A Salute To A Fellow Blogger

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.

Right or Wrong?

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.

Want More - click here

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.

A Flashback That Still Has Meaning Today

The following was recorded in Canada about the time that we were exiting Vietnam. With the world gloating over our stalemate (at home only, not of the battlefield) one Canadian, Gordan Sinclair, said enough and transmitted this broadcast on June 5, 1973. In the midst of our current situation I thought it would be nice to hear these words again, from someone who is not an American; but would still carry the same message and thoughts as millions of Americans have today.

Click on the link below to read the broadcast excerpt.

http://oldsgtsoldglory.blogspot.com/2006/04/flashback-that-still-has-meaning-today.html

or click here to listen to the broadcast (Real Player is required to hear the broadcast)

http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/ccf_resources/ccf_resources-bios/ccf_bio_audio/53.rm

TODAY IN HISTORY - OKLAHOMA LAND RUSH

Source : The History Channel

April 22

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.

Couldn't think of an appropriate Heading for this one...does it speak for itself?

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.

INS Makes Move on Employers

Feds Warn Companies Using Illegal Workers

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.