Archive for the ‘National’ Category

My Opinon on The Current Policial Climate, SuperFat Tuesday 2008

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

I have obstained from posting for a number of reasons, mainly my heart hasn’t been in it, but recently I find myself energized as the election draw nearer.  My mind wanders down many paths as I ponder the direction of the nation in coming years.  What has been on my mind the most is the vast divisiveness that is befowling mainstream conservatives.

I don’t turn to the pundits to get my knowledge on the different candidates, I seek it out through many sources, collect that knowledge and review.  However, I do include the various pundits out there in my research because I am curious what they are thinking about different candidates and issues and how they came to their conclusions.  Recently all I hear from the mainstream conservatives is denouncing Huckabee and McCain and backing Mitt Romney.  I am not upset they would back Romney, but I am upset that they would vote for a democrat before they would vote for McCain.  Huckabee, unfortunately, seems to be a non-issue, although I would be elated if that changed today.

All this talk about McCain got me thinking what was so terrible about him, so I looked some stuff up about him and listed to what all the pundits had to say.  I came to the conclusion that McCain isn’t that bad a guy (he certainly isn’t conservative) and that if the people select him as the republican nominee then so be it, I will vote for him.

Michael Medved has made some very good points about McCain.  A caller called into his show and said something along the lines, “Well McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.”  That is a line that alot of the other pundits have used to denounce McCain, but none of them elaborate on the issue.  Medved retorts, “Well, true he did do that, but did you bother to see why?” usually the response is stuttering, but Medved continues, “McCain said that he voted against the tax cuts because they weren’t coupled with cuts in spending.  Furthermore, if you are so worried about what happen 6 years ago, why are you not denouncing Romney for 6 years ago being Pro-Abortion, Anti-gun, and endorsing nationalized health care?”

Medved also has a great response about McCain shortcomings on the Illegal-Immigration issues.  A caller will say they can’t support McCain because of “Amnesty” and the Medved will ask the caller if they supported Ronald Raegan.  The caller will reply “of course” and then Medved will slam them with the fact that Raegan granted amnesty to millions of illegals in ‘86.  The calle shuts up pretty quick.

Now then, my point isn’t to go issue by issue and expound on why one candidate is betther than the other and why you should vote for X over Y because of Z.  My point is that a lot of people out there aren’t seeking the facts about the issues and they are reacting very rashly to McCain by saying they won’t vote for him.

If they don’t want to vote for him in the primary, that is great, I hope they vote for Huckabee.  I can’t vote for Romney because he will sign another assault weapons ban and given that I still have other choices I will vote for Huckabee in the primary in March if he is still in it and McCain over Romney if not.

But what if the general election comes down to McCain VS Obama or Hllary?  Alot of conservatives out there have said they would vote for democrats before they voted for McCain.  To think that any rational thinking person would put their party before they put America is sickening.

If the conservatives wanted a better candidate, why weren’t they talking up Fred Thompson a whole hell of a lot more?  George W Bush has done a great number of un-conservative things for the past 7 years, McCain would surely be more of the same with a few differences, but mainstream conservatives wait till now to get pissed about not having a candidate that represents their ideology?  Get real!

My solution, unfortunately, suck it up and vote for McCain.  Given the possibility that some supreme court judges could retire I would rather have the judges that McCain picks over the ones that Hillary or Obama picks.  Those picks could shape the nation for 20 years or more and we would best be served by a greater chance of having conservatives judges up there.

Meeting Mike Huckabee

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

So far in this presidential season, I’ve been silent about who I’m supporting.  But for the last six months, I’ve been leaning toward one candidate.  It all started back in January, when I saw Mike Huckabee on (of all places) the Don Imus Show.  I was impressed enough to post the following comment on the unofficial blog “Mike Huckabee President 2008″ on January 11:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bluestaterepublican/116849705994000530/

(My apologies to the folks at that blog for taking so long to carry out my promise.  My only excuse is that “soon” can be a very relative word.)

Since January, every time I’ve seen the former Arkansas governor, my admiration has grown.  The man is a solid conservative with some very innovative ideas about issues like health care and education.  I’ve also been impressed by his seemingly unshakeable optimism.  So it was no surprise that when I read in the Amarillo Globe-News that Mike Huckabee would be speaking at the Church at Quail Creek on Sunday, July 23, I made it a point to attend.

For those who don’t know, let me confess that I’m a Christian and a Southern Baptist (in that order).  I was pleased to learn early on that Governor Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, but I’m not so naive as to believe that a person’s religious affiliation necessarily means anything; after all, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Bill Clinton are all Baptists (the latter from the same hometown – Hope, Arkansas – as Mike Huckabee).

The Governor’s appearance was clearly announced as neither a political rally nor an endorsement of his candidacy by the church.  That was fine with me, because I’m already familiar with his politics (most, if not all of which I strongly support).  I was interested in learning more about what kind of a Christian the man is.

I was not disappointed.  The Wall of Separation between Church and State was not breached that morning (Democrats, take heed!).  Former Pastor Huckabee preached eloquently on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14).  The theme of his sermon was “The Sin of Doing Good.”  It may sound like an oxymoron, until you realize that his message was about humility.  True to what Jesus taught, he preached that “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”  The sermon was seasoned with a number of self-deprecating anecdotes that illustrated that Mike Huckabee is a man who practices what he preaches.  No Pharisee he!

I entered the church a supporter of Mike Huckabee the presidential candidate.  I left admiring Mike Huckabee the man.  Make no mistake about it, this guy is the real deal!  I spoke with him briefly after the service and told him I’ll be praying that the Lord will continue to do a mighty work through him.  And unlike the promise I made six months ago, this is a promise I fully intend to keep.

You might ask, “What chance does this ’second-tier’ candidate have against the likes of cash cows like Giuliani, Romney, or even Fred Thompson (if he chooses to run)?”  All I can say is this: watch the Ames straw poll in Iowa on August 11.  I’m not going to make any predictions, but from what I’ve read, the most popular candidate among social conservatives in Iowa is “None of the Above.”

I was heartened to hear on the news this morning that after his appearance here in Amarillo, Mike Huckabee was headed for … you guessed it: Iowa.  It’ll be an uphill battle, but the more people who meet this man, the more will agree that America needs Mike Huckabee.

The Americans Who Risked Everything

Thursday, July 19th, 2007

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren’t nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that “the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.” All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president’s desk, was a panoply — consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!”

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. “Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.”

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase “by a self-assumed power.” “Climb” was replaced by “must read,” then “must” was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called “their depredations.” “Inherent and inalienable rights” came out “certain unalienable rights,” and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half – 24 – were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: “Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.”

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone.”

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: “Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

“The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

“If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens.”

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers’ faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, “but in no face was he able to discern real fear.” Stephan Hopkins, Ellery’s colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: “My hand trembles, but my heart does not.”

“Most Glorious Service”

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

· Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered — and his estates in what is now Harlem — completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

· William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

· Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

· John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton’s parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington’s appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: “Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country.”

· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
*
· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

*· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson’s palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, “Why do you spare my home?” They replied, “Sir, out of respect to you.” Nelson cried, “Give me the cannon!” and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson’s sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson’s property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons’ lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man’s heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: “No.”

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. “And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
—————————————————————————————
The above was received in an E-mail a few days ago and I’ve been trying to decide if I should post or not. All in it is true but how many can really appreciate what is said?

I sat on my porch and watched all the fireworks lighting up the sky line of Amarillo July the 4th, but I really couldn’t enjoy it. I kept thinking, who among all the folks lighting up the sky are thinking of the Founding Fathers. How many were just having fun with no thought of these great men.

Here were some of the most important richest and most powerful men of their time who gave up all for nothing more than the desire to have taxation with representation.  The tax load they were under was minuscule compared to what we pay today.  

This goes well with your last post CT.  Think of the men in Congress today. They are not willing to give up their lives and fortunes for America. They have no honor at all. Certainly no sacred honor. The congress has become a place where they make their fortune. They do all possible to remove divine providence from our once great Country. They do not protect our borders. They fear protecting anything. They consider their lives to be more important than the desires of what once was “We The People”. It’s now we the elite socialist. Men who led a revolution over little more than taxation without representation, now have put themselves in the place of the King of England. Reserving all authority for themselves. It has become a country of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the Lawyers. While a very few are trying to do their job, they are beaten down by the majority who seek only more riches for themselves and those who fund them at election time.

Our country is in a mess all carefully orchrestated by a few. The 4th estate and lawyers pull all the strings. We The People and honor have long been gone.

 The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers.

Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van HogendorpOct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632 (must have seen M. Moore movies)

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

George Bernard Shaw, Liberty

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court


 

Dem Presidential Candidate Calls Hillary Out

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

Watch this youtube clip of the most recent democrat debates.  Most of the video is not relevant but other videos out there do now show the context of the comments I want to highlight.

At least on this issue Mike Gravel can see the forest for the trees and calls out the other stooges on stage characterizing the War on Iraq as solely Bush’s war.  At least Obama wasn’t around to vote on it so he has deniability, but then again, he didn’t call Hillary on here propaganda spewing either.

My Comments on the Virginia Tech Massacre

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

I prayed several times yesterday for the families who are suffering such a great loss.  My heart goes out them.

Who is responsible for yesterday’s atrocity?  You will be surprised to learn that probably last on the list is the actual murderer, Cho Seung-Hui.  Among those being blamed are, George W Bush, the gun culture of Americathe officials of the University, and video games.

I am optimistic that the political climate will change for the better as a result of this tragedy.  History has proven that an armed populace will in most cases prevent these acts and in other cases significantly decrease the loss of life.

Take for example Charles Whitman and the “Tower of Death” who in the 1960s killed 15 people and wounded 31.  Whitman was eventually pinned down and his reign of terror was halted as members of the general public retrieved their own firearms from their vehicles and returned fire.  Had these brave citizens not stood up for themselves and others many more may have perished.

Another case is of a school shooting that occurred at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia.  In this case when a madman attacked the school, killed 3 people, and injured 3 others, two separate men retrieved their firearms from their vehicle and subdued the man.  Had the lunatic been able to continue his rampage how many more lives would have been lost?  Could the same be said if faculty or even students, with reasonable training of course, been allowed to possess firearms on campus?

If not blaming President Bush or anyone but the killer for the shooting the liberals are clamoring for more gun control, expansion of government, and more regulations for law abiding citizens.  If anything the reliance on government and gun control laws are to blame for this situation being as terrible as it is.

“Gun Free Zones” is the most laughable of this whole fiasco.  As before if these people had the legal ability to carry weapons chances are the death toll may have been far less.  Sure is a lot of good those laws were huh?  So far all that law has done is gotten more people killed than should have.

The biggest issue is the reliance on government.  Even in light of this tragedy instead of advocating more personal responsibility people are wishing the government had done more for them.  When will people learn that relying on the inept institution of government control will only lead them to paths of the same nature as the events of yesterday?  Our government refuses to secure our borders, couldn’t gather enough proper intel to prevent a terror attack or manage a war, can’t provide for people in need after massive natural disasters, and has poor ability to prevent 30 people from losing their lives at the hands of a madman, and people want this governmental beast to have more hands on the situation?  That is lunacy by itself.

Furthermore, the same people who say we should not fear terrorism and Islamic radicals are the same people wanting more controls as a response to yesterday’s events be it more gun control regulations or tighter government provided security in schools. Not only does this notion prove that leftists are solely politically motivated when criticizing the war on terror but it also proves that leftist desire a nanny state where their safety and well being rest squarely on the shoulders of government.  This thinking fosters complacency and enables the attitudes that lead to 30 people cowering to the whims of a madman instead of standing up for themselves and others.

At least one person of the group, a hero and holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Lebrescu held the gunman off allowing several others to escape.  Could it be that if this man were allowed to handle the tools necessary to stop this lunatic that he would have done so?  We will never know.

I grew up in Borger and at the time the population was approximately 15,000.  Just like any town there are murders; several a year and some with firearms.  I lived there for around 18 years, my parents and grandparents have lived there many more.  Of the hundreds of murders that have happened there none of the shooters have gone on mass murder sprees.

The officials did handle the situation poorly at Viginia Tech.  More could have been done to prevent the tragic loss of life.  On a campus of 25,000 people, though, I think it is unreasonable to lock down the entire campus because of one shooting.  Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and locking down the campus would have most likely saved the lives of those 30+ people, but shootings where people go nuts are so few and far between that we shouldn’t have SWAT jump in every time someone is murdered.

One final point I would like to make is in reference to foreign nationals possessing and obtaining firearms.  The shooter may have been from South Korea but he had lived here since he was 8 years old, 14 years, and his major was in English.  This guy was American as you or I, his origin or race is of no interest to this investigation. 

The solution is simple.  Education on the use and handling of firearms to the degree of proficiency that is possessed by law enforcement officials needs to commonplace .  No one should be forced, of course, but those of us with a slight interest in firearms need to be trained at a young age to know what to do in situations such as this.  This responsibility fall on parents.  Parents need to teach children not to be victims.  Teach them to stand up for what they believe in, to stand up for for their lives and the lives of others.  Leftist culture preaches the opposite and leads to people being slaughtered.

I am doing my part.  I will obtain my concealed carry license very soon.

Lessons Learned by Mistakes in Iraq Safeguard Our Future

Wednesday, March 28th, 2007

My late wife Cara had a child when she was 17.  Although easily characterized as a mistake at the time and the enormous struggle brought about by raising a child at that age Alli was easily the greatest thing that ever happened to Cara and Alli, along with me, was the love of her life.  The point is that though mistakes happened and consequences dire at the time, the greatest of joys was brought about as a direct result of those mistakes.

I recently learned about a vehicle in testing for our armed forces that are IED proof.  The vehicle is based on a V shape that directs the blast outward as opposed to straight up on today’s military vehicles.

Another weapon I learned of on Discover Channel’s “Future Weapons” is an AT-4 rocket launcher that can be fired from enclosed cover.  Previously if the weapon were fired from cover it would cause harm to the operator due to concussive blasts from the firing of the rocket.  The improved version of the AT-4 is perfectly safe to fire from a small room.

Innovations such as these are a direct involvement in an urban based guerilla style conflict such as we are seeing in Iraq today.  From my perspective these innovations are a direct result of our shortcomings in Iraq.  If we had vehicles practically immune to IEDs how many of our brave warfighters would still be alive?

Now that both houses of congress seek to deliver us a defeat in Iraq these innovations may not ever have the chance to fully blossom and help our armed forces deliver a swift and crushing devastation that our enemies in Iraq deserve.  Future efforts to safeguard our freedoms will be stifled not only due to the raucous resolve of terrorists enabled by congress’ democrats as a result of the “timetable” legislation but also the stifling of current the War on Terror’s lessons.

Like it or not, wars will be fought.  Binding the hands of innovation, even as a direct result gruesome misjudgments, will cause more problems in the years to come and hamper our ability to defeat our enemies, present and future, home and abroad.

The solution?  Stay the course and adopt a warfighting strategy that is not politically correct.

God Bless America

Friday, March 23rd, 2007

If you are paying any attention to politics you know about the 218-212 vote on the “Timetable for Troops in Withdraw Iraq.”  This is a spending bill that not only sets a deadline for the troops to leave Iraq it has a great deal of other government “pork barrel” spending in it.

Lots of discussion has, is being, and will be had about this issue.  This is as politically political as politics can get.  The President has vowed to veto the bill.

I am not being all doom and gloom or angry about this bill at all, even though there is a great deal of substance to be angry about.  I am excited about this bill because it highlights the function of our government.

If I recall correctly this is the second bill Bush will veto, the first being the stem cell bill.  As it stands, as far as congress goes and if congress is an accurate representation of America, the American people want to set a deadline for our troops to come home.  Of course I disagree with this, I am in the minority, but this why we have checks and balances.  This is why the executive branch exists.  The President’s veto can be overridden but only with I think a 3/4s majority in congress, something the democrats will never come close to having.  I doubt the bill even gets out of the Senate.

I am aware I have said many times that the people should get what the people want.  However, after reading a great deal about gun control laws (situations where the majority of people want something unconstitutional, seriously, if a majority of Amarilloans or Texans wanted slavery could they supercede the 13th amendment? No) and situations like this where a simple majority sets the tone for everyone checks and balances such as this are an outstanding idea.

Snarky jokes and partisan politics aside issues like this do more than what they are intended.  They teach us how government functions and gets more people involved in politics, I think.

HR 1022 Assault Weapons Ban

Friday, March 16th, 2007

Democrat in the house are conspiring to take your rights away.  Long have I said don’t be fooled by their rhetoric of defense of civil liberties.  It is all an act, a charade, a guise for their hatred of GWB.

1022’s purpose is, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”  At first glance on might think that this bill would simply reauthorize the Clinton era gun ban which did nothing more than ban the way assault weapons looked.  This ban is far worse and would the sale or transfer any weapon this bill covers.  So what does this bill cover? Mark M. Alexander says:

In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:

All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles — including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip” any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.

In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.

I have read the legislation and Mr Alexander’s description is spot on.  The worst part about this bill is that it could pass.  With democrat control of congress and Bush saying he would support the renewal of the ban in 2004 this legislation could become reality.

This is how it is done, friends, one chip at a time. First it is assault weapons, then .50 caliber rifles, then you won’t be able to have anything the police have and then you are defenseless.

Liberals want us to call the police when our lives are threatened. But who do we call when the police threaten our lives?  Liberals like to respond that that kind of government abuse is unfathomable, except when it comes to the patriot act, they change their tune.

My main point is that liberals are two faced.  They whine about the patriot act but take rights and freedoms away like this bill and the fairness doctrine.

The solution is simple, on one hand.  Though our district and congresspeople support the constitution we still need to let them know that we need to campaign against this bill.  Should this bill be passed I do not know what to do, pray, keep fighting, or lay down and give up and live with the law until we can get it overturned.  I say fight for our rights should they be taken away such as this.  But there is also the conflict that if this law were to pass it would represent the majority of Americans who would want this law.  Would it be right to go against the majority?  Sure it would, but threats of violence would not be appropriate.  The option exists to move away but to where?  And, in moving away, wouldn’t that be giving up on this glorious nation? 

If this law is passed the solution is not simple and hard times are ahead.  If this law is passed remember the ant-fascist rhetoric posed by the left and realize what hypocrites they are.

PS: One thing I picked up from another 2nd ammendment issue about the DC gun ban being overturned was Judge Karen Henderson who dissented on the opinion about the people’s right to bear arms saying that, “..the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.” 

Reflections on November

Wednesday, February 14th, 2007

While working on the site the other day I re-read a great deal of material I and other had written.  I realized that I had not commented on the Republican defeat this past November.  I was dealing with a personal tragedy at that time, and steal dealing with it.  The election was the least of my worries.

Now I feel the desire to comment.  For a long time I didn’t feel the need.  The election is over, the GOP lost, and being that hindsight is 20/20 my comments really mean nothing.  I am bored though and that trumps everything.

The question was posed, “How does it feel when it all crumbles down around you?” to which I reply LOL!  As to the context of that query it was in reference to the incoming Democrat majority over the GOP.  I might feel down had my attitude towards all politics be in support of all things GOP and nothing else.  That is not my attitude, though.  My attitude towards politics is to all things American.  I accept the Democrat majority and that the American people put them there.  I don’t view this past November as a step back for the GOP; I view it as a step forward for our nation.

No, that doesn’t mean I support the Democrats.  There will always be losses. There will always be previous majorities becoming the minorities.  Same with the presidency.  We will have Democrats and we will have Republicans.

The difference between the GOP and the DNC is that on the GOP side there aren’t many people who this past November ha to seek help for Post Election Stress Trauma Syndrome (PESTS).  We don’t cry and say we’re moving to Canada.  We don’t have nightmares or think democracy is coming to an end.

No, I am not afraid of what the Democrats may bring.  Our majority will return one day with some work we can undo the damage done, if any.  So far the Democrats have done nothing.

My attitude is down when people advocate socialism such as national healthcare or state run media, when people say, “Yah it ok if they get a warrant later.”, or when the mounting problem of illegal immigration is a hot potato no one wants to touch.

Politics and Generosity

Tuesday, November 21st, 2006

This following article illustrates one of the major differences between conservatives and liberals:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Ever since the New Deal, the liberal philosophy about charity has been that it begins not at home, but in Washington.  As a result, many liberals tend to think that the morally neutral act of “rendering to Caesar” is sufficient to alleviate suffering.  I remember talking to my liberal brother about this.  His response was classic: “I do my share.  I pay my taxes.”

The problem with this attitude is that it depersonalizes the entire process.  One of the benefits of person-to-person charity is that relationships are formed and people are transformed – both the benefactor and the recipient.  Throwing money at the problem does nothing to change lives.

The political payback of governmental charity is that it has been an effective way of buying votes.  The Democrats learned this early on, and in more recent years the Republicans tried doing the same thing.  Unfortunately for the GOP, the conservative base is not that easily bought off.

Another problem with coerced charity is that it has created a whole class of bureaucrats whose job security is predicated on the perpetuation of human suffering.  Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and you’ve put the existence of the Department of Fish Distribution in jeopardy.

Lest you think I”m being too hard on liberals, I will concede that liberals can be very generous – with other peoples’ taxes.