form of tax codes that penalize success, flies in the face of  American principles of freedom, as well as the laws of nature. There is a very basic reason why some acquire wealth, while others don’t. It has to do with individual choices, the price of success.


Those who have become wealthy in America paid a price for their wealth, a price most people are unwilling to pay. Those unwilling to pay that price will pay another for economic mediocrity or even financial failure at the other end of the spectrum. For both, the grass always looks greener on the other side, but neither will accept the price of change.


Being the freest people on earth makes us both the most loved and the most envied and hated nation on earth, for all the same reasons. Most countries around the globe depend on America in one way or another. Though they are glad to have our support, they would rather not need it. Many resent the fact that they are in any way dependent upon America’s power. After all, there are strings attached to our generosity, loyalty topping the list.


America has spoiled many nations with our generosity; those countries developing a knack for biting the hand that feeds them. In many ways, American’s themselves have been spoiled by the fact that so many are able to enjoy the fruits of our forefather’s sacrifices, some forgetting that those sacrifices were ever made, ignoring that they will need to be made again.


Being free comes with a very high price, first paid in the blood of soldiers who secure and defend that freedom against those who wish to see America in bondage. Often, defending our freedoms at home includes securing freedom for others abroad, giving them a personal stake in a peaceful civilized world. Some believe this is too high a price for our own freedom, or fail to see the connection all together.


Then, the daily price is paid by every American in the form of individual consequences for how we choose to use our individual freedom. No ceiling means no floor either, as American’s we are working a high-wire act without a net, taking risks without any guarantees. Many don’t like this price either…


When all goes well, we want the credit and the fruits of our labor, the reward for the risks we were willing to take. But when it doesn’t go exactly as planned, we naturally start looking for that safety net that was never a part of America’s original design. Being an American has never been for the faint hearted…


As American’s we are free to have no plan at all for our individual future, and equally free to enjoy the fruits of that effort. Sometimes no plan works out, kind of like winning the lottery, but when it doesn’t, we are quick to search for someone else to take responsibility for the price that comes with failure.


The same is true for our friends around the globe. They envy America’s power, our prosperity that affords that power, even more; they resent their own weakness by comparison, though they too, are unwilling as nations, as people, to accept the price of change. It’s so much easier to simply blame America for their position in the world.


Instead of adopting American principles that produced American prosperity and power, they prefer to weaken America down to their level. Because they are unwilling to pay the price America has paid for its freedom and subsequent prosperity, they prefer America forfeit its freedom and power in the world, in order to level the international playing field, and to no surprise, many Americans in search of a government issued level playing field at home agree.


Just as those American’s unwilling to pay the personal price of economic freedom expect our government to elevate them by reducing the rich to equal status, the international community looks to reduce American prestige in order to elevate itself in the world.


The world has always had a dominant power. Throughout history, that power has usually been found in the hands of tyrants who used that power to enslave their own people and their neighbors. In America’s case, we have used our power to free people around the globe, to empower people, to liberate nations from tyrannical regimes that brutalized their own. Yet somehow, this story has been perverted by the global press, including in America.


The fact that so many misunderstand America’s motives doesn’t change the fact that our motives are honorable; it just makes it more difficult to achieve our goal of a freer more prosperous and more peaceful world.


Here’s the rub, in order for America to remain powerful, it must remain prosperous. In order for it to remain prosperous, it must remain as free as possible. We can not allow our most successful risk takers in society to be targeted by those unwilling to take risks. Government can’t level the playing field; people must remain free to choose their own destiny.


In order for the world to become more prosperous, more self-sufficient, more peaceful, they must adopt the same principles that made America the most prosperous and most powerful nation on earth, not expect America to concede its power to an international community that has no understanding of that power.


I am not defending wealth, I am defending the freedom to become whatever you want, including wealthy. I don’t personally qualify as one of America’s “rich”, only as one who recognizes the choices I have made with my freedom, and accepts the results of my decisions.


America’s Left needs to understand that most of us on the Right are just like them, except we accept the fruits of our decisions, and our responsibilities in the world. It’s time they did the same!


It’s time the international community stop expecting America to relinquish or apologize for its power, its prosperity, and its honorable intentions for a more prosperous and peaceful world. It’s time both begin to focus on what is right about America, what makes America work, how America improves the lives of many around the world. America’s Right understands and respects these principles, and we intend to preserve them by any means necessary…not because we are “rich”, but because we are free to become “rich” if we so choose.


Free to become whatever we choose…and you can’t put a price tag on that!



Copyright ©2004 JB Williams All rights reserved.

 
Speaking English
12.07.04 (4:18 pm)   [edit]

I have read about immigrants from around the turn of the 20th century who came over to America for the freedom that this country would allow them to have. Because they wanted to be Americans the learned the language, they learned the history and were proud to take the oath that made them citizens.  Its not like that anymore. The immigrants that come to this country both legal and illegal usually barely learn any English. Sometimes they don't learn any at all.


I am going to be politically incorrect here and say that if you want to live in my country, learn my language!!!!


========================= ===================


Speaking English Preserves
Our National Heritage


Nathon Tabor


December 4, 2004 - “Breathes there the man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said: ‘This is my own, my native land’?” Most of us have heard those famous lines. But exactly why do they resonate across the years?




 I  believe it’s because they capture the essence of patriotism and national identity.Today we have a large and rapidly growing population of immigrants, both legal and illegal, surging into the United States, many of them Hispanic. As a result, some well-meaning folks are advancing the idea that our schools should teach classes in Spanish to accommodate those who don’t know English.

America, the modern politically correct theory goes, should become a multilingual culture to reflect the multicultural backgrounds of the various ethnic groups who now live here.


Thus our election ballots, laws, public records, court proceedings, etc., should all be conducted in at least two languages and possibly more.




This misguided idea represents the epitome of enlightened liberalism.



I believe that such a move would be a cultural disaster because it would result in the Balkanization of American society. After all, there are currently more than 300 different languages spoken by various groups within America.




It is true that we are a “nation of immigrants,” and that the proverbial American “melting pot” contains individuals from a variety of different cultural backgrounds. It is also legitimate for people to remember and preserve many of their ancient traditions and their ethnic heritage.


However, the essence of immigration has always been assimilation into the larger American society. People flocked to our shores en masse because America alone promised them freedom and the opportunity for a better life than they had elsewhere. While they might speak their native languages at home, in public they did business in English so that they could flourish and prosper in this new land.


To become naturalized American citizens, these newcomers had to learn our language and our history, and then take a solemn oath to obey our laws and defend our way of life. In other words, they had to change and adapt to the new common culture they desired to join. They might retain their own personal cultural distinctive, but their new national identity made them all uniquely Americans.




“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans,” pronounced President Theodore Roosevelt a century ago.

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. We have but one flag. We must also learn one language and that language is English,” TR shrewdly observed.




Roosevelt’s authoritative proclamation came at a high tide of American immigration, when literally hordes of immigrants from Eastern as well as Western Europe were flooding America’s shores and filling her cities and factories with the raw human resources of the Industrial Revolution. He saw the dangers as well as the blessings of this massive influx of humanity.




Today there is an effort afoot to pass legislation declaring English to be the official language of the United States. This was not done by the Founding Fathers, because back then there was no reason to pass a law mandating what was already true in fact. The overwhelming majority of settlers in colonial America came from what Winston Churchill later famously called “the English-speaking peoples.” Thanks to the navies of the British Empire, the English language has encircled and dominated the globe.




Declaring English to be the official language of America today would mean that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies, public meetings and election ballots.




Today twenty-seven states have some form of “Official English” law, and there is an ongoing effort in Congress to pass national legislation. Of course, the ACLU opposes this idea, despite the fact that 82 percent of adult Americans favor it, according to the latest Zogby poll.




An Official English laws will not only preserve our cultural heritage, historical documents, and uniquely American way of life, it will also enable immigrants to fit in and flourish here. At a bare minimum, Official English legislation would:




1. Promote unity within the society;
2. Empower immigrants to prosper in the community;
3. Produce efficient, common-sense government.




“I believe we are being dishonest with language minority groups if we tell them they can take full part in American life without learning the English language,” said S.I. Hayakawa, the founder of U.S. English, Inc., the leader in promoting Official English.




Hayakawa’s sentiments thus agree with those of President Ronald Reagan, without question the most respected and beloved American leader of the 20th Century.




“By emphasizing the importance of a common language, we safeguard a proud legacy and help to ensure that America’s future will be as great as her past,” Reagan said.




For both our great nation and her diverse people, Official English makes good sense.




Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in Psychology and his Master’s Degree in Public Policy. He is a contributing editor at .

 
Is Hawaii legally a state???
12.06.04 (5:33 pm)   [edit]

Not according to this website. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/HAWAII/hawaii.html" title="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/HAWAII/hawaii.html" target="_blank"http://www.whatreallyhappened... I have really just scanned thru it but it does make for some interesting reading.


========================= ========================= =====




Hawaii is not legally a state!



It is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one's one detriment.

The people of the United States find themselves in such a position right now, forced to choose between a moral and ethical position that carries with it the potential for "inconvenience", or supporting the status quo and having to admit to themselves that they are not the champions of justice they imagine themselves to be. By the end of this article, you will know for yourself which one you are.

Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.

But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!

The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.


 


more....

 
People Can Just Get Along
12.06.04 (5:09 pm)   [edit]

People Can Just Get Along


by Robert Murphy


Mention any topic touching on international trade and you are sure to provoke multiple discussions, ranging from child labor to parity in workplace safety, and including catchy terms like "dumping," "outsourcing," and "brain drain."  It seems as if many of our best and brightest scholars are devoting their precious talents to enumerating all of the horrible ills that will beset humanity if we do not act immediately to combat each and every development in the global economy.


more........

 
Quote from Benjamin Franklin
12.06.04 (4:49 pm)   [edit]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin

 
Quote from George Washington
12.06.04 (4:47 pm)   [edit]

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." --George Washington

 
Holocaust Miracle: Candles on the Train
12.06.04 (4:41 pm)   [edit]
JPFO Alert: Holocaust Miracle

By popular request, we are resending the Chanukah story
"Holocaust Miracle:Candles on the Train", from the book
_Heroes of the Holocaust_  by Arnold Geier.

Like the man on the train, we have candles that are very
precious to us: the ten flames of the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, these flames are flickering, and there are
those who would like to snuff them out permanently, like
they snuffed out the lives of so many before us.

Help us make sure our "candles" stay lit.

- The Liberty Crew

------------------------- --------

Holocaust Miracle: Candles on the Train

December 25, 1938 was a day for celebration around the
world. For many it was Christmas, for some it was Chanukah
-- and for the Geier family it was the day they would
escape the murderous clutches of the Germans. Shortly after
Kristallnacht, the Geier's had received their passports and
visas to leave Germany for the United States.

It was a sunny but cold day as their train bound for
Holland pulled out of the Berlin station. The Geier's
shared their second-class compartment with two very stern-
looking Germans. Arnold Geier, age 12, and his sister, 15,
sat quietly with their parents. In a whisper, Arnold
overheard his mother reassure his father that God would
forgive him for not lighting his menorah that night. Mr.
Geier was a cantor and a devout Jew and had packed a small
menorah and some candles in his briefcase.

"Not long after darkness," recalls Arnold, "the train
slowed and puffed its way into a special railway station at
the German-Dutch border. We braced ourselves for our final
encounter with the German police, Nazis and Gestapo. Just a
few more miles and our old lives would be behind us."

The train sat in the station and the Geier's watched as the
Border Police and the Gestapo carefully compared lists and
prepared to check everyone's passports and papers.

"Finally, small groups of officers boarded the train for
their inspection. Papa looked tense and broke out in a
sweat. I was afraid.

Suddenly, without any warning, all the lights in the
station and on the train went out. A number of people lit
matches for light and the glow on their faces was an eerie
sight. I felt like screaming."

In the confusion, Mr. Geier stood up, managed to find his
overcoat, and pulled eight small candles out of his coat
pocket. He struck a match and lit one candle. Using that
candle he warmed the bottoms of the other candles and lined
up all eight candles on the window sill of our compartment.
He quietly recited the Chanukah blessings, and lit the
candles.

"For the first time in a long time, I saw a smile appear on
Papa's face. Then someone shouted, 'There's light over
there!' The Border Police and the Gestapo men soon came to
our compartment and used the light of the candles to
conduct their checking of the passports and papers. One of
the officers commended Papa on his resourcefulness for
thinking ahead and packing 'travel candles.'

"About a half hour passed and then, as suddenly as they had
gone off, the lights flickered on again. The officers
thanked Papa and left our compartment to finish their work
throughout the train."

"'Remember this moment,' Papa said to me, 'like in the time
of the Maccabees, a great miracle happened here.'"
 
Day laborers come to work, not 'to take'
12.06.04 (4:35 pm)   [edit]

In Arizona we  have a problem with illegal immigration. In November we passed Prop. 200 which supposedly would keep illegal imigrants from getting welfare, voting and getting a drivers license. It of course has been stopped by a Federal Judge. The feds love to butt their noses in state business. Anyways since the election there has been alot said about this Prop. More information has come out now about how illegals can't do what was said they could. I would like to know where this information was before hand.  Anyways here is an article that is helping me change my attitude slightly about illegal immigrants as far as their attitudes about welfare fraud. They are still breaking the law by being here illegally.


========================= ====================


Day laborers come to work, not 'to take'



Dec. 6, 2004 12:00 AM


The atmosphere at the Macehualli Work Center has changed incredibly since Election Day, when voters passed Proposition 200, the Protect Arizona Now initiative designed to kick undocumented immigrants off welfare.

The main change is that, over those weeks, it has gotten really cold. When Benito Garcia shows up at 6 a.m., temperatures are in the low 30s. He wears a thick green jacket and a ball cap. Others wear hooded sweatshirts or knit caps. Most of the workers, like Garcia, are here illegally. They stand and wait, hoping someone hires them to do construction or yard work.

"It's something I've noticed," Garcia said in Spanish, his hands in his pockets, as he stood at the center one morning last week, "the will of the immigrant is strong, even if the pay is weak."

A federal judge in Tucson temporarily blocked Proposition 200 from becoming law last week. But even if it did go into effect, it wouldn't change anything at this work center, located on 25th Street, just south of Bell Road. After all, that law would have affected undocumented immigrants on state welfare. These undocumented immigrants, standing or sitting for hours in the cold morning air, are waiting to work.

"We came to work. We didn't come to take," said Sergio Sanchez, 33, who crossed over illegally from Mexico seven years ago.

People here illegally are already kept off the state welfare rolls, although those who pushed Proposition 200 were convinced otherwise. And even if welfare were open to them, Garcia spoke of the program as something dishonorable.

"They're lazy people," he said of welfare recipients, "that have children and don't want to provide for them. They want to live off the government."

Sanchez, Garcia and the other 60 workers assembled most mornings at Macehualli do not live off the government. They live off the cash given by the anonymous drivers who hire them to pull out bougainvilleas or tile a floor.

The Macehualli Work Center consists of an asphalt driveway that leads cars past a series of benches shaded by a green canopy. To the north of that is one port-a-potty, a drinking fountain, a stack of shovels leaning against a chain-link fence and, oddly enough, an exercise bike that somebody donated. A Spanish-language station floats out of a small portable radio. A few benches down, a waiting worker strums a guitar.

The center cost the city of Phoenix $120,000 in land lease and construction. It also cost a lot of political headaches.

This is the birthplace of Proposition 200. The center, lauded by businesses and neighbors in its Palomino area, was attacked, mostly by people who lived nowhere near it. That raw emotion led to an attempted recall of Peggy Neely, the city councilwoman who oversees the neighborhood. That failed.

But it did succeed in giving some political footing to a disparate group of people: Rusty Childress, an auto dealer; Kathy McKee, a grass-roots immigration activist; and Randy Pullen, a twice-failed candidate for Phoenix mayor. At the news conference called to denounce Neely, Childress said it was the first of many efforts against illegal immigration. A few weeks later, he and McKee announced the drive to get Protect Arizona Now on the ballot.

But waging these two battles meant supporters had to simultaneously hold opposing views of undocumented immigrants.

Proposition 200, aside from the laughable notion that undocumented immigrants vote, was motivated by the notion that undocumented immigrants are on the state's welfare rolls. However, the controversy over Macehualli came about because undocumented immigrants wanted to work so badly, they were standing in busy Bell Road, trying to flag down willing employers.

Macehualli probably couldn't be built today, since the passage of Proposition 200. Not that the law would stop spending for it. But because politicians would be too afraid of it. Already, the center is facing a tough fight at City Hall to stay open. Its future could rest on whether city leaders have the guts to publicly vote to keep it open, facing charges that they are aiding and abetting an illegal activity.

Immigration has become the third rail of politics. Pullen is receiving more airtime and ink now, talking tough about illegal immigration, than he ever received as a mayoral candidate.

The initiative passed with 56 percent of the vote. Wonder how it did among the regular customers of the center, the ones who leave with undocumented workers in tow.

"A lot of guys who come here and hire these workers, they're hypocrites," said Salvador Reza, who heads up Tonatierra, the social service agency that runs the center. It's basic supply and demand, he said. These workers are needed, and that's evident by the vehicles that drive up to hire them.

As if it were on cue, a blue and white truck drove into the center. The side of the truck advertised a roofing company.

Jobs get distributed through a lottery. Workers put their ticket in a plastic bucket. They're drawn and determine a list of workers. One worker volunteers each day to keep everything organized. Their reward is a guarantee of a job the following day. Garcia was not in charge this day but was helping out anyway. "Who's next?" he shouted in Spanish.

Reza talked to the man behind the wheel. He wanted someone who spoke English to help him clean up a roofing job and take some materials to the dump. Pay was $10 an hour, and it figured to be a four-hour job.

The next man on the list was Jose Lopez, but he didn't speak English. So the job went to the next man on the list who did. "Christopher," Garcia shouted.

Reza opened the door and let "Christopher" into the passenger seat of the truck. "The license plate, the license plate," Reza shouted as the truck pulled away. The center keeps record of its customers' license plate numbers. It protects the workers and helps them screen out customers who don't pay.

Reza dropped four quarters into a plastic bucket on a table by the list. Each worker who goes out on a job donates a dollar to the pot to help the center's upkeep. Last year, the take was $16,000, Reza said.

Garcia, who is originally from Chihuahua and crossed the border illegally a year ago, was still waiting for work. His last job involved digging out a concrete pipe from the yard of a home near 24th Street and McDowell Road. The day before that, he rolled insulation into a home near Greenway Road and 32nd Street. "That stuff pokes you," Garcia said of the insulation.

These are the jobs that people don't want to do. So they hire someone here illegally to do them.

A man in an Infiniti I-30 pulled up. Reza talked to him and then shouted to the workers like he was ordering a combo meal. "One with English, two with no English." Sanchez stepped forward to take the English-speaking spot. "How is your English?" Reza asked him. Sanchez shook his head and walked with Reza to greet his employer and give him a sample of his English skills. After a few words, Reza waved two others over and they got in the back seat. The job was a simple yard cleanup at $8 an hour.

Neither Garcia nor Sanchez, nor anyone else at the work center, said they knew of someone, even anecdotally, who was illegally on the state's welfare rolls. Garcia said there a few people he knew of whose children, born in the United States, qualified for aid. Some stop working and try to live solely on that government money, Garcia said, shaking his head in disgust.

Asked what should be done with any undocumented immigrants who are illegally on the welfare rolls, Garcia had a quick answer. "Take it away and put them to work."



Reach Ruelas at richard.ruelas@arizonarepublic.com or(602) 444-8473.
 
Hysteria and Censorship
12.06.04 (3:15 am)   [edit]

I listen and I watch the news and I wonder what the hell is going on with our country. Rep. Gerald Allen an Alabama lawmaker wants to pass a bill in his state that would outlaw any public money use in the purchasing of books with Gay characters or allow money to be used to put on classic plays like "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof."


This is getting ridiculas. Read the following article and you will get all the details:


========================= ========================= =====




Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker



Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer

MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.


A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."


"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.


Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.


"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.


A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.


"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.


Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.


If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.


When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.


Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."


The bill also would ban materials that recognize or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Alabama. Allen said that meant books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too.


His bill also would prohibit a teacher from handing out materials or bringing in a classroom speaker who suggested homosexuality was OK, he said.


Allen has sponsored legislation to make a gay marriage ban part of the Alabama Constitution, but it was not approved by the Legislature.


Ken Baker, a board member of Equality Alabama, a gay rights organization, said Allen was "attempting to become the George Wallace of homosexuality."


Aside from the moral debates, the bill could be problematic for library collections, said Jaunita Owes, director of the Montgomery City-County Library, which is a few blocks from the Alabama Capitol.


"Half the books in the library could end up being banned. It's all based on how one interprets the material," Owes said.



E-mail: kchandler@bhamnews.com



Copyright 2004 al.com. All Rights Reserved.
 
Vandalism for Credit
11.29.04 (4:39 pm)   [edit]

Below is part of an article that I took from the following linke Foxnews.com please read it and then read the rest of my post.


 


Vandalism for Credit


Blogger Right Reason links to another weird story from the Claremont colleges: Two students painted anti-SUV slogans on SUVs as a class assignment. (They used some sort of washable paint.) The professor initially said the students misinterpreted her instructions to express their "political voice." Student Life, the college newspaper, reports:


The students expressed environmental concerns about SUVs by writing statements such as "I use 33% more gas than a car," "consumption machine," and "I heart pollution."


"It was not a well thought out action," said Professor Yvonne Houy, who teaches a course titled Political Activism in Film and Media at Pomona. Recently, she told students in the class to exercise their political voice, not imagining that the two students in question would decide to fulfill the assignment in such an atypical — and illegal — manner.


Later, a memo from the dean said the students had received written approval for the vandalism before defacing the cars; Houy said she'd "inadvertently" approved the idea. Houy is a professor of German Studies.


 


Joanne Jacobs pulled this from Right Reason Blog does an excellant job at writting the article, from what I could tell there was some excellant research done. One of the questions I have about this what is a German Studies Professor doing teaching a class in Political Activism? I don't know all the details on how this is done. What I assume it should be is how "Political Activism in Film and Media" effected the German Culture. At least thats what I think. I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. One last I think the Professor should receive a letter of recommend in her professional file. I also feel the students should have some put in their student records for lack of judgement. But thats me. Let me know what you think.

 
Cesare Beccaria
10.08.04 (8:13 am)   [edit]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria

 
Factcheck.org on the Vice Presidential debate
10.06.04 (9:55 am)   [edit]

I get an email from FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org" title="http://www.factcheck.org" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org that does exactly as its name implys regarding political canidates and what they say.


Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts

Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org

10.06.2004

Summary 


Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.


Edwards  falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.


Analysis


 


Cheney Plugs FactCheck


Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.


In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Hal liburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.


Edwards on Halliburton: Partial Credit


We can only give Edwards partial credit for his Halliburton attack, however. He implied that Cheney was in charge of the company when it did business with Libya in violation of US sanctions, but that happened long before Cheney joined the company.


Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.


Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."


On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was CEO.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however.  In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990.


Cutting Combat Pay?


Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the White House never supported such a plan.


Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary.


Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003 that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."


But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report, David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay. The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories."


Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution


Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.


The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."


And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:


Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.


If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.


Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.


In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:


Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.


Jobs Figures


Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.


Edwards said 1.6 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost during the Bush administration. Both figures are accurate, but omit the growth in employment by federal, state and local governments. The net loss in total employment is actually 913,000 as of August, the most recent figures available.


Cheney claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't the case.


Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year. New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.


Cheney's "First Time"


Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.


Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:


Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.


90% of the Casualties


Cheney disputed Edwards's statement -- often repeated by Kerry -- that US forces have suffered "90% of the coalition casualties" in Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces "have taken almost 50 percent" of the casualties.


Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark.


Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces -- those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to CNN.com, which keeps an updated list, 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition deaths.


We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% (not "almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.


Small Businesses


Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do.


As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns.


A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used.


Other Dubious Claims.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.


·    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   &nb sp;   &nbs p;     ;         & nbsp;   Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.




Sources


 


Pam Easton, "Halliburton To Pay Fine For Failing To Disclose Accounting Change," The Associated Press, 3 Aug 2004.


Bloomberg Business News, "Company Fined In Trade With Libya," The New York Times , 15 July 1995.


Richard Whittle and James Landers, "Cheney's Years at Halliburton Under Scrutiny, Inquiries Into Company Political Allies Say," The Dallas Morning News , 8 Sept. 2004: 1A.


WashingtonPost.com, "A Halliburton Primer ," 11 July 2002.



Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties , CNN.com, accessed
6 Oct 2004.


Raju Chebium, "Dole To Focus On National Security, Economy, Health care," Gannett News Service , 8 Jan. 2003.


Vice President Dick Cheney Delivers Remarks At National Prayer Breakfast," FDCH Political Transcripts , 1 Feb. 2001.


Editorial, "Our Kerry Iraq Guide," The Wall Street Journal 30 Sept.
2004
: A16.


Vince Crawley and Dario Lopez-Mills. "Pentagon Pushes for Cuts in Danger, Separation Pays." Army Times . 18 Aug. 2003.



Vince Crawley. "DoD Officials Vow to Keep Combat Pays Intact." Army Times.
25 Aug. 2003.



Kathleen T. Rhem. "Officials: No Intention of Lowering Pay for Troops in
Iraq, Afghanistan." American Forces Press Service. 15 Aug. 2003.



Jacob Freedman, "Bush's Top Legislative Accomplishments," Congressional Quarterly Weekly,
27 Aug. 2004.


Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei, "Misstatements Include Iraq, Taxes And Voting," The Washington Post, 6 Oct. 2004: A15.


 


 

 
Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
09.27.04 (5:35 am)   [edit]

Roberts Notes:: I agree with this author. I think he has hit Iraq on the head.


 


Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal


Friday, September 24, 2004


By Powl Smith



Pundits these days are quick to compare the fighting in Iraq (search) with the American loss in Vietnam (search) 30 years ago. Terms like "quagmire" evoke the Southeast Asian jungle, where America's technological advantages were negated and committed Vietnamese guerrillas wore down the U.S. will to fight.


People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's the wrong one for Iraq.


In fact, World War II is a far more accurate comparison for the global war we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. We had many faint and not-so-faint warnings of the impending Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (search), not least the historical precedent of Port Arthur in 1904, when the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against Russia.


We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda (search) and Islamist terrorism (search) (the East Africa embassy bombings (search) in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (search) in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.


Historical apologists say that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar? American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a crucial similarity between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased.


As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early days of the war, America and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog ahead of us. Americans understood there was no recourse but to win, despite the fearful cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless.


In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal (search) in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.


For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the former chief of counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is currently in Baghdad with Multi-National Forces-Iraq.


 

 
Wondering
09.24.04 (5:57 am)   [edit]

When I read the news that is out there I try to read from a bunch of different sites so I can try and get the most balanced version of the news out there. But it is still hard to do in this modern day and age of modern media.


I worry about this country of ours. Sometimes it seems to me it is being torn apart by professional politicians. From what I have been able to determine in my readings of the founding fathers of this country. They didn't professional politicians. '


There should be a Amendment to the Constitution putting term limits on the Senators and Congressmen. Of course you know that won't happen, why would they take away trough thy feed at? Supposedly we control how long they serve but I think we vote out of ignorance.


 


Dont mind me folks, I am just rambling.

 
Fully automatic propaganda
09.15.04 (4:37 am)   [edit]

Roberts Notes:: What I like about this guy is that he doesn't pull any punches. Plus he gets his facts straight before he makes an opinion. Unlike alot of other people.


Fully automatic propaganda
Mike S. Adams


September 15, 2004


“Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.” - John Kerry, fully automatic liar.
 
“And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.” -  
John Kerry,  lying about weapons of mass destruction.


Last week, I was asked to go on a radio show to debate the assault weapons ban, which was passed on September 13, 1994. My opponent was a former New York City police officer who wanted the ban to be renewed because he was opposed to the private ownership of fully automatic weapons.


When I informed the former officer that the bill had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons he indicated that he would re-read it and reconsider his position if he discovered that I was right. In other words, he was a reasonable man who knows that people sometimes make mistakes. He also has the maturity to change his position when he finds that he was mistaken or, more likely, misled about important facts.


But the good natured debate was ruined when an “educator” decided to call in to the show to offer his opinion on the issue. The self-described high school counselor said that he didn’t want the ban to expire because he didn’t want people coming into his school shooting up the place with machine guns. Again, I corrected the error.


Unfortunately, the educator didn’t respond to my correction in the same fashion as the former officer. He said something like “you think you’re better than me because you’re a college professor. Shame on you!” After his momentary hissy fit, he threw out a statistic (from God knows where) saying that 27 heads of law enforcement agencies supported renewing the ban.


The “27 police chiefs” statistic was pretty easy to rebut, given that approximately 17,000 state and local law enforcement agencies report crime data to the FBI on a monthly basis. I simply asked him why more police chiefs didn’t support the ban. The “educator” said that most of them didn’t have time to travel to Washington, DC. I didn’t understand what that was supposed to mean. I still don’t.


Finally, the educator/master-debater suggested that citizens should never be able to own guns more powerful than those the police carry on duty. At least he was honest. Such a rule would eliminate almost all hunting rifles with a single stroke of the pen.


That suggestion is even more radical than one I once heard from a tenured sociologist. Though not opposed to hunting rifles, he thought that it was “unfair” for hunters to use high-powered scopes.  If I were a deer, I guess I would prefer to die a slow death from a bad shot. I wouldn’t want to die quickly from a clean shot in the heart. If I were a deer, I would be a liberal deer constantly thinking about “fairness.” If I were a tree, I would be a liberal tree doing an interview with Barbara Walters.


Of course, educators are not the only ones spewing nonsense about gun control these days. Nightline did a segment last week on the assault weapons ban with fully automatic weapons blazing in the background, nearly drowning out the voice of Ted Koppel (that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing). Such weapons have nothing to do with the 1994 ban. In fact, they have been banned since 1934.


Other news commentators have made reference to the AK-47, the Uzi, and other weapons, which are similarly unaffected by the 1994 ban. Even semi-automatic versions of those particular guns were outlawed under a 1989 import ban. They have nothing to do with the 1994 ban in question.


If none of this comes as any surprise, enter Dennis Miller. Dennis is one of my favorite television commentators. In fact, we have a lot in common. We are both former liberals who are very sarcastic and quite handsome, I might add. (Well, two out of three isn’t so bad).


Unfortunately, on September 13, Dennis Miller joined in with all the other misinformed media elites, saying that we need to keep “machine guns” in the hands of our soldiers, not in the hands of our citizens. Claiming to be “mad as hell” about the expiration of the ban, he made foolish references to the Uzi and AK-47, just like our friends in the liberal media.


Dennis Miller has every right to go on a fully automatic rant on national television, just as my fellow “educator” had a right to make a fool of himself during a live radio interview. But there are certain rights that we should waive by using a little self-control (as opposed to government coercion).


We can’t trust people like Ted Koppel to give us good information on the pros and cons of gun control legislation.  Ted is more than misled (new bumper sticker, anyone?). He will engage in willful distortion (a nice term for lying) to spread his anti-gun propaganda. He would Rather pursue a poorly concealed political agenda than act like an honest journalist.


But we should expect more from the likes of decent people like Dennis Miller. I hope that Dennis will admit to his blunder Rather than freezing like a CBS anchorman caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler.


I won’t even get into the quotes by Kerry. He just keeps shooting himself in the foot. No, I didn’t mean that literally, Chris Matthews.




©2004 Mike S. Adams

 
Vietnam Vet: I Lied About Atrocities
09.14.04 (6:33 pm)   [edit]

Roberts Notes::: The only way this will be proven true is if other vets that were at the Winter Soldier investigation comes forward and backs this guy up.


Vietnam Vet: I Lied About Atrocities


Tuesday, September 14, 2004



WASHINGTON —  A veteran who testified to John Kerry about atrocities he committed in the Vietnam War is now claiming that the Democratic presidential candidate coerced him to tell tales.


Steven Pitkin, an Army combat veteran, told FOX News that Kerry coached him and others to say they had witnessed war crimes, even after Pitkin told Kerry that he had not.


"Before they started the camera, they told me, 'We need you to speak about the atrocities that happened over there.' The whole company line that I initially came out and said, I was coached to say that over and over again," Pitkin said.


Kerry's former brother-in-law, David Thorne, attended that Winter Soldier investigation, in which more than 100 Vietnam veterans told anti-war activists that they had either committed or witnessed unspeakable war crimes. Thorne flatly denied Pitkin's charges.


"Kerry never forced anyone to testify to war crimes in any way. [Kerry] went to Winter Soldier to listen to what they had to say and to investigate for himself," Thorne said.


Kerry collected the testimony ahead of his appearance during a 1971 hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on widespread atrocities against Vietnamese civilians. He has said the graphic testimony he gave was merely a repetition of testimony combat veterans told him.

 
School Board Says ACLU Hasn’t Got a Prayer
09.14.04 (5:43 pm)   [edit]

School Board Says ACLU Hasn’t Got a Prayer







By Elaine McGinnis


Delaware Board continues to open meetings with prayer despite legal threat.





The ACLU is challenging the right to pray in a school setting yet again. Members of Indian River School District Board of Education (IRSD) in Sussex County, Delaware, are being