What Gives You The Right...

"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.”

A "Letter To The Editor"

The following is an actual letter to an editor in one of our local papers. The person, whom I know, seems to be stuck in the "what can you do for me" syndrome. Or it is better known as the Democratic Party's belief that the government knows best as to what is best for you. I won't go into to much detail about this person, but to say that she has done anything except depend on the government for her living I think would be suffice. Therefore you can better understand this persons state of mind, and her rantings about Bush and how the government is not doing what she thinks they should do.

"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?

R.E.B-F."

Hillary Burbs Up another Flip Flop

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.