Thursday, December 11, 2008



335 B.C.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle thought that bearing arms was necessary for true citizenship and participation in the political system (in Politics).

124 B.C.
Imperial Chancellor Kung-Sun petitioned the Emperor Han to take the people’s arms from them. The Emperor replied:

“Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the five kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When people lived in peace, these weapons were to be prepared against emergencies and to kill fierce animals. If there were military affairs, then the weapons were used to set up defenses and form battle arrays…”

The petition to disarm the people was turned down, stressing the right of the individual to bear arms for the common protection of society and the individual.

46 B.C.
The Roman politician Cicero supported bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny (in De Officiis).

871 A.D.
King Alfred of Saxon England’s laws give every man the right to keep and bear arms, but prohibits murder and other crimes.

England’s King Cnut’s laws recognize the right to keep and bear arms, the right to self-defense, and the right to hunt on one’s own land.

In his Assize of Arms, King Henry II gives “every knight and freeman” the right to have weapons and armor.

King John tries to disarm both nobles and commoners, but the barons force him to recognize the right to bear arms as part of the Magna Carta, which later becomes the model for the American colonists in their struggle against the English monarchy.

Under Henry II, the arming of the citizens is extended to serfs. An “arming of the whole people” rather than a large standing army gradually becomes the basis for England’s defense.

Gunpowder, already in use in China, is introduced into Europe. At first it is used primarily in crude siege cannons that can blow holes in castle walls, enforcing the power of the monarch over the nobles.

In response to rowdiness by knights and others, Edward III issues the Statute of Northampton which prohibits “persons great or small” from carrying weapons in public, although it allows for defense of the home. The law is widely disobeyed, and, in practice, the courts applied it only to those who used arms to “terrify the good people of the land.” In other words, they only applied it against criminals – law abiding citizens maintained the right to keep and bear arms.

Portable firearms such as the arquebus become more common on the battlefield. At first the unwieldy guns are fired from tripod-like supporters, but versions that can be fired from the shoulder soon appear.

King Henry VIII orders that all fathers should provide each son, at the age of seven, with a bow and two shafts and to see to it that the child knew how to use them. Failure to do this resulted in a stiff fine which underlined the Crown’s seriousness in this matter.

Permanent British settlement in America begins. The colonists use firearms daily for hunting as well as in ongoing conflicts with Native Americans and French colonists.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England listed in the first chapter his list of rights. After listing the Rights, he stated: “In vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment.” As an added protection, he explained, there were “auxiliary rights.” The fifth and last auxiliary right, meant to protect all the others “is that of having arms for their defense. . . . It is, indeed, a publick allowance under due restrictions, of the natural rights of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

A seventeenth-century guidebook for justices of the peace explained: “If Thieves shall come to a Man’s House, to rob or murder him, he may lawfully assemble company to defend his House by force; and if he or any of his company shall kill any of them in defence of Himself, his Family, his Goods or House, This is no Felony, neither shall they forfeit anything therefore.”

King Charles II restricts guns and bows to large landowners (who make up the nobility), thus disarming the emerging middle class and the poor. At its time, this was the most restrictive English weapons control law ever passed.

In his work Two Treatises on Government, philosopher John Locke maintains the “natural” right of citizens to have arms for their individual and collective defense.

In the bloodless “Glorious Revolution,” William and Mary defeat King James II, abolish the standing army, and restore – to Protestants only – the right to keep and bear arms.

The word Bill of Rights (or Declaration of Rights) is an act of the Parliament of England, whose formal name is An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. The Bill of Rights of the United Kingdom is largely a statement of certain rights to which citizens and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to bear arms in defence. The British Bill of Rights includes a condemnation of previous kings for disarming the people and specifies that henceforth “The subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and allowed by law.”

Philosopher Algernon Sidney in his book Discourses Concerning Government states that “the body of the People is the Public defense, and every man is armed and disciplines.” American colonists soon put the idea in practice in the form of local militias.

Two new kinds of long guns come into use: The smoothbore musket has a short range and can be fired about four times a minute by well-trained soldiers. The rifle with its grooved barrel takes longer to load but has greater range and accuracy.

In the British court case of Rex v. Gardner, the judge holds that the game laws did not forbid a person from mere possession of a gun for purposes of self-defense. Several later cases have similar verdicts.

A combination of British and colonial volunteer forces defeat the French in the French and Indian War. Actually the colonists took primary responsibility for their own defense.

British soldiers fire on unarmed Americans in Boston, leading to an up-surge of revolutionary sentiment. The British respond by beginning to raid colonial homes and gatherings to seize guns and ammunition.

The American War of Independence is ignited when British troops under General Gage attempt to seize guns and ammunition from colonists at Lexington and Concord. Although faced down initially by the trained British troops, the American Minutemen militia begins a relentless fire, aided by accurate long-range rifles.

In addition to declaring independence, the various states write constitutions that include bills of rights. In general, they refer to the danger of standing armies, the reliance on a well-regulated militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

British colonial undersecretary William Knox presents a proposal concerning what to do with the colonies when they were subjugated and returned to British control. His proposals include the repeal of the militia laws, the confiscation of all arms held by the people, and the prohibition of the manufacture or importation of guns or powder in America.

The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution is approved. It includes the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In the Bill of Rights, the individual retained his basic natural rights; rights deemed unalienable, coming not from Society (or the State as the political manifestation of Society); but bestowed by the Almighty as inherent to the very nature of man.

In the Kentucky case of Bliss v. Commonwealth, the court holds that the state constitution prohibits any interference with the right to keep and bear arms, even concealed weapons.

Samuel Colt’s revolver is patented. Because it can fire six shots without reloading, it represents a formidable increase in firepower for close combat and helps the settlers repel Indian raids.

Georgia passes the first ban on handguns. It is later overturned in 1846 in Nunn v. State as a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Winchester repeating rifle lets its user fire up to 15 shots by working a lever every few seconds. It will become known as the gun that won the West.

The Fourteenth Amendment, the Freedman’s Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 all include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms among the rights that the states are prohibited from taking from any citizen.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789

Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789

by President George Washington

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the Service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, of the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have to acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humble offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all people, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone know to be best.

Friday, September 26, 2008



'Nobody Knows Obama's Record on Guns Better Than I Do,' Says ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

"One of the most blatant lies ever to come from a politician's mouth," is how the ISRA is characterizing a recent statement by U.S. Senator Barack Obama. Speaking in the latest issue of "Field & Stream," Obama claims that Illinois sportsmen know him as an advocate for their rights.

On the contrary, Obama's voting record while a state senator clearly indicates that he has nothing but contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner. "Any sportsman who counts Barack Obama as one of his friends is seriously confused," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

"Throughout his tenure in the Illinois Senate, Obama served as one of the most loyal foot soldiers in Mayor Daley's campaign to abolish civilian firearm ownership. While a state senator, Obama voted for legislation that would ban and forcibly confiscate nearly every shotgun, target rifle and hunting rifle in the state.

Obama also voted for bills that would ration the number of firearms a law-abiding citizen could own, yet give a pass to the violent thugs who roam our streets. And, inexplicably, Obama voted four times against legislation that would allow citizens to use firearms to defend their homes and families."

"Let us also not forget that Obama served as a director of the Joyce Foundation," continued Pearson. "While on the Joyce Foundation board, Obama funneled tens of millions of dollars to radical gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center."

"If Senator Obama considers his legislative record and his philanthropic endeavors to be acts of advocacy on behalf of sportsmen's rights, then I submit that the Senator is seriously confused as well," asserted Pearson.

"Nobody knows Obama's record on guns better than I do, and it's rotten to the core," said Pearson. "I've been involved in Illinois politics nearly as long as Obama has been alive. In that time, I have never encountered a legislator who was more hostile towards or more disinterested in sportsmen's rights than Barack Obama."

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA represents the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

This press release is posted @ PRnewswire.

Posted Wed Sep 24 10:07:10 CDT 2008

OBAMA vs. PALIN (From a leftie!)

September 01, 2008
Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama
By Gerard Baker, US Editor and Assistant Editor of The Times of London

Democrats, between sniggers of derision and snorts of disgust, contend that Sarah Palin, John McCain's vice-presidential pick is ridiculously unqualified to be president.

It's a reasonable objection on its face except for this small objection: it surely needs to be weighed against the Democrats' claim that their own candidate for president is self-evidently ready to assume the role of most powerful person on the planet.

At first blush, here's what we know about the relative experience of the two candidates. Both are in their mid-forties and have held statewide elective office for less than four years. Both have admitted to taking illegal drugs in their youth. So much for the similarities.

How about the differences?

Political experience

Obama: Worked his way to the top by cultivating, pandering to and stroking the most powerful interest groups in the all-pervasive Chicago political machine, ensuring his views were aligned with the power brokers there.

Palin: Worked her way to the top by challenging, attacking and actively undermining the Republican party establishment in her native Alaska. She ran against incumbent Republicans as a candidate willing and able to clean the Augean Stables of her state's government.

Political Biography

Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.

Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans.

Political history

Obama: Elected to statewide office only after a disastrous first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal. Won seat eventually in contest against a candidate who didn't even live in the state.

Palin: Elected to statewide office by challenging a long-serving Republican incumbent governor despite intense opposition from the party. (And won the General Election against a popular former Democratic Governor of Alaska!)


Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).

Executive experience

Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists

Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.

Religious influences

Obama: Regards people who "cling" to religion and guns as "bitter" . Spent 20 years being mentored and led spiritually by a man who proclaimed "God damn America" from his pulpit. Mysteriously, this mentor completely disappeared from public sight about four months ago.

Palin: Head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes and for many years a member of the Assemblies of God congregation whose preachers have never been known to accuse the United States of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. They remain in full public sight and can be seen every Sunday in churches across Alaska. A proud gun owner who has been known to cling only to the carcasses of dead caribou felled by her own aim.

Record of bipartisan achievement

Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress. (Actually, the most liberal voting record).

Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked with Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."

On Human Life

Obama: Devoutly pro-choice. Voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have required doctors to save the lives of babies who survived abortion procedures. The implication of this position is that babies born prematurely during abortions would be left alone, unnourished and unmedicated, until they died.

Palin: Devoutly pro-life. Exercised the choice proclaimed by liberals to bring to full term a baby that had been diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.

Now it's true there are other crucial differences. Sen Obama has appeared on Meet The Press every other week for the last four years. He has been the subject of hundreds of adoring articles in papers and newsweeklies and TV shows and has written two Emmy-award winning books. (About himself!)

Gov Palin has never appeared on Meet the Press, never been on the cover of Newsweek. She presumably feels that, as a mother of five children married to a snowmobile champion, who also happens to be the first woman and the youngest person ever to be elected governor of her state, she has not really done enough yet to merit an autobiography.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that if she had authored The Grapes of Wrath, sung like Edith Piaf and composed La Traviata , she still wouldn't have won an Emmy.

Fortunately, it will be up to the American people and not their self-appointed leaders in Hollywood and New York to determine who really has the better experience to be president.

Gerard Baker is US Editor and Assistant Editor of The Times of London.

Thank you Gerard for that enlightening analysis!

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Two Charlie Gibsons

Charlie Gibson interviewing the Obamessiah:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

These questions are soooo hard, how could he answer them???

Now, here are the questions he asked Sarah Palin:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking?
Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about:
-foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Sure Charlie, continue to lie to yourself, sure, you are an "objective" reporter. Hah!!!

Liberal Fascist Journalistic Nazi Stormtrooper!

Friday, September 12, 2008


A new term for the rabid Anti-Palin Press Corps:

Liberal Fascist Journalistic Nazi Stormtroopers!!!

Liberal: They are definately liberal, just look at two things: 1) their voting record, and 2) their political donations. Both of which favor Democrats by about 90% to 10%.

Fascist: Everything from the State, nothing outside the state: They are for State Health Care, State Unemployment, State Retirement, State Racial, Gender and Sexual Preferences Quotas, State Regulation of Industry, State Control over Schools, State control of Guns, .....

Journalistic: Not journalist. Journalist implies some type of objectivity. The Press Corps has lost any semblance of objectivity so they are like journalists in that they try to do things journalists do and try to look like journalists, but at the end of the day they are only journalistic, not journalists.

Nazi: Rabid, unrelenting, smearing, slandering twisters of words and mis-quotes and partial quotes all in support of the Socialist goal of getting their Leader, Der Fuhrer, Herr Obama, the top spot of Chancellor and King of the World.

Stormtroopers: Just look at the way they shove microphones into peoples faces and "hunt down" their stories. They will stop at nothing to find the prize "slam" of Sarah Palin. Viciously pursuing a "gotcha" moment just like Stormtroopers blitzkrieging across Europe.


From: Richard Starr at:

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

It's being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC's Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be--and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean "a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"--which is remarkably close to Palin's own answer.
Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.

March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

I'll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine." It was a bit of a sham on Gibson's part to have pretended that there's such a thing as 'the' Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

September 11, 2001

Watch these videos:

UPDATE: I can't get the link to work. Go to the History Channel: 102 Minutes that Changed America.

God Bless those Firefighters, God Bless those Cops, God Bless those Victims and their Families and God Bless George W. Bush for keeping us safe for the last seven years.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


"Plausible deniability," but for most people, it is what it is. A backhanded attempt to demean Sarah Palin as evidenced by the audiences' reaction of hooting, hollaring and applauding. Watch the tape, he even pauses after the first sentence to let it sink in with the crowd: "You can put lipstick on a pig. (Laughter and some clapping while he pauses). But it is still a Pig." Rowdy laughter and applause and that smirky little grin on the Great One's face that says it all --Ha gotcha Hockey Mom! Take that!!! Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah nyah! How desperate is this guy? In the last 11 days he's lost 20 points! How pathetic is this guy? He's squeelling like a stuck pig!!!

Sarah Palin injected lipstick into the race when she said that the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was: lipstick. This was one of the most, if not the most memorable line from her speech last Wednesday. (I can't believe it has only been a week! It seems like she has endured months of Liberal MSM crap). In any event, Sarah injected "lipstick" into the debate.

I know that the phrase of "Putting lipstick on a Pig" has been around for a while and John McCain even used it last year referring to Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan. (Not Hillary herself mind you). But with Sarah making lipstick part of the definition she gives herself as a hockey mom, the Great One tried to throw it back in her face. Like this is an 8th Grade election!

Are we in the 8th Grade? Or maybe it is like High School electioneering. Barry O surely was sophmoric in his choice of words. And remember, he is the Great Communicator! What's he going to do with Putin? Poke him in the eyes and go "Knuck, Knuck Knuck" like Curly of the Three Stooges fame? Woobaba Woobaba Woobaba, Knuck, Knuck Knuck, why certainly!"

It is hysterical to see all the lefties contorting themselves into all kinds of outrageous positions to defend Barry on this one. All I have to say is, Keep it up Barry, please keep it up!!!

BTW did you hear about the airdrop of liberal lawyers, investigators and journalists that have descended on Wasilla, Alaska? Evidently there is at least thirty (30) of them trying to dig up dirt on Sarah. Where were they investigating Mr. Obama?? Oh, that's right, they have not investigated Mr. Obama, not even one! And, because they like him so much, they never will.

What a joke. Journalists in this country have pretty much turned into a complete joke. No wonder their ratings are dropping like rockes (except FOX) and their stocks are crashing and burning. The American people are fed up with the liberal crap the MSM keeps dishing out day after day, week after week. At least they provide me with lots and lots of opportunities to laugh my ass off.

When I fist heard what Barry O said about Palin, and the lib media trying to cover for him and say that he didn't mean what everyone in the audience understood he meant, I was ROTFLMAO!!!!!

UPDATE: I have come up with a new name for the press and how they are attacking Palin:

Liberal Fascist Journalistic Nazi Stormtroopers! (LFJNS)

Friday, September 5, 2008


Liberal bias in the Media, what liberal bias…. Says Olberdork and Matthews.
Try this on for size gentlemen:

1) John Roberts CNN August 29, 2008 Newsroom:
“There’s also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome…. Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?”

2) Liz Trotta, Media Prof at New School:
“How can a woman run a state and bring up five children at the same time?… I think they have every right to ask that…”

3) Sally Quinn, August 29, 2008 Washington Post:
“Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?”

4) Bill Weir, ABC August 30, 2008, Good Morning America:
“Adding to the brutality of a national campaign, the Palin family also has an infant with special needs. What leads you, the Senator, and the Governor to believe that one won’t affect the other in the next couple of months?”

5) Mark Shields, PBS:
” There is another question though which essentially I’ve heard expressed here many times today and from calls elsewhere, and that is the decision made by Sarah Palin herself, when knowing her daughter’s condition, by accepting John McCain’s offer she guaranteed that her daughter would be known globally as the best known 17-year-old unwed teenager in the world, and that decision many people question… The question of how it affected her daughter is not open to question. It has made her daughter a front-page item for the country.”

6) Meredith Viera, NBC Today Show:
“But there’s also, I think the part of it is the particular dynamic of her family, Megan. Her youngest child, down’s syndrome and now her oldest daughter is pregnant. And there are some moms out there that are angry, that are saying she has put her family unfairly into the spotlight.”

7) Norah O’Donnell, MSNBC:
“Congresswoman, what about the argument that, you know, vice president is a tough job, and that having a four month old baby, who has Down’s Syndrome, that will have special needs, requires extra time, that, that she should be focusing on her four month old, that some people have said that, fairly or unfairly. What do you think of that?’

Thursday, September 4, 2008


Note: The teleprompter didn’t slow down enough for the extended applauses so by about ½ way through the speech, she was on her own, with no teleprompter support! What poise under pressure!

My favorite line:

“There are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

Another zinger:

Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems, as if we didn't know that already. But the fact -- the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
"In a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, build more nuclear plants, create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources."

On experience:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska -- I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor if sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

On two-faced politicians:

I might add -- I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

On the liberal media elites:

Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these last few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But -- but -- now here's a little news flash -- now here's a little news flash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.

View on Service:

No one expects us all to agree on everything, but we are expected to govern with integrity and good will and clear convictions and a servant's heart. And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States.

On actual governing accomplishments:

When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists who kind of liked things the way that they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

On energy policy:

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans -- need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska; we've got lots of both.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

We need -- we need American sources of resources. We, we need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.

On Obama’s Vision for America:

What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger and take more of your money and give you more orders from Washington and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

On McCain:

Senator McCain's record of actual achievements and reform helps explain why so many special interests and lobbyists and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency from the primary election of 2000 to this very day. Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's a man who is there to serve his country, and not just his party; a leader who's not looking for a fight, but sure isn't afraid of one either.


For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds. If character is the measure in this election, and hope the theme, and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you, and God bless America. Thank you.

Libs can bellyache all day long, but to Republicans, and to many independents, she not only hit a home-run, she hit a Grand-Slam Walk-Off Homer!

Wednesday, September 3, 2008


Tuesday evening at the RNC MSNBC reporter Ron Allen said to the former Speaker Newt Gingrich of Sarah Palin, "But to be fair, her resume is not something we're familiar seeing with presidential candidates." This question goes along with the Old-Fashioned Media Meme of Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. The question didn't sit well with Gingrich who strongly replied:

“It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She's a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write. Newt then challenged Allen: “I'd like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama's done.” Silence. Change the subject, move along, nothing to see here, move along.

But let’s look at this a little deeper, shall we. The Presidency is the office of the Chief Executive of the United States. Note: That is not the Office of the Chief Speechmaker, nor Chief Legislator, nor Chief Community Organizer, nor Chief Campaign figure head. The Chief Executive is charged with the responsibility of actually running things. The Chief Executive is in charge of not only National Defense, but also has to deal with personnel issues, hiring and firing of employees. The Chief Executive more importantly has to deal with a Budget and taxes and balancing a budget.

When asked about Palin’s experience, Obama smiled and said Palin's town of Wasilia, Alaska had 50 employees. His campaign has 2500. The town's budget is about $12 million a year. His budget is 3 times that per month. He cited the legislation he's passed on emergency management post-Katrina and that many recommendations he made were adopted and are being put in place as we speak. (Note: He signed on to Bills drafted by other Senators never once authoring his own.)

It's true that Obama's biggest accomplishment is his success (thus far) in running a Presidential campaign. But isn't this a bit absurd? One qualifies to run for President by the very activity of running for President? I'm glad to hear that he smiled when he said that, because I don't think it's an argument you can make with a straight face.

Why is Obama comparing her experience in running a small town to his of running for president, when what she's been doing for the last two years is running the state of Alaska, which has a lot more employees and a much larger budget than his presidential campaign.

Obama is making a false comparison. His 2500 staff against her 8 years as mayor.Compare his 2500 staff against her 25,000 state employees!Then factor in that he doesn’t run the campaign. He's the talking head. Axlerod runs the campaign. David Axlerod is pulling the strings over at Team Obama. Why is Obama even taking credit for running his campaign? Obama is just the titular head of a machine. Then note that getting 2500 fanatics to move in the same direction is different than applying leadership skills to get 25,000 civil servants, many of whom didn’t vote for you, to work productively. Lastly of course, he's not running for VP is he?

So lets do some Staff, Budget, and Executive Decision-making comparisons.

1994-1996 Palin: Mayor, staff of 50 Budget of $12 million. Executive decisions concerning personnel, budgeting, taxes, public utilities, public relations, managing a city council and working with the Police Force and Fire Department.

1994-1996 Obama: Part time law professor and community organizer. No staff no budget. No executive decision-making. (Strike that: he had to decide what to wear every day). (Strike that: Michelle probably did that for him).

1996-2002 Palin: Mayor - staff of 50, budget of $12 million. Executive decisions concerning personnel, budgeting, taxes, public utilities, public relations, managing a city council and working with the Police Force and Fire Department.

1996-2002 Obama: State Senate - staff of ? less than 5, budget of what, maybe a few thousand dollars. Executive decision-making minimal to nil.

2003-2004 Palin: Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, staff of 25, budget of $5 million. Executive decision-making responsibilities all day long. Took on Big-Oil and won!

2003-2004 Obama: State Senate - staff of ? less than 5, budget of what, maybe a few thousand dollars. Executive decision-making minimal to nil.

2005-2006 Obama: U.S. Senate office, staff of maybe 50. Budget minimal – maybe a few hundred thousand at most, executive decision-making minimal to nil. Major goal: positioning to run for President.

2005-2006 Palin: running for governor, assume very little staff. Taking on the Chairman of her own party and getting him fined $12,000. Taking on the sitting Governor from her own party and beating him in the primary. Taking on a former Governor from the other party and beating him in the general election.

2007-2008 Palin: Governor of Alaska, America’s Number 1 energy producing State with borders with Russia and Canada. Staff of 25,000, budget of $12 billion. Executive decision-making all day long. Negotiated natural gas pipeline deal with Canada. Squashed the Bridge to Nowhere project. Cut taxes and refunded taxes to citizens. Has the highest approval rating of any sitting Governor in all fifty (50) United States.

2007-2008 Obama: Running for President, staff of 2,500 (many unpaid). Budget of what, say 350 million – 400 million tops? Executive decision-making – do what Axlerod tells him to do. Review and edit speeches prepared by others. Deliver speeches. Avoid debates. Throw people under the bus. Change positions on almost every major issue.

Let’s see, 25,000 employees, including the National Guard v.s. 2,500 fanatically loyal campaign workers. Hmmmm. Budget of 12 Billion v.s. budget of 350-400 million. Hmmmm. Total and complete Executive decision-making experience v.s. making speeches. Hmmmm. Taking on entrenched politicos from your own party no less and defeating them v.s. pandering to your own party’s left-wing extreme elements. Hmmm. Oh yeah and I almost forgot, Obama didn’t think the surge was a good idea, nor that it would work. In fact, he said it would make things worse. Yet, despite its overwhelming success, he would still oppose it rather than admit that he was wrong.

What a putz.

As shown above, since 1992 in every moment of time by direct comparison, Palin's responsibilities and executive experience are far, far greater than Obama's. It is not even close.

That is a fact. So come on Old-fashioned Media, keep harping on the Meme of Experience. Our V.P. candidate has more executive experience that your Presidential candidate.

One last thing: Palin was asked: What’s the difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pit-bull? Her response: Hockey Moms wear lipstick. I lover her! She is a real salt-of-the-earth woman who loves America, Jesus, Babies, Guns and Energy Independence.

As I’ve said before, McCain-Palin in a landslide, a landslide. And the Old-Fashioned Media will be the most depressed people on the face of the earth come the evening of November 4th. Their bias will become even more clear (if that’s possible after the last 5 days) and they will blame it all on racism. When clearly, as evidenced above, the outcome will be based upon experience, (and Obama’s lack thereof) plain and simple.

Friday, August 29, 2008


One can dream. Mr. Empty suit gave his typical “moving” yet completely void of any substance speech last night. Truly, it was a Historic event, but not because of anything he said, but rather because he is the first African-American to be nominated for President. He said he’s open to debates, yeah right. Actions speak louder than words. So far he has done everything possible to avoid a debate. He sucks at debate, but he’s great at giving empty, yet “inspiring” pre-written speeches. Hitler was a great orator too, so was Mussolini.

After having taken a look at Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” I have come to the conclusion that the Obamessiah is just that: a liberal fascist. Everything for the State and nothing outside of the State. Health care – the State. Retirement -- the State. Unemployment – The State. The economy – the State. Education – the State. The environment – the State. Quotas – the State. Charity – the State. Media control – the State. Gun control – the State. Nationalism – Americanism. Check, check, check, check, check, check and check. Liberal Fascism.

Just look at what he’s done to try to stifle free speech that he disagrees with: Letters, emails, complaints to the Attorney General and the Justice Department to try to silence any critic. Attempts to shut down a radio show, even though they were offered to appear and rebut any claims. Sounds like Stalin doesn’t it? God forbid he should win, then we would have press along the lines of Pravda. Anything that is “anti-State” will be treason.

But not to worry, McCain and Palin are going to crush Obama-Biden, just wait and see. Why? Because Americans are not the stupid dolts the Dems and the Old Fashioned Media think they are. Americans know a player when they see a player. Obama talks of new politics in a new time. Yeah right, then he picks Mr. old-time Washington D.C. Joe (plagiarizing) Biden as his running mate. Same-old same-old democratic fluff with no substance. No grit. He has basically no experience. Duh!

November 4th will be a sad, sad day for the Dems and the old fashioned media. We’ll see announcers on all the “News” (did I mean to say propaganda) shows, all mournful, sad and depressed. Their great one will be crushed. They will, of course, blame it all on racism, when the fact of the matter has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with experience, qualifications and judgment.

It is really kind of funny to watch our supposed “objective” media fawn all over the Obamessiah. I think that some of them still think they are objective, middle of the road reporters. Hah! What a joke! The old fashioned media are basically publicists for “The One.” You’ll be able to clearly see their partisanship on election night. You will have never seen such a sad, sour and mournful press as you will see on election night 2008. Happy Day!

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


During this political season, it is good to be reminded of these wise words.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

--Abraham Lincoln

Friday, August 22, 2008


Megan Allen is a friend of our family. Here is a short story from our local paper.

Megan Allen plummeted from joy to sorrow within about 60 minutes Thursday afternoon. Just one hour after learning she had earned her first job as a third-grade teacher, the 22-year-old found out that the man she planned to marry had been killed by an improvised explosive device while serving with a Marine battalion in Afghanistan.

Marine Cpl. Tony Mihalo, 23, was one of two servicemen from Naperville killed this week in combat. Army Cpl. Jim Hale, 23, who attended Naperville Central High School but moved to Ohio before graduating, died Wednesday when his vehicle also encountered an IED in Baghdad.

Mihalo enrolled in the Marines while still a student at Naperville North High School, where he played as a defensive lineman on the football team. He also played basketball and wrestled. In October 2004 he headed off to train in San Diego and was deployed for a seven-month stint in Iraq 10 months later, serving with the 2nd battalion of the 7th regiment. After spending a year at the Marine Corps Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif., he was deployed for the second time in March 2007.

Allen threw a big party for Mihalo when he finished the tour last January, expecting that he was back to stay. But that wasn’t the case. He was called to Afghanistan one month later, this time to serve in the 3rd battalion because the unit was short on combat veterans.

Allen said the last time she spoke with him 20 days ago, he talked about completing the last two credits of his associate degree and studying criminal justice when he returned home in October. “He was talking about what he was going to do when he got back,” said Allen, adding that he loved wrestling, history and politics. “He was always dreaming about the future.”

Just before that last phone call, Mihalo had been hospitalized for three days after being hit by a grenade. When Allen – tipped off by a phone call from the Marines – asked him about the shrapnel, he at first denied that he had been injured.

His injury last month was his third Purple heart and could have been his ticket home via a hospital in Germany. But Tony didn’t want to abandon his unit and chose to stay in Afghanistan.

Gob Bless Tony Mihalo. God Bless his family and friends. God Bless all our brave men and women who stand in harms way to defend all of us. We are the luckiest people on the face of the earth.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008


I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'd gladly stand up, and defend her still today. There ain't no doubt, I love this land, God Bless the USA!


The people of the United States really do honor our service personnel. God bless this Captain.

Subject: Commercial Pilot's blog on the internet....good story

We have H.R. on this flight', she said. H.R. stands for human remains. 'Are they military', I asked. 'Yes', she said. 'Is there an escort', I asked. 'Yes, I already assigned him a seat', 'Would you please tell him to come to the flight deck, you can board him early', I said. A short while later, a young army sergeant entered the flight deck. He was the image of the perfectly dressed soldier. He introduced himself and I asked him about his soldier. The escorts of these fallen soldiers talk about them as if they are still alive and with us. 'My soldier is on his way back to Virginia ', he said. He proceeded to answer my questions, but offered no words on his own. I asked him if there was anything I could do for him and he said no. I told him that he has the toughest job in the military and that I appreciated the work that he does for the families of our fallen soldiers. The first officer and I got up out of our seats to shake his hand. He left the flight deck to find his seat.

We completed our preflight checks, pushed back and performed an uneventful departure. About 30 minutes into our flight I received a call from the lead flight attendant in the cabin. 'I just found out the family of the soldier we are carrying, is onboard', he said. He then proceeded to tell me that the father, mother, wife and 2-year-old daughter were escorting their son, husband, and father home. The family was upset because they were unable to see the container that the soldier was in before we left. We were on our way to a major hub at wh i ch the family was going to wait 4 hours for the connecting flight home to Virginia . The father of the soldier told the flight attendant that knowing his son was below him in the cargo compartment and being unable to see him was too much for him and the family to bear. He had asked the flight attendant if there was anything that could be done to allow them to see him upon our arrival. The family wanted to be outside by the cargo door to watch the soldier being taken off the airplane. I could hear the desperation in the flight attendants voice when he asked me if there was anything I could do. 'I'm on it', I said. I told him that I would get back to him.

Airborne communication with my company normally occurs in the form of email like messages. I decided to bypass this system and contact my flight dispatcher directly on a secondary radio. There is a radio operator in the operations control center who connects you to the teleph one of the dispatcher. I was in direct contact with the dispatcher. I explained the situation I had onboard with the family and what it was the family wanted. He said he understood and that he would get back to me.

Two hours went by and I had not heard from the dispatcher. We were going to get busy soon and I needed to know what to tell the family. I sent a text message asking for an update. I saved the return message from the dispatcher and this following is the text.


'Captain, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. There is policy on this now and I had to check on a few things. Upon your arrival a dedicated escort team will meet the aircraft. The team will escort the family to the ramp and plane side. A van will be used to load the remains with a secondary van for the family. The family will be taken to their departure area and escorted into the terminal where the remains can be seen on the ramp. It is a private area for the family only. When the connecting aircraft arrives, the family will be escorted onto the ramp and plane side to watch the remains being loaded for the final leg home. Captain, most of here in flight control are veterans. Please pass our condolences on to the family, thanks.'

I sent a message back telling flight control thanks for a good job. I printed out the message and gave it to the lead flight attendant to pass on to the father. The lead flight attendant was very thankful and told me, 'You have no idea how much this will mean to them.' Things started getting busy for the descent, approach and landing. After landing, we cleared the runway and taxied to the ramp area. The ramp is huge with 15 gates on either side of the alleyway. It is always a busy area with aircraft maneuvering every which way to enter and exit. When we entered the ramp and checked in with the ramp controller , we were told that all traffic was being held for us.

'There is a team in place to meet the aircraft', we were told. It looked like it was all coming together, then I realized that once we turned the seat belt sign off, everyone would stand up at once and delay the family from getting off the airplane. As we approached our gate, I asked the copilot to tell the ramp controller we were going to stop short of the gate to make an announcement to the passengers. He did that and the ramp controller said, 'Take your time.'

I stopped the aircraft and set the parking brake. I pushed the public address button and said, 'Ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking. I have stopped short of our gate to make a special announcement. We have a passenger on board who deserves our honor and respect. His name is private XXXXXX, a soldier who recently lost his life. Private XXXXXX is under your feet in the cargo hold. Escorting him today is army sergeant XXXXXXX. Also onboard are his father, mother, wife, and daughter. Your entire flight crew is asking for all passengers to remain in their seats to allow the family to exit the aircraft first. Thank you.'

We continued the turn to the gate, came to a stop and started our shutdown procedures. A couple of minutes later I opened the cockpit door. I found the two forward flight attendants crying, something you just do not see. I was told that after we came to a stop, every passenger on the aircraft stayed in their seats, waiting for the family to exit the aircraft. When the family got up and gathered their things, a passenger slowly started to clap their hands. Moments later more passengers joined in and soon the entire aircraft was clapping. Words of 'God Bless You, I'm sorry, Thank you, Be proud, and other kind words were uttered to the family as they made their way down the aisle and out of the airplane. They were escorted down to the ramp to finally be with the loved one lost.

I never did see the family. Another soldier died, another family grieved and we did what we could. That is the way it works sometimes. I get a call from the cabin; we work as a team to do what we can. That day everybody from the flight crew, to the operations center, to the 184 passengers onboard, we did what we could. Many of the passengers disembarking thanked me for the announcement I made. They were just words, I could say them over and over again, but nothing I say will bring that soldier back. I respectfully ask that all of you reflect on this day and the sacrifices that millions of men and women have made to ensure our freedom, safety, and the right to live a good life.

God bless this Captain.

God Bless our Men and Women who fight, and die, for us.

I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'd gladly stand up, and defend her still today. There ain't no doubt, I love this land, God Bless the USA!

Friday, August 15, 2008


Jack Wheeler was the author of Regan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything.

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-AfricanArabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believeit because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

Pass this on to every thinking American you know!

Monday, August 11, 2008


I was standing in church yesterday singing along in Worship to the song, “How great is our God,” and it hit me like a ton of bricks. Just how long will we be able to sing such a song? I also thought of the song ‘Our God is an awesome God, he reigns from heaven above, with wisdom power and love, our God is an awesome God.” My fear is that pretty soon, such songs will be banned. You see, in this secular humanitarian multiculturist world we live in, these songs are bigoted. They discriminate on the basis of religion. They claim that one particular God is somehow better than other gods. Moreover, they claim the mere existence of a God. And soon, the Politically Correct Police (“PCP”) will ban their use as a “hate crime.”

You see, it won’t be too long before some Muslim, atheist, or secular humanist claims that these songs are discriminatory, violate their rights to believe in a different god, or no god at all, and are in fact, “hate speech.” Remember, these songs claim that one God is somehow “better than” all the other gods. To the PCP this is blatant discrimination and they won’t stand for it until it is completely eradicated from society. The PCP have already eradicated this type of speech from all of our public schools, from all of our public squares, from all of our graduation ceremonies and before sporting events, and from all of our courthouses. What’s next? Will the members of an Evangelical Free Church be forbidden from claiming how great is their God? Don’t laugh. For the secular humanists are on the march and we Christians have been asleep at the wheel for far, far too long.

But churches are private entities, right? Therefore, the government can’t regulate their speech or their form of worship, right? Maybe, maybe not. I could see some aggressive secular humanist claim that because the Church uses public utilities and public roads, and receives tax breaks from the government (preferential treatment) they can be regulated. Remember, the Supreme Court recently ruled that taking private land from one landowner and giving it to another private land owner was for a “public purpose” because it would increase the tax revenue for the municipality. If the S.Ct. can make that giant leap, why not control worship that some find to be offensive and discriminatory? They will argue that it is not a violation of the free exercise of religion clause, but rather is striking a balance between the free exercise clause and the right to be free from discriminatory language. (A giant, giant leap, I know, but what if?)

So what can we do? Keep singing, of course. But also, we need to make sure that the next president appoints conservative Judges and Justices who will look to the framer’s of the Constitution’s original intent. Rather than judges who seek to make new law by judicial dictate from the bench. Therefore, as much as I find John McCain to be far too liberal for my tastes, he is by far the better option than anything the democrats have to offer. So as they say in Chicago, “Vote early and vote often.” Our children’s and their children’s future ability to freely worship may depend upon it. We are in a war, a cultural war, and we are losing. Onward Christian Soldier, marching off to War! (That would be banned too -- way too violent and clearly hate speech, etc. etc.)

Wednesday, July 30, 2008


Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people ?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program ?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational ? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers ?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include

364 schools,
67 public clinics,
15 hospitals,
83 railroad stations,
22 oil facilities,
93 water facilities, and
69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158% ?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?


Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.

Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two major purposes of the liberal news media:

1. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and:

2. It is intended to discourage American citizens and erode their support for the war.

---- All the above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.


I first got this as an email about two years ago, so I'm sure that there has been a lot more progress in Iraq than what's listed here. I just thought it was interesting and worthy of sharing.

Thursday, July 24, 2008


The Antique Media (“AM”) has been going after John McCain lately for his verbal mistakes, commonly referred to as “gaffes.” Gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician. Lately, the AM has been trying to cover for the Obamasiah by playing up McCain’s gaffes and completely not mentioning Obamasiah’s gaffes, or at least minimizing them. Remember that this AM donates $$ to Obamasiah 100 to 1 as compared to McCain. Now, don’t confuse gaffes with flip-flops. Flip-flops are a whole different animal than gaffes, although a couple of gaffe’s I’ve listed are also flip-flops. I understand that Patterico is compiling a list of the Obamasiah’s flip-flops – I can’t wait for that to come out!

There are three main kinds of gaffes. The first kind of gaffe is when someone mis-speaks and utters a word that they clearly did not intend to utter when taken in context. An example of this was when the Obamasiah recently said, "Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's." Clearly, he meant to say that the United States is a strong friend of Israel.

The second type of gaffe is when someone says something that is factually in error and it is an innocent mistake of fact or an exaggeration of a fact. An example of an innocent mistake of facts was when the Obamasiah stated that his “Uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz.” This is clearly a false statement because anyone who knows anything about the History of WWII knows that Auschwitz was in Poland, on the Red Army side of the War and that it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans. The statement is also factually false because Obama’s mother was an only child. What he meant to say was that his “great uncle” was a member of the 89th Infantry Division that liberated the Ohrduf camp, part of Buchenwald and, according to the Holocaust Museum, the first concentration camp liberated by U.S. troops. (What’s funny about this one is it wasn’t an off-the-cuff remark, but rather was actually written into a speech he gave on Memorial Day.)

The third type of gaffe is when someone says something that is factually in error and it was not an innocent mistake of fact, but rather an intentional distortion or falsehood. An example of this type of gaffe was when the Obamasiah recently said: “Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.” The problem is, Obamasiah is not on that committee. The Democrat members of Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee are: Dodd (Ch), Johnson, Reed Schumer, Bayh, Carper, Menendez, Akaka, Brown, Casey, and Tester. So here we have a knowing falsehood as surely Obamasiah knows what Committees he is on, right? To be fair, he was one of the co-authors of the bill in question, along with 34 other co-authors.

Anyhow, like I said, the AM has been coming down rather hard on John McCain for his alleged gaffes. So I thought I would try to catalogue some of the Obamasiah’s gaffes and place them into one of the three categories of gaffes: 1) Word or words mis-spoken; 2) Innocent factual errors and exaggerations; and, 3) Intentional factual errors.

Type One Obamasiah mis-spoken errors:

- claiming to be in Sioux City instead of Sioux Falls, an easy mistake.

- claiming to be in Sunshine FL instead of Sunrise FL, an easy mistake.

- stating that he had “already visited 57 states and had one more to go” (making the U.S. a country of 58 total states) Clearly, he meant to say 47 states with one more to go which would have been the 48 mainland States.)

- stating that Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s

- stating “I think that DOMA, the Defense Against Marriage Act, was, was a (sic) unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.” – Barack Obama, referring to the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), 7/1/08

- stating “So if you’ve got a wall that’s cutting the campus of the University of Texas in Brownville in half…” – Barack Obama, discussing the University of Texas in Brownsville.

- Stating “My father served in World War II, and when he came home, he got the services that he needed.” – Barack Obama, on how his grandfather served in WWII.

Type Two Obamasiah innocent factual errors or exaggerations:

- claiming that his “uncle” helped liberate “Auschwitz.” This was wrong on two counts, first it was his “great uncle,” not his “uncle” and second it was “Ohrduf” camp, part of Buchenwald, not “Auschwitz.”

- in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

- JFK helping to bring his father to the US. Clearly an exaggeration.

- Claiming that Arkansas was a "nearby" state to Kentucky. (When his own state, Illinois actually shares a border with Kentucky and Arkansas is three states away from Kentucky.

- BARACK OBAMA: The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years. …
LARA LOGAN: Do you have any doubts?
OBAMA: Never.

- Memorial Day speech in New Mexico where he said that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

- At The Obamasiah’s Berlin speech he said: “Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together;” Wrong! In fact, more walls are going up in Belfast.

Type Three Obamasiah intentional factual errors:

- Obama's claim that the 1965 Selma march brought his parents together when Obama had been born four years before the march! This one is hysterical. He was born in 1961, Selma was in 1965. This was either intentionally wrong or he is the stupidest candidate ever.

- His boast that he helped pass legislation regulating the nuclear industry when that legislation didn't pass the full Senate.

- Obamasiah’s claim that "10,000 people died" in the Kansas tornadoes when the death toll was really only 12. Had he said 10 people, or even 1200 people, we could maybe put this in category two above, but come on, 10,000! He was clearly trying to make the disaster appear much worse than it really was in order to score points.

- his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. (His campaign later admitted that it was his handwriting, but that that did not mean he had read the whole thing.)

- told a Portland, Ore., crowd that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about.” But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave." This gaffe is also a complete flip-flop.

- he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to discuss, among other issues, Chavez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." This is another flip-flop too.

- But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" ... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

However, he later said "I Didn't Say That I Would Meet Unconditionally With Hostile Leaders.” Obama: "I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it ... That's not a change in position, that's simply responding to distortions of my position." (Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Seeks To Clarify His Disputed Comments On Diplomacy," The New York Times, 5/29/08)

- He's claimed, in defense of his “without preconditions” position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War. Hah! Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years. Yet Obamasiah calls this a crucial meeting that led to the end of the cold war. Lie.

- An Obama ad team will be on hand for the Berlin rally, which figures to become part of the campaign… as a TV commercial. Evidently the campaign thinks the giving of an overseas speech by a US senator with three years experience and no major legislative accomplishments under his belt constitutes campaign ad magic. Fair enough. It’s just that today’s report undercuts somewhat Obama campaign senior advisor Robert Gibbs’ claim this “is not a campaign trip.” Now, while this lie falls at the hands of his campaign staff, it is whopper and deserves mentioning.

- The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence. "The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province. Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice." So was he lying then, or is he lying now?

- Obama was embarrassed after an aide told the Canadian government that Obama wasn't really serious about renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. When his campaigning at that time was calling for a renegotiation of NAFTA! Outright lies.

- Another great gaffe by one of his major advisors was when Obama advisor Richard Danzig claimed that Winnie the Pooh would be a good model for U.S. Foreign Policy and national Security. “Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else. Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

It was covered in the U.K Press, but nowhere to be seen in the AM. I wonder why? Could it be that it is so ridiculous that it would make the Obamasiah’s Foreign Policy look like a complete and utter joke? Check out the article and decide for yourself if you think having Winnie the Pooh foreign policy is, or isn’t a monumental gaffe. Check this out: “Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.” Or, just Google “winnie the pooh foreign policy obama. ROTFLMAO

While this list is as thorough as I can make in the hour or so spent researching it, I do not believe that it is exhaustive and I’m sure that there are even more Obamasiah gaffes out there. I simply wanted to come up with a representative showing of some of the GaffeMaster’s errors and outright lies. Don't hold your breath waiting for the AM to get these out though, they don't fit with their game plan to get the Obamasiah elected. Rather, you'll probably continue to see the AM harp on any little mistake McCain happens to make and then question his age.

I can’t wait to see Patterico’s list of flip-flops when that comes out.

In the end, what does all this show? I think it clearly and convincingly demonstrates, using his own words, that the Obamasiah is simply not experienced enough to be the President of the United States. It also shows, beyond a doubt, that far from being a “new breed” of politician, he’s just the same old same old tired liberal politico hack who will say anything to get elected.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008


Recently released Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar: here’s what he did --

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. “This is just like what happened to my mother,” I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

Samir Kuntar, this evil, disgusting child-killer, was celebrated and lauded by a large group of Lebanese terrorists after he was released in exchange for two Israeli soldier’s bodies that had been horribly disfigured by their captors. Not a fair trade. In fact, a really, really stupid trade.

Can you see how the Israeli’s are really fighting for their lives?

Terrorists like Samir Kuntar deserve one thing: to die so that he never has another opportunity to do this again. Because given the opportunity, he will kill again.


The prior posts were written some time ago, but were misplaced. Today I found them and started all over again.

My name is J. Raymond Wright and I wish to welcome you to my political discussion blog. Some Ground Rules. On political issues, I am always open to hearing everyone's arguments before deciding on a diagnosis and prognosis. Truly "fair and balanced" is what I will strive to present. I will allow each side to lay-out their position and the support for that position and I'll try not to judge. No foul language and everyone must treat each other respectfully, even if they vehemently disagree with someone. Also, no attacking the person personally, attack their arguments, reasoning or factual basis, but no name calling. This blog is for serious discussion of important, relevant issues currently facing our great nation. And, let's not get too caught up in taking ourselves too seriously. One has to be able to laugh at themselves sometimes.

I like to think that I am a Ronald Reagan Republican. I completely support our men and women who have volunteered to serve our country in the armed services. Go Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard! I'll be the first to admit when I make a mistake, and I will make mistakes. My background is in History, Political Science, Philosophy, Sales and Law. I did my undergraduate at North Central College in my hometown of Naperville, Illinois, and went to Chicago-Kent College of Law. After Law School, I worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney for one of the collar counties for several years. I have been in private practice for the last twelve years bringing my legal experience up to 16 years total. I have appeared in State Court and Federal Court. I have done trial work and Appellate work and have a background in Civil and Criminal Litigation, Corporate Filings and Commercial Construction negotiations and contracts.

I am an Evangelical Christian and happy and proud to be so. I love my Wife and my children and have a friendly disposition. Generally speaking, I'm a happy guy who has been truly blessed with experiences in Eastern and Western Europe and Asia. I attend the Evangelical Free Church of Naperville. I am a broken and very imperfect man who is involved in several 12 step groups, and qualify for even more. I think Americans need to know that it is OK to be a Christian! It is OK to be imperfect and broken. And it is OK to state your position. Christ died for my sins and because of that, if I simply believe in Him, I will be saved from eternal death and will enjoy eternal life. Praise God!

Unnecessary Terror in Texas for 416 innocent kids (from 4-18-08)

Please don’t get me wrong here, if these guys are forcing girls under 16 to marry, have sex, get pregnant and have babies, then the men should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That would be a Criminal Investigation and Prosecution by the State against the alleged perpetrators. If the State can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should be punished, and punished severely. The MEN should be punished: not the kids. They got it backwards in Texas.

They should have taken all the men out of the compound and left the women and children. Or, if they felt like they really had kids in danger of abuse, take the kids who were in danger of abuse and leave the other kids alone. Something like all girls between 12 and 16. It’s not like the women and children are going to run away or anything. They have cooperated throughout this entire investigation. But yet some Texas child care workers deemed it in the “Best Interest of the Child[ren]” to scare the hell out of these little kids and rip them apart from their Mothers and place them in unsanitary circus like conditions emotionally scarring them for life! And a Judge who had temporarily lost her senses commanded it to be. And so it was. Doh!Like a highly trained surgeon can take out a scalpel and very carefully perform incisions during a miraculous surgery procedure, the Judge could have finely crafted an order for the search and investigation of the allegations that were allegedly made by the 16 year old caller.

Instead, the Judge took out an axe and went CHOP! She cut these kids, most of whom do not come close to falling in the category of potential victim of the type of abuse that has been alleged. There are about 20 teen age girls with kids or pregnant that need to be checked out. The six month old babies and four year old boys little girls under ten do not fall under the category of “potential to be abused” unless the State took the drastic step and removed the children from the home, thereby separating them from their mothers.

My children are 6 (girl), 11 (boy), and 14(girl). If the State came and took my 6 year old she would be traumatized by being denied her mother. (Her father less so ha ha laugh at yourself). My 11 year old boy would be just as traumatized, if not more, by being denied his mom and dad. I read “The American Girl Doll” books to my daughter every night for a half an hour before she goes to sleep. With my son, I tuck him in every night, without exceptions, ever. That is something we share that is precious to me. My 6 year old I get up every morning and I take her to school along with the 11 year old. I cherish that time together. What if it were your kids? How would you feel? And, more importantly, how do you think your child would feel to be separated from you?

See, if this were pursued, as it should have been, as a criminal case against any man who forced a girl under 16 (or 17 whatever the law is in Texas) to marry, have sex, get pregnant and have babies, the law would require “Probable Cause” to get a search warrant and the “authorities” of the State of Texas did not have “Probable Cause,” only rumor, innuendo, and suspicion. By claiming that a mystery caller complained of being an underage mother and declaring therefore, that all the children risked possible abuse, was a brush stroke way, way too broad to have used rather than more pinpoint removal and investigation.

Judge Walther signed an emergency order nearly two weeks ago giving the state custody of the children after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hot line claiming her husband, a 50-year-old member of the sect, beat and raped her. The girl has yet to be identified.The children, who are being kept in a domed coliseum in San Angelo, range in age from 6 months to 17 years. Roughly 100 of them are under 4. Did these 100 children under 4 years old do anything that justifies them being taken away from their Mothers? Are children under 4 years old even potentially possibly in any kind of immediate jeopardy of any the acts alleged by the mysterious caller? By the way, where is the tape or tapes of the 911 or Hotline phone calls? With today’s technology and the State of Texas’ resources, why have the calls not been traced to a specific cell phone? Or did the call from a payphone somewhere? Just where did these calls come from?

FLDS members deny children were abused and say the state is persecuting them for their faith. What if this is true? The last time I remember the United States Government rounding up all the “people” of one group and placing them in concentration camp type situations was in WWII when we rounded up all the Japanese Americans and placed them in “relocation camps.” And the Supreme Court issued its worst decision ever in U.S. v Koromatsu and let the government get away with crystal clear violations of the Constitution. The Court, if I remember correctly, held that to place the Japanese into the camps was a violation of their rights, but that based upon the situation, the government was justified in that instance of violating those rights for the greater good.

Is the State of Texas justified in taking all the children out of the home in this case? No way. Not even close. However, the evidence does justify taking all of the girls from 12 to 17 out of the home. Or, in the alternative, take all the men from 18 on up out of the home and leave the little ones alone. (I believe the men even volunteered to leave the compound so the women and children could stay, but the State of Texas, in a blunder beyond belief, decided to remove all the children from the home instead and separate all of them from their mothers.

In today’s testimony, Crawford acknowledged the records contained no evidence of sexual abuse. However, 20 teen girls were pregnant or had already had a baby. What is the legal age in Texas to get married? Is it 16 or 17? If all the State has is 20 teenagers 16 and 17 that have kids that doesn’t prove squat. If a girl were under 16 and was “in the family way,” then we’d have proof of a crime. Punish the criminal, not the children victims.

Current talk by the MSM is about taking custody away from the parents and placing all the children in foster homes. But the relief the Judge can grant doesn’t require such a drastic step. The Judge has a whole range of dispositions to pick and choose from that are short of removing the children. And that’s the key here, removing the children. Was that warranted? Really? Wouldn’t it have been much smoother, quieter, peaceful and least disruptive to the children if the State simply took into custody all the men? Leave the kids alone, arrest the criminals. But no, the State didn’t have “Probable Cause” to do that so they manufacture probable cause through a juvenile case of a witch hunt. Where is the ACLU? Don’t these women and children have constitutional rights? Or does that only apply to Muslims and Hindus and anything other than Christians?

I agree that something had to be done. But what they did do is a clear violation of Constitutional Rights and certainly what they did was not “in the best interest of the child[ren].” I worked in Juvenile for over a year and I really enjoyed working on behalf of kids. The Juvenile system is supposed to be less adversarial than regular Criminal or Civil litigation. The Judge, the State’s Attorney, the Child’s Attorney and the Parent’s Attorney are all supposed to have the same goal in mind: What is in the best interest of the child?

The State could have decided, and should have decided, to investigate these calls from Sarah. But they could have done so in much, much less intrusive ways. The same can be said of the final disposition of this case, it can be a harsh removal of all the children like a whack from an axe; or, it can be finely tuned monitoring and education and support for all boys and girls between the ages of 10 to 16. And pregnancy testing of all girls under 16 on a monthly basis. Educate these kids about their own rights to be free from sexual abuse and monitor them on a monthly basis: trust, but verify!Hold these older men accountable. They should be able, through DNA, to create a complete map of all the various inter-relationships and dates of activity. For example, they should be able to prove that Man X had a child with Girl Y and the child is now Z years old and the girl is now K years old, so when she had the baby she was only S years old and given typical 9 month pregnancies, she had to have been impregnated between this date and that date. Then you have him. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then punishment should be swift and severe. Punish the proven criminal, not the innocent children.

There is no need to punish the children. The State could have used more of a “velvet glove” approach rather than the “Iron Fist” they actually clobbered these poor children with. Texas, I’m with you for prosecuting criminals and looking out for the best interests of the kids, you guys just went about it in a very clumsy and bullish manner that certainly has already caused and will continue to cause deep emotional trauma in these youngsters who should be with their moms. Take away the men, and if you have to take some of the kids, take the girls between ages 12 and 17 only. These are the girls that are at risk. Not the four year old boy, or a six-month old baby! Come On! What Texas did to these kids was so unnecessary and so brutally harmful it should be an example for future cases of what “not” to do.

These people have the constitutional rights to practice their own religion. They do not have the constitutional right to commit child abuse and sexual abuse of children. Let’s hope that the Judge figures out a gentler, softer way to treat these precious children of God.

Update: The Texas Supreme Court totally trashed the trial Judge, rightly so.