As the Title suggests I am a vet, and proud of it, and proud of all those that wear the uniform of the United States of America. You name it we'll talk about it. Politics, sports and much more. However, I am also very interested in what is happening to this great country of ours, politically and socially...So SOUND OFF PRIVATE!!!
Monday, November 06, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to the newest addition to the Drake Clan. His name is Samuel Hagerty, born August 15, 2006. He is the son of Capt. Scott Hagerty (USAR) and Daphne Hagerty (my daughter).
This is one of the reasons for which I have not been blogging much lately. He is a wonderful joy and occupies much of my off time. His father Scott was on assignment in East Africa at the time, but was given leave to be present for his birth in August. Scott is now back in Africa, but should be able to be home for the holidays. This is Scott's second year of being away on military orders. His first stint was in Iraq for 12 months, during the transition period. He was a liason between the US and the interim PM, and worked in intelligence information gathering, which by the way helped lead to the capture of Saddam and other hinchmen in his circle.
Samuel is my second grandson and both spend a lot of time at our humble abode. At the time this photo was taken, Samuel just turned 2 months old. So if I am not online, you will now know why. Got to enjoy them while they are young, and while there is still time to do so.
Monday, September 18, 2006
I know my last blog was sometime back and I haven't really been able to watch that much TV and gather much information of what's going on in the news. Physically I'm fine, thank you for your concerns and questions as to my whereabouts that some of you have posted in the past few months. Hopefully, I'll be able to be on here a little bit more often now and give my two cents on what's going on in the world.
As you notice My recent post is in regards to a college football game balance played this last Saturday. How outrageous some of the calls were by the officiating crew. As you can tell I am a Sooners sports fan and have followed the Sooners quite avidly for the best part of the last 32 years. HA HA!
With the November elections coming up and all the to do about the war and Iraq and the war on terrorism it would seem that the democrats are still up to their old antics, trying to scare the people into believing that we're no safer now than we were before. We've covered this topic indepth in a number of other posts. So I'm not going to go into much detail at this time, however I will say that unless the republican party starts coming together as a whole they will lose in the November elections. There is way too much division within the party for them to secure a true victory in this election. Although I don't always agree with everything that Bush does or says, he is the leader of that party. In the past, 98 percent of the republicans in Congress have agreed with and voted for the things that Bush has presented to them for approval, now it seems that there are jumping ship to save their own butts their reelection year. The democrats to my knowledge still have not presented a true and honest guideline as to what they will do if they win the election, other than impeach Bush.
I look forward to hearing from all of you and as usual welcome your comments on this posting site. I am glad to be back in the fold so to speak.
Almost every sports organization out there has agreed though on one thing, OU was raped of its victory in the last minute or so of the game. Two very game determining calls gave the game away to the Ducks. The on-side kick, that was supposedly recovered by the Ducks, and the pass interference call. The on-side kick, which in fact was recovered by the Sooners, gave the ducks possession of the ball inside OU territory. Yet on TV and on the screen at the stadium it was very obvious that the Ducks 1) touched the ball before it had went ten yards and 2) the Sooners recovered the ball after it had squirted out of the pile. OK, missed call number one. Then on the same drive, OU was called for pass interference, when on the replay there was evidence that the ball had been tipped by an OU player at the line, therefore negating any chance for any pass interference. These two very controversial calls ended up giving the game to the Oregon Ducks giving them their first victory over the Sooners in six trys.
What should be done? Good question. First the game will not be overturned by the NCAA. But it should not count as a victory or a loss for either team. The officiating crew should be suspended pending review of their actions on the field and in the review booth. Both clubs should be given a draw (or tie) since neither team had any direct connection with the calls from the officials. This should leave both teams were they stand in the rankings or move both up considering the losses over the weekend by ND, LSU, etc.
Well that is my take on the issue, what's yours?
Friday, May 12, 2006
Osama Bin Laden doesn't need to strike the USA again to destroy it. That is being done from within. Within our own democratic system. Police have used this tactic for information gathering for decades. They have done stake outs and written down vehicle information to identify suspicious persons. They have tapped phones in a means to gather information as to the ties a suspect might have with other "bad people", yet that was OK, right? Now here we are fighting a war on terrorism with some of the highest technology in the world and we are worried about someone keeping a "database" on our phone calls. Like I said, there must be a lot of criminally intent people out there.
This tactic that the NSA is using is not "monitoring" your phone calls. It is simplying gathering information regarding phone numbers, not conversations. If you are calling al Queda, watch out. If you are calling grandma, whats your worry? The phone companies have been keeping phone data on Americans for years, were you worried then? For the life of me I can not understand all the whinning going on, unless you have something to hide. When I was in the military, I had a secret clearance. Therefore I was checked on a regular basis for any inproprities, or if there was something that might "pop" up on my record. As a police officer, we used spying tactics as well. We would follow suspects to gather information on their behavior, contacts, and locations where suspected illegal activities might have taken place. Now if memory serves me correct, I didn't need to get public permission to do it. As long as I was doing it in the "line of duty" and for the "protection" of the citizens to which I took an oath to protect. Isn't this the same thing that the president is doing?
Even the Justice Department has determined that the wiretaps are legal. There have been no violations of privacy. If there have been violations and there are victims out there, why haven't they come forward to present their claims? Where are the court cases? Who has been the "victims"? Who's rights have been violated? I will tell you who. The terrorists. If there were to be another attack on America like 9/11, I could assure you that there would be an outcry from the public as to why we hadn't done anything to keep it from happening. But since we haven't had another attack, we can only see it as a violation of our rights. Again, who has been violated? Please step forward and present you claim to fame. It simply amazes me that there are so many whiners out there over protecting the United States. Are these the same people that are yelling "make the [illegal] immigrants legal, by giving them citizenship ahead of those that have been using the process to become legal citizens? Oh wait a minute, that is the politicians in Washington D.C.
Think about it for a minute folks. Which would you rather have: a safe and secure country, free from terrorist strikes or a country living in fear because we didn't do anything to stop it from happening all over again? For me, if the government likes keeping a database on how many times I call my mother, or my relatives, great. Maybe I could get a copy of it so that my folks could see that I do call them, and often. So stop your whinning, get on with the things at hand to make this country better.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Just how serious are we on limiting the immigration of illegals into our country? I could hardly believe my ears and eyes when I read this article and heard about it on the TV. To say the least I am appalled. It would now seem that the US is in aid with the notorious Mexican government in assisting illegals in coming into this country. Isn't it bad enough that the the government has turned a blind eye to the immigration population explosion, illgal marches and protestings? Now they are actually assisting them in getting into this country without being stopped.
It is an obvious thing to me that the government (both sides of the aisle) is doing little to stop this. As the article states, this move enables the illegals to skirt the location in which the Minutemen are operating as well as Friends of the Border Patrol. Privately organized civilian groups of concerned citizens, being dismantled (so to speak) by the very government that has made the statement that something needs to be done about the massive immigration taking place in the US. Believe me I do not endorse any violent action taken by any civilian group against another (unless deserved of course). At the same time to assist those coming into the country illegally goes far beyond "protecting the rights of those detained". Another thing that is obvious, is that the Border Patrol can not do their job effectively, or the flow of illegals would have been slowed or stopped by now. So here is a group of concerned American citizens taking time out of their lives to assist their government in helping curb this influx, and their efforts are being thwarted by the very government they are assisting.
In a statement by Darryl Griffen, San Diego Border Patrol sector chief, "...the Border Patrol will not permit any violence or any actions contrary to the law by the groups, and he is continuously aware of (the volunteer organizations') operations," according to the document. "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented Mexicans."
There have also been protests (verbal) from the Border Patrolmen themselves as to the actions taken by their superiors in the providing of information to the Mexican Consulate after a internal memo was passed down last year. The memo also gave out the locations of field operations of the Friends of the Border Patrol, and the exact location of the group founded by Andy Ramirez.
So where will these illegals be stopped? Not at the borders, and especially not by American citizens. American it is time to stand up and sound off. Who runs our country, the citizens (of the people, by the people, and for the people) or a foreign country (MEXICO)? Who controls who can come into our country? According to this enlightenment, there is very little being done to control this mass exodus from Mexico into the US. And yes, even though there are other immigrants coming into this country, the onslaught from Mexico is the worst. I want to personally thank the agencies that are in place to protect our borders for cutting the throat of their officers and the American population. It makes one wonder what other information is being given out about how one can successfully enter into the US illegally by members of our government agencies.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Today, I am going to stray away from my normal ranting and commentary on news events to prop up a fellow Blogger. Griz, at God Bless America. One does not necessarily need to serve in the armed forces of the United States to be a patriot. Griz is standing proof of this. Although Griz and I have never personally met, I visit him quite often. As I started blogging back in February, God Bless America was one of the first places that I visited.
Griz's blog is one that is informative with some of todays headliners, but at the same time he takes us away to a more simple time and place, through his pictures. From some of his various contacts with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has shared some of their e-mails with those of us in the world of blogging. One story, that really made me think of "is it all words or is there a real desire to do your part", took place back in March (I believe). Griz had been communicating with a particular troop and had invited him to give him a call if he was ever in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Well, one day Griz received a phone call from this contact and stated that he was at the airport on a layover between flights and would be leaving shortly. Griz, having received this message, jumped in his car, drove to the airport and hunted down his contact and shook his hand before he took off.
I haven't heard of many people saying that they support the troops doing this. There may be others out there that have done this as well, but Griz is the only one that has communicated this to others (that I know of). Griz has, on a consistant basis, always expressed a true support for the troops by his posting, poems from troop contacts, and his always wonderous and beauty filled pictures from north Texas.
For those of you that haven't visited Griz's site, I encourage you to do so and often. I think you will find that Griz always tries to put things in a perspective that only he can do. At the time of this posting Griz doesn't know that I am doing this "special post" in his honor. Hopefully, he will not find it offensive, or as trying to glorify him. It is just a true expression of thanks from a vet that thinks he deserves a big pat on the back, and a thank you for his true belief in our troops and their cause; and a willingness to go that "extra mile" to let them know that he is there for them. Thanks Griz. God Bless.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Well folks here we are, May 1st. Millions of our kind Hispanic friends are planning on marching in force today. Plus they are planning on boycotting purchasing any products today. Not showing up for work, ditching school, blocking traffic in major cities and byways. Yes, this is there way of making there way into our hearts and gaining citizenship in the US of A. And you know what, they will probably get what they are wishing for. Yet then again they might get something that they are not wanting. Fired, suspended, zero's in classes that they ditch. Yep, some companies and schools are finally getting some backbone. If you don't show don't bother coming back, amigo. At least to some employers that is the stance they will take. Yet again there are more companies out there that are going to close the business today so that their illegal base can go out and march.
Heck, some places are calling this a "Mexican Holiday". I have an idea. Instead of taking today off to march, why not just take the rest of the year off and GO HOME TO MEXICO. Please don't give me that BS about how they deserve to be here, or how they contribute so much to our economy. I know all that crap. What puts a burr under my saddle is the fact that they are using these organized tactics, when they have no rights under the US Constitution to even be here. Yet, we have companies and cities, and yes, even a state backing their "ILLEGAL" actions. I say that we boycott all those companies and cities and so forth that are supporting their illegal antics. I can pretty much bet, and feel comfortable about it, that there will be more MEXICAN flags being waved than American. There will be more "this is my land not yours" signs, than "together we can make America better."
Recently, I broke the law. I was stopped by an officer, issued a ticket and told when the court would meet. Just as the law specifies. I was also informed by the officer, and not harshly, that failure to appear could result in a bench warrant being issued for me and my license being suspended until the matter was taken care of. All of this is rightly so, in accordance to the law. Yet, I am being discriminated against by the same people that write and enforce these laws. How? I hold a legal state license, pay state and federal taxes on everything that I buy. Have taxes and other supportive monies withheld from my paychecks, including health insurance, FICA, etc. Yet, if I fail to show for the court or pay the fine, I will be arrested. Here we have millions upon millions of "ILLEGAL ALIENS" that have broken the law, put a tax on our health system, and they are being given a green light to continue breaking the law.
I know better than most, that arresting all of them and shipping their butts back to Mexico or where ever they came from, is not a very plausible or feasible idea. However, if we can sit back and watch these ILLEGALS continue to commit crimes in our country, how can we then turn around and enforce other laws that are on the books? Are they above the law? Are they going to be compensated for their illegal actions? Probably. And our government is allowing it with open arms. OK, I am through with the ranting. Have a Great Day America.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
"The Star-spangled Banner, the American national anthem, beginning, “O say can you see by the dawn's early light.” The words were written by Francis Scott Key, a young Washington attorney who, during the War of 1812, sailed to the British fleet to obtain the release of a captured American. Key was detained by the British and witnessed from ship the bombardment of Fort McHenry during the night of Sept. 13–14, 1814. Defended under the command of Major George Armistead, the fort withstood the attack, and the sight of the American flag flying at dawn inspired Key's verses, which were written on the way ashore in the morning. After circulating as a handbill, the lyrics were published in a Baltimore newspaper on Sept. 20, 1814. The tune was taken from the English popular song “To Anacreon in Heaven.” Although the army and the navy had for some years regarded “The Star-spangled Banner” as the national anthem, its designation as such first became official by executive order of President Wilson in 1916. This order was confirmed by act of Congress in 1931. The large flag that inspired the anthem, with 15 stars and stripes and originally 30-by-42-ft (9.1-by-12.8-m), has been in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution since 1912." (source: infoplease.com)
No where in above article does it say that the "Star Spangled Banner" was written or sung in any other language than English. It was written by an American, and put to an English tune. Although there have been other adaptations as to the playing or singing of our national anthem, it has always been in English whenever sung. Now we have the Latino Population wanting to put it out in Spanish. To me this is degrading the song and the flag that Americans have cherished since its origin in 1814. I am sure that the Latino's are wanting to pay tribute to our national anthem, but this is not the way to do it. It further enhances the divide that has been growing over the illegal immigration issue. If you want to sing it, sing it as it was written in ENGLISH, and sing it with the pride in which it was written. The song, and the flag for which it was written has endured much over the last 200 plus years. If you want to become an American learn to follow OUR traditions and means of respecting things that we hold close. This is to include learning the English language if you want to live here.
Doe this sound racist to you? If it does, that is your problem. It is not intended to be. What does sound racist to me is the fact that everything must be "politically correct" now days. We (Americans of all color and background) have to be careful as to how we address someone. We have to "understand" the harsh background that a murderer had as a child. We have to sympathize with those that aren't willing to get off their butt and work, just so they can live off the government (off of our taxes). That does not apply to those that have worked all their lives to enjoy the benefits of retirement or the drawing of Social Security after paying in for years.
If we were to go to Mexico, or any other country, we are expected to abide by their ways and culture. Why is it that we must now bow ourselves to those (illegal aliens) that want to force their ways and beliefs on us. To those that have stood the test and went through the procedures for becoming naturalized citizens I salute you and welcome you as an American. For once you take the oath for naturalization you promise your dedication to this country and no other. That oath should also apply to all that we as Americans hold dear and close to our hearts, the FLAG and our NATIONAL ANTHEM. Learn it, sing it, but it must be kept in English or this will be just another loss of another freedom that we are seeing at a very alarming rate. It is here that we must draw the line in the sand. The question is how far will our elected officials, Democrat and Republican, in Washington D.C. allow this to go.
Below are the words to OUR National Anthem, in ENGLISH. Read it, sing it, if you want, but remember that it is in English; and no other language can clearly say it like our own - with the pride and honor that it deserves.
THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER
by Francis Scott Key
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
The American's Creed
William Tyler Page
“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.“I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
"Letter to the Editor:
Failed by Government
Most of us have been taught to respect laws, rules and the rights of other people. We have respected elected officials we have placed into office to run our country and do what's needed for the people. We all have the right to be informed of what might affect our lives.
This greatly depends on what is meant by "informed". Is this person implying that they need to know everything that the government is doing? I hope not. Otherwise, there would be no need for the CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement. Our enemies would only need to turn on the TV and listen to what the government is going to do and how.
Now I must ask: are we ignorant that an important elected official has lied? President Bush, it seems, has lied to us but yet he goes unpunished. What has happened to integrity? Bush is losing out somewhere.
Here again we have an uninformed, fully biased, misguided and "ignorant" opinion. There has yet to be, in any form, proof that Bush lied about anything. Perhaps, if this person was more informed (read the papers, watch someting besides MSM, ask questions) they would have a better idea of what is going on. Therefore, as to the second part of the statement "he goes unpunished" answers itself. You can't be punished for something that has not been proven.
It seems Bush lied to himself as well as the American People when he gave reasons for "his war" to keep us safe. Are we being deceived by delusions? We are seeing a dysfunctional elected official and the sad fact our Congress and those who say they have our best interests are permitting this CEO to continue to run this country. Most companies who hire a CEO expect him to do what is best for the good of the company and when he doesn't do what is expected he is fired. It seems Bush has been in charge of several companies in the past that have a history of going under, leaving people in the lurch.
OK, we have already answered the "lied" portion of this statement. As for the "his war" statement, seems that they have forgotten that the UN voted on a resolution that approved (to an extent) force to be used against Saddam. Also the fact that the world as a whole provided the same information as to Saddam's intentions. His violating resolution after resolution put forth by the UN, had to come to a halt. And since the UN (Useless Nations) were afraid to take action, Bush did. Were mistakes made, yes. But anyone with an ounce of intelligence would also know that war is not perfect. Reflections of how we got into WWII is solid proof of this. But if you were to ask the "ground pounders" fighting this war, their answer would be lightyears different from yours.
Bush as a "CEO", is really grabbing for straws. CEO's are appointed or hired by a company, they are not voted into office by the people of a nation. When was the last time that the employees of a company voted in a new CEO? When was the last time that stock holders were asked for their opinion about a new CEO? Therefore, yes they (CEO's) can be fired or asked to resign. I guess this persons comment should also include the Clinton administration, for in his second term unemployment rose and companies went under (ENRON, WORLD.COM, to name a few). Since then unemployment has leveled out at 4.7% (one of the lowest in years), personal income is up, the economy is stronger, and the list goes on.
"Speeches and double-talk" have not helped our people or fixed problems we face on our homefront. Our government needs to realize our people are hurting and they are struggling for their daily needs. We have been spread thin for too long and it has weakened our country. Mother Nature has wounded us with her wrath but we endure and are slowly putting things in orer. Our government has wounded us with false hope and promises it has not kept. We seem to be an opressed people who hade been let down and short-changed. Only a country run as a dictatorship does this to its people. We all can bet our government officials are having their needs met using our taxes.
The government is not responsible for the personal needs of citizens of this country. That for one thing is what is wrong with the country now. Too many people depend on the government for everything. I am not saying that the government does not have a place in our lives, but depending on them for "their daily needs" goes far beyond its purpose. How is our country weakened? When was the last time that we were attacked? Does this person mean weakened by how the world looks at us? The same world that on too many occassions has looked to the US for support, or to help them out of a situation. If the US was to ask for repayment of the loans and grants given out to these nations or countries our debt would be resolved in one third of the time it will take now. As for "a country run as a dictatorship" comment, go and live under a dictator and find out what it is really like before trying to make comparisons to the US and the freedoms that you have now. For one thing you wouldn't be able to write these things about your government or the leader of that country. On the last sentence, I can agree, to a certain extent. I have always been against our politicians receiving too much for the job, or lack thereof, they are doing.
Our government needs to work for its people - fixing problems before taking responsibilities of another country so we can once again be strong. It's time for changes to be made and to voice our concerns by voting in people who are truely looking out for our best interests.
That was done in 2004. America spoke up and elected the officials they wanted. The upcoming election has yet to take place. Therefore, we won't know anything until it happens. What I do know is, that I for one, do not want politicians that are only out to appease our enemies. And as much as I hate to say it, "finding" people who are "truely looking out for our best interests" and having them do it are three different things. They really only look out for themselves, their soft chair and their retirement. Unfortunately, there are politicians such as this on both sides of the aisle.
The America we have now is not the America we need and should have. "United we stand, divided we fall." We are being failed by a government that is making us fall apart.
Yes, "United we stand, divided we fall", but that division is not coming from the President. It is coming from our elected officials in Congress. The same Congress that gave Bush permission to go ahead with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and on Terrorists and now wants to be more like France, Spain, Russia and Germany. Who's appeasing ways have left them totally unprepared to face any onslaught by terrorists. And who will they call on for assistance or to pull their backsides out of the fire, again? That's right, the good ol US of A. The government has not failed us, we have failed the government. To quote a phrase from JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." So, R.E.B-F., what have you done for your country lately?
Monday, April 24, 2006
A while back Queen Hillary spoke out against the House Bill on Immigration saying that it would "criminalize even Jesus himself." Now it would appear that she has flipped her stance on this issue as well. Hillary stated in response to polls lately, "that she backs a border wall plan that would include both physical barriers and a "smart fence." Hillary also backs citizenship as opposed to amnesty for the 11 million illegals that are here now. Yet, are they not the same. You are promoting rewards for breaking the law, and in some cases moving these "illegals" closer to the front of the line by doing so and by-passing those that are doing it the legal way.
How much has Hillary flip flopped on Immigration? Maybe some of this information will help.
Cosponsoring bill to increase foreign-worker importation in 2005-2006
Voted against amendment to strip foreign-worker increase in 2005
Voted in favor of amendment to increase foreign-worker importation in 2005
Cosponsoring bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2005-2006
Voted against amendment to provide funding for additional Border Patrol agents in 2005
Voted in favor of amnesty for agricultural workers in 2005
Cosponsoring bill to create an amnesty for illegal agricultural workers in 2005-2006
Cosponsored S. 2381, a major amnesty for illegal aliens in 2004
Cosponsored bill to repeal the federal ban against granting illegal aliens in-state tuition and reward illegal aliens amnesty in 2003-2004
Cosponsored bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2003-2004
Cosponsored legislation in 2002 that would assist illegal immigration by compromising immigration laws
Cosponsored bill to create an amnesty for illegal agricultural workers in 2003-2004
Co-sponsored legislation in 2001 to extendSection 245(i) for one-year.
Go to NumbersUSA to get more Congressional immigration voting information.
Yes, it would seem that Hillary really wants to change the immigration process. She has done her best in the past to literally break down the requirements for coming into this country legally and has been on the side of the Illegal workers over the American workers since coming into the Senate. Now, in an election year, she is repeating herself to be in favor of more illegal immigrants and expects you the voter to believe that she has your best interests at heart.
In 2003 Hillary spoke out against illegal immigrants, now where does she stand? She welcomes tougher laws against employers that hire illegals, yet opposes any restriction on immigration itself. Queen Hillary wants it both ways and that is not what the people want. When a majority speak, are we not supppose to listen and follow the will of the people (legal American citizens, not the ones that floated over and snuck under the fence in the dark of night like snakes in the grass).
Unfortunately, both parties have their heads up their backsides on this issue. The Republicans are too afraid to take the stance that most have in the past, while the Democrats only want to use this issue to increase their voter base. By having illegals register for the November election this year. A major push was on during the recent "uprisings" by the Democratic Party to get these illegals registered to vote. The Republicans are wallowing in the mire waiting for God only knows what.
But I digress, Hillary in 2008? What about 2006? Would the real Hillary Clinton please sit down. You are confusing those that think you are for, or is that against, immigration standards. Yes, you want them to become U.S. citizens without going through the process. Who does that benefit. You want harsher penalties for employers while rewarding the 12 million "illegals". You're not infavor of closing the border off, but you agree with the fence or wall idea. You are "adamantly against illegal immigrants,"...but want to make them citizens of the United States. You vote to give large numbers of them amnesty, but are against amnesty. (I am getting dizzy just writing this part). Do you not hear the crys coming from the marchers, they want their land back, it is their land and the "Americans" stole it from them. They want to reclaim California and much of the southwest. To me, this does not sound like they want to be US citizens. Make up your mind Queen Hillary, the masses have the tar and feathers at the ready.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Click on the link below to read the broadcast excerpt.
or click here to listen to the broadcast (Real Player is required to hear the broadcast)
Source : The History Channel
1889 The Oklahoma land rush begins
At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
The nearly two million acres of land opened up to white settlement was located in Indian Territory, a large area that once encompassed much of modern-day Oklahoma. Initially considered unsuitable for white colonization, Indian Territory was thought to be an ideal place to relocate Native Americans who were removed from their traditional lands to make way for white settlement. The relocations began in 1817, and by the 1880s, Indian Territory was a new home to a variety of tribes, including the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, Cheyenne, Commanche, and Apache.
By the 1890s, improved agricultural and ranching techniques led some white Americans to realize that the Indian Territory land could be valuable, and they pressured the U.S. government to allow white settlement in the region. In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison agreed, making the first of a long series of authorizations that eventually removed most of Indian Territory from Indian control.
To begin the process of white settlement, Harrison chose to open a 1.9 million-acre section of Indian Territory that the government had never assigned to any specific tribe. However, subsequent openings of sections that were designated to specific tribes were achieved primarily through the Dawes Severalty Act (1887), which allowed whites to settle large swaths of land that had previously been designated to specific Indian tribes.
On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as "Boomers," by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.
The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.
An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving "Sooners"--people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time--overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. By 1905, white Americans owned most of the land in Indian Territory. Two years later, the area once known as Indian Territory entered the Union as a part of the new state of Oklahoma.
Friday, April 21, 2006
OK, you tell me if this is what you feel like lately in regards to our politicians. I think that it pretty well sums it up.
Two Houston men arrested for hiring illegal workers
US crackdown on companies that employ illegals
Does it seem to you that the Government is finally starting to listen to the people? According to the Headlines listed above it would appear that they are getting a start anyway. What is new to this is a twist, more and more employers are being arrested and fined as an attempt to curb the hiring of illegals. Something, I might add, that has been screamed by the public for some time now, but especially during the last month or so.
With all the illegals and some legals marching lately, in an attempt to change the process as to how to become legals, and the cry to their family members across the border to make their way north before the new immigration bill goes into effect (if it ever gets a vote), something MUST be done and done now. If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was stated that by 2030 the immigration of illegals into the US would surpass 30 million if an amesty program is established. Where are the higher numbers coming from? If we allow the current 12 million illegals to become citicizens, they in turn will bring their family members into the states and the chain goes on.
Meanwhile, in some of the border states, the Minutemen in Arizona are urging Bush to get on with the fence along the border or they will build it themselves. Although it is true that no fence or wall will stop the immigration move, it couldn't hurt. Then, if the INS really gets its motor running and continues this crunch on employers hiring illegals, it could really take a bite out of wanting to come to America and as well allow more Americans to be hired or that company could face steeper fines and possible closing of the business. I think that it is high time that these steps are taking place. In fact I think that it should have been done years ago. Although it is not likely that all 12 million illegals will be caught, I do think that if you hit the employers where it hurts (their pocket books) they will also have a change of heart and start abiding by the laws that are on the books now. Will this push to punish employers and illegals continue? God only knows. But if we want to maintain the American dream, for legals and Americans, something must be done and soon.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
H/T to NEWSMAX.com
Author James Risen who recently torched the NSA's taping program and pretty much turned over the U.S. Intelligence Agencies most powerful info gathering tool,won the Pulitzer recently for his book "State Of War". However, what has not been to publicized is the fact that Clinton, early in his administration was finding ways to scrap the CIA's information gathering capabilities. The book also hit on the late 90's plan to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan. But due to the possibility that OBL could be killed in the operation and Clinton had not authorized that, it was scrapped. However, the division in the CIA was deep and it's information gathering base was deeply limited due to the fact that they feared it would have political flaps. Since they were less willing to take risks, the CIA was not able to recruit spies in high risk areas. Could these measures possibly have stopped 9/11?
The MSM seems to have missed this part of the book and only focused on the Bush Administration. Funny how Risen himself failed to mention anything about this in any of his TV interviews with the MSM.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
We Must Stop This Immediately!
Have you noticed that Stairs are getting steeper. Groceries are heavier. And, everything is farther away.. Yesterday I walked to the corner and I was dumbfounded to discover how long our street had become!
And, you know, people are less considerate now, especially the young ones. They speak in whispers all the time! If you ask them to speak up they just keep repeating themselves, endlessly mouthing the same silent message until they're red in the face! What do they think I am, a lip reader?
I also think they are much younger than I was at the same age. On the otherhand, people my own age are so much older than I am. I ran into an old friend the other day and she has aged so much that she didn't even recognize me.
I got to thinking about the poor dear while I was combing my hair thismorning, and in doing so, I glanced at my own refection.........Well, REALLY NOW-even mirrors are not made the way they used to be!
Another thing, everyone drives so fast these days! You're risking life and limb if you happen to pull onto the freeway in front of them.. All I can say is, their brakes must wear out awfully fast, the way I see them screech and swerve in my rear view mirror.
Clothing manufacturers are less civilized these days. Why else would they suddenly start labeling a size 10 or 12 dress as 18 or 20? Do they think noone notices that these things no longer fit around the waist, hips, thighs, and bosom?
The people who make bathroom scales are pulling the same prank, but inreverse. Do they think I actually "believe" the number I see on that dial? HA! Iwould never let myself weigh that much! Just who do these people think they're fooling?
I'd like to call up someone in authority to report what's going on -- but the telephone company is in on the conspiracy too: they've printed the phone books in such small type that no one could ever find a number in here!
All I can do is pass along this warning: We are under attack! Unless something drastic happens, pretty soon everyone will have to suffer these awful indignities.
PLEASE, PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN GET THIS CONSPIRACY STOPPED!
PS: I am sending this to you in a larger font size, because something has caused my computer's fonts to be smaller than they once were.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997.
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once saidthis to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate ofviolent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other,except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me,it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell.
Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said,"and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model ofthe sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.
The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial. The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world can not work any other way, at least not in are presentative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go,"Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High Schoolwere big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door.
Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on theperimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things thatgo bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one ofthose planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.
"When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa,when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll,"which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers -athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But ifyou want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people.He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counter productive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Dave Grossman , LTC(ret)
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Let us not forget the troops that can not be here for this Easter Sunday. As you say your prayers, please be sure to include them.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dangerous spiders we have in the US. The following pictures may be upsetting to some, so look at your own risk. If nothing else please look at the last picture, the one of the spider itself. These spiders like dark, cool places as the weather starts warming up.
This person was bitten by a Brown Recluse
THE BROWN RECLUSE SPIDER
Recieved this in a e-mail this morning and thought I would pass it on.
As millions gather together this weekend to celebrate Easter, let us remember the reason for most Christians to be celebrating. Yes, there is the Easter Bunny, and egg hunts and the such. But the real meaning can be found in the picture below. Click on it to read it.
HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY EASTER
Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community. The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and trauma complications from repeated pokes in the belly. He was 71.
Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin. Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies, and Captain Crunch. The grave site was piled high with flours.
Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded. Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers.
He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes. Despite being a little flaky at times, he still was a crusty old man and was considered a positive roll model for millions.
Doughboy is survived by his wife Play Dough, two children, John Dough
and Jane Dough, plus they had one in the oven. He is also survived by
his elderly father, Pop Tart. The funeral was held at 350 for about 20 minutes.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Could this have been the reason for the DEMOCRATS undermining of the Immigration Bill?
The fun just never ends does it? It would appear that good ol Billy Clinton really put the screws to the goose and approved the giving away of some nuclear secrets that ended up in the hands of the, guess who, Iranians. Now think back to the latest news out of Iran, they claim they have become nuclear or join the ranks of the nuclear club. Faster than anyone including the IAEA and the CIA had anticipated. Whether it is real or not (Iran being nuclear), is shall we say yet to be determined. Another way of looking at it is the fact that Iran is really starting to flex its muscles as of late. Could this be another reason that Russia wanted to step in and "control" the situation?
According to the article by NY Times reporter, James Risen, the "secret" was given to a former Russian nuclear scientist to give to the Ambassador of Iran or sell it, which ever was easiest. Problem was that the Russian saw the flaws in the document and voluntered to assist the Iranians is fixing the problems. SMART MOVE DORKHEADS. How much of an advantage did this give Tehran in coming up with the "bomb"? It would seem a great deal.
My next question would be to Mr. Risen, why haven't we heard you reporting on this before, when the situation was being bounced around by the IAEA and now the UN (Usless Nations). Why, because he was too busy worrying about the Legal (not mispelled)NSA wiretapping and trying to put a cap in Bush with his reporting.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Proof to back up earlier post : Guest-worker hopes spark rush to border
A majority of Americans said they oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, so-called "undocumented workers" from other nations who are already residing in the United States, according to a recent Zogby International survey.
While 52 percent said there should be no amnesty, 32 percent said they would favor amnesty for illegal aliens who currently reside in the United States.
The U.S. Congress has estimated that there are 11 million illegal immigrants now living in America. Amnesty was offered to people in this category during the Reagan administration, but it did little to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the country, primarily via the U.S.-Mexico border.
Well it would seem that Queen Hillary and her court of jesters will have their way. At least in the midsts of the delay in passing any kind of immigration bill. It would seem that a migrant rush is now on with thousands of illegals trying to get into the US before the (or a) bill can be passed by the Congress. Illegals now in this country are contacting their families on the south side of the border, and advising them to beat feet up here so that they can be part of the "Illegal Invasion of the Immigrants" inot America.
What does this mean? How about thousands upon thousands of illegal votes being cast in the upcoming elections. You got it, and their are "pliticians" out there that are pushing to get these illegals registered. What ever happened to having to be an American citizen to have the right to vote. Hell, let's just open it up all the way and let France, Russia, Spain and all the other countries out there take a stab in our elections. After all, by allowing these "wet backs" (a terminology that goes way back) the right to vote in our federal elections would be the same difference.
How can it be that a majority of American citizens and those that have been naturalized (through the proper channels) are completely against any more illegal immigrants being given speedy citizenship. What the hell are our "good ol' boys" doing up on the HILL? What the hell are they thinking? What's it all about? VOTES, VOTES, VOTES...NOT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR AMERICA. Not what the people want. They are only concerned because it means more votes for them if they can find a way to help out these law breakers. In fact, by assisting these illegals, they themselves are breaking the law. It is time to stand up America and take hold of what we have, or you will not have it long.
Think about it, with eminent domain, city officials can take your land away from you as it is now. If these boneheads get their way they can start taking your land away so that inferior housing and can built to help house these "peons" settle in your backyard. Where else are they going to live? I mean think about it for a minute. What would happen to your homes property value if five illegal families moved into the house next to you. Not five different houses, just one. Now, let's say that those five families contact another five, and those five contact another five, who in turn contact another five. It goes on and on and on. I can not remember the name of the individual on Bill O'Reilly the other day, but a statement he made has stuck in my mind ever since. That comment was something along these lines, Illegals will be taking over and their is nothing that you can do to stop it. Whites will soon be the minority and illegals will dictate what you can or can not do. As it was in Texas before Santa Anna got his butt thumped by Houston and the young Texicans. It is bad enough now that in certain states Spanish is a required second language so that you can communicate with the illegals.
I don't know about you, but, I want my country back (to steal a line from Rick Roberts) and I want the illegals moved to Canada or back to Mexico. Think about it, Canada, they have all that open territory up there where no one wants to live. Hey, they could make it a second Mexico. Wake up America, take a stand and stand up for your country. Give your cowards for politicians a swift kick and have them get off their arses and do the job WE hired them to do.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Is this more proof that Old Glory has taken a back seat to other countries flags? It seems that it is alright to burn or desecrate the American flag while people get arrested for burning foreign flags. Although there would appear to be some attached reasons for the arrest of Roy Warden, the actual arrest has stimmed from the burning of the Mexican Flag at a rally held in Tucson on Tuesday. Warden is a member of the group Border Guardians that showed up in counter-protest to the Immigration marchers on Tuesday. The incident took place at around 2:15 pm but an arrest of Warden did not take place until 4:30 pm, marcher organizers were wanting to know why the arrest took so long, as is Warden. However, my question would be WHY it took place at all. The Mexican flag is not protected under any American Laws, that I am aware of, so therefore there should not have been any attention given to the action. Does this show that there are more concerns over protecting anything that is not American?
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
A standing round of ovation is requested for Detroit's Wolverine Packing Co. It would seem that a few (15) meat cutters were fired, terminated, deleted from the rolls for participating in the Immigration Protests held in Detroit on Monday. The fifteen women, mostly Mexican and some illegal immigrants, were tossed out on their ear for failing to comply with the companys request to not participate in the Protests. Having been given ample warning not to attend, the women choose to do so anyway.
Jay Bonahoom advised that the women had been given verbal and written notice regarding any attendance to the protests. Now the only problem I see with this is that there may have been a communication problem. Not knowing for sure, but could they possibly not have been able to understand English or were not able to read and understand written English? I am sure that is what the dimwits fighting for the women to get their jobs back will be saying.
Elena Herrada, an activist trying to get the women's jobs back, said they were fired "for standing up for their rights,". Huh, pardon me, but they (as illegals) have no rights under our laws. Laws which are being ignored on a daily basis. Those that were there legally had a choice to make. Abide by the company's request or go support illegal actions by illegal aliens.
Wouldn't it be nice to see more employers taking the same stance that the Wolverinie Packing Co. has? Wouldn't be nice to see that same type of action being taken by some of our schools for students tht walk out to go on these protest marches. Maybe this will let them know that "no" means "NO".
Monday, April 10, 2006
Well, the illegals are at it again. Protests throughout many major cities took place today, with millions belly-aching about immigration. What a majority of these illegals do not understand is that America, unlike Mexico, is built upon laws and law enforcement. Therefore requiring all who come to the United States to abide by those laws and rules. A big part of that law is doing it legally, abiding by the process established, and submitting through proper channels to become legal.
To show how ignorant some of them are about becoming legal through the process one protestor stated, "Last time I read the Bible, there was no requirement to be checking passports," complained Carol Vega, who came from Puerto Rico, joining thousands of others marching through Washington to gather near the Congress building. Well, DUH!!! As the ACLU and other left wing organizations have so plainly put it, we do not go by the Bible to establish our laws. We , some of us, use the Bible as a spiritual guidance. We use a legal process to allow you to become a thriving and active member in our society. Just because you come to the U.S. does not automatically make you a citizen.
Another protestor stated, "We come over here and break our backs and still they discriminate against us and label us as nobodies," said Diana Delcid, whose parents came from El Salvador. Then you need to talk to the low life employers that you work for, plus you need to do it legally. Again simply coming to America does not make you a ligitmate citizen. Under the Constitution of the United States of America you do not have a legal right to "demand" anything. that right is reserved for the "citizens" of the United States. Look up the word citizen, it says, "cit·i·zen (st-zn)
1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
3. A civilian.
4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: "We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community" Franklin D. Roosevelt."
Please show me where it says that you are a citizen just by showing up on our shores.
Susan Wysoki, spokeswoman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform sums it up nicely by saying, "They are demanding that they be given rights U.S. citizens have when their first act was to break the law by coming into this country illegally," . The protests were greeted with dismay by critics who said the U.S. government should not encourage "a culture where America's laws are optional." And indeed they should not. Can the everyday "legal" American break the law and expect amnesty. Not likely, you break it, you deserve the punishment. You want to be here, go through the channels and make it legal.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, serving in Baghdad, Iraq. The views expressed are his own, not those of the Army or the Department of Defense.
H/T to The American Thinker
April 8th, 2006
During the course of war, the minority party has two choices. It can acquiesce to the majority party on war strategy for the sake of national unity, and provide opposition on domestic programs. Or, it can obstruct successful war operations for the purposes of reacquiring power. Since there is an election on the horizon, it appears as though the minority party has chosen the latter course of obstruction over unity. With that in mind, the party has developed a campaign statement disguised as a guideline for national security which they call “Real Security”. The following is an analysis of their main points: The plan opens with, “The first responsibility of our government is the security of every American.” After years of promoting excessive taxation and redistribution of income, they have finally recognized the primary maxim of government’s relationship with its citizens, that of security, not income equality. It is a good start. “Promote alternative fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil.” Good idea, stick with your strength. They are good at promoting this argument. So far, their plan is moving in the right direction. After criticizing President Bush and pre-war intelligence, the plan goes onto talk about contracts going to “…companies such as Halliburton, KBR…” If their dissertation on national security has to include criticism of legitimate companies, it is definitely off track. The contractors are doing an admirable job for American forces. The quality of food, materiel, and equipment in a combat zone is unequaled in the history of warfare. The contractors are making the sacrifice of being away from family and country for the troops much more tolerable. The opposition’s security plan is losing focus. “And despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefits the big oil interests.” Aside from being another knock on free enterprise, that statement is disjointed and obviously not well thought out. If fuel prices were lower, would we be any less dependent upon foreign oil? The prices are subject to the current supply. If they want to change our dependence upon that supply, they should focus their energy on one of the previous paragraphs outlining their strength—the debate on the search for alternative fuels. “Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America…” Anybody who uses the over-utilized term “state-of-the-art” has run out of purposeful adjectives and has again failed to think the problem through. What does that term mean in this context? Will they make the military more aesthetic? More lethal? Better organized? Since the left despises free enterprise (read Halliburton and big oil), it is very odd they would use the term “investments” when speaking of the military. They only use the “investment” word when it comes to increased government spending. The problem is that they do not want to project power out of fear of alienating world opinion. Instead, they prefer to talk ceaselessly at the UN while terrorists attack our interests, as happened in the 1990s. The plan goes on to say, “Eliminate Osama Bin Laden…finish the job in Afghanistan.” If any statement within their manifesto demonstrates their inability to understand strategy, this is it. Looking back at World War II, if only Roosevelt, Churchill, Eisenhower, and Montgomery planned and executed the capture of Adolph Hitler, think of all the lives, time, and money that would have been saved. Basing your plan on eliminating Bin Laden is not responsible policy. It is an added benefit as we continue to destroy his network, but never should it be the primary emphasis of tactical operations. Concentrating on the pursuit of Bin Laden would distract from the primary mission. It reminds one of Senator John Kerry’s campaign comment that he would not do one thing differently than that of President Bush; he would do everything differently. Aside from pleading with the French to support us, what would those changes be? That is a good 30-second campaign commercial, but once again, it is empty in terms of war strategy.
“…finish the job in Afghanistan.” The terrorist government was overthrown within a matter of months and democratic institutions have been established. Terrorists are being sought out each day. What could the left possibly do differently? “Double the size of our Special Forces.” This is another demonstration of a profound lack of understanding the American military. Doubling the size of any force does not necessarily correlate to an increase of effectiveness in the same proportion. Forces in special operations do great work. But as the name implies, the work within those organizations is specialized; they assist the overall mission, they are never the main effort to successful completion. Relying too heavily upon Special Forces distracts from the conventional purposes of regular forces. “Combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive.” The left cannot escape the mentality that criminals or terrorists must have an inner rage formed by a supposed lack of economic opportunity. It sounds similar to their application of the failed analysis and attempted rehabilitation of the criminal caste in America. This is nothing short of saying that their violence is a result of our lack of understanding and a shortage of funding for social programs. The left lacks a basic understanding of the cultural and religious dogma driving the terrorists, or, more likely, they refuse to acknowledge it and hope it will just go away. “Renew longstanding alliances.” Could they be referring to NATO, the organization that we dedicated a half century of funding and military personnel only to be ignored during our hour of need? Or could it be the UN, the organization that turned a blind eye while Saddam Hussein manipulated the corrupt Oil for Food program and turned it into a palace funding vehicle? These organizations are anachronistic and need to be reformed prior to relying upon them and before we continue to dedicate resources to their continuity. “Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials…” The left is enamored by using “the process” and setting arbitrary target dates. We need to aggressively pursue the terrorists to ensure they never acquire the material, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or 2010. This is why we did not leave Afghanistan or Iraq as soon as their terrorist governments were overthrown. Yet, the left wants us to leave immediately. Who knows what would happen to those materials if we left the region prematurely. “Provide firefighters…police officers with training, equipment, etc.” Sounds like nationalizing departments for which states and municipalities are responsible. This could lead to more bureaucracy, which of course, corresponds to more taxes. “Protect America from biological terrorism…by investing in the public health infrastructure…” There goes that “investment” word in the public sector again. If they used that word in its proper sense in the private sector, they would contribute to a stronger economy. It also appears to be another attempt to nationalize the health industry at the expense of national security. “Responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.” If they have to qualify redeployment with “responsible”, it means a complete, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal before mission completion. This is not effective policy; it is failing to carry through an operation they are now walking away from. “Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country…” Insist? Apparently, nobody within the diplomatic or defense organizations realized it was that easy. This is the same logic that produces policy to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. The Iraqis need to figure this out on their own; this is how they will grow into the democratic mind-set. “Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence…” If this is a matter of semantics to avoid the ‘impeachment’ word, they are being irresponsible in a time of war. This is the same intelligence that the French, Germans, and Russians agreed upon. Even the former president insisted upon regime change when he reviewed the identical intelligence prior to September 11th. “Free America from dependence on foreign oil…” This is the only logical statement in their strategy. Again, this is an area that they are legitimately qualified to handle. Perhaps they should concentrate on this and let President Bush and his administration continue to execute this war to its successful completion. This security strategy presented by the Democratic Party is strong on rhetoric and falls short of logic. They have to decide if they sincerely want to win this war for America, regardless of who occupies the White House and controls Congress, or if they are more concerned with acquiring power and following an isolationist policy. Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter.