Last December in Warren, Indianapolis (Indiana), two sixth-graders at Raymond Park Middle School had sex in a classroom, with other children as well as the teacher present.
Yesterday, March 13, Warren residents blasted Dr. Peggy Hinckley, School Superintendent, in a public board meeting in which many called for her resignation. The School Board stood stoicly defiant, condescendingly shaking their heads as the applause for resignation among parents resonated the building.
Dawning of a Newer Education:
After the meeting concluded, Ms. Hinckley was confronted by Jesse Watters of FoxNews. When asked if the teacher had been punished at all for his incompetence in allowing such an act to occur in his classroom, Ms. Hinckley responded, "No, because we didn't determine the teacher had any misconduct." When pressed that it happened on the teacher's watch, she claimed, "It did. And when there's a fight that occurs on a teacher's watch, we don't punish the teacher because two students engaged in a fight." Most disturbingly, her response to whether or not the sex between the students was protected or unprotected, she said "I wasn't there, sir. So I don't know the answer to that, I don't know the details of that, I don't know that even we would be asking those kind of questions in the investigation to know that."
Obviously displeased with her cavalier answers, Mr. Watters then asked if she, specifically should be concerned if it was unprotected sex, and she indifferently chided, "I think the families need to be concerned about that."
Apparently Ms. Hinckley has better things to do than conduct an investigation or bear concern for the children in the district which she supervises.
While the students involved in the act have since been expelled, it's hard not to feel sorry for them as a result of the undisciplined, reckless upbringings they must have.
Alarming as it may seem, one major component to this story is the lack of reportage from the national media, due to the fact that it reflects poorly on the secular-progressive atmosphere that has infiltrated so many school districts across the country.
Two mothers of the S-P crowd, Jennie Kaiser and Karen Lowry, both have children in the Warren Township School District. In an appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" (FoxNews, 5 & 8 p.m., PT) today, both parents sounded off in what appeared to be a self-scripted diatribe, showing their "understanding" of the childrens' behavior.
A Lesson in Secular-Progressive Thought:
O'Reilly: "You have a sixth-grade son. Could you ever imagine, in his classroom, two of his peers having sexual intercourse at or under their desk?"
Ms. Kaiser: "No. Um, its shocking. But, I'm not naive enough to think that it's not going to happen."
O'Reilly: "Wait, wait wait. I don't think that I'm a naive guy, I don't think that this happens very often, and if it does, this country is in big trouble. So you say you're not naive enough to think this was not gonna happen, these are eleven-year-old children in the charge of a certified teacher, madam."
Ms. Kaiser: "Hey! They were 12-year olds. And they were in charge, there was a teacher there. Um, I put myself in his position. He is in charge of 32 students. He's not God, he can't be everywhere every minute. He did the job to the best of his ability, and I, that's my opinion on it."
O'Reilly: "As a former teacher who had fifty students in his class, that's me, I can't imagine this happening in any class that I was ever associated with. How do you see it, Karen?"
Ms. Lowry: "Um, I do think it is also shocking, I have a sixth-grade son, myself, and I could not imagine, no I could not. I don't feel that I'm naive, but when the story broke, I did look at my 12-year old, and you know, I just shook my head out of shockness, I, you know, thinking that something like this could even go through their minds. As far as the teacher, I don't believe that he should be punished for anything, that um, as soon as he found out he took appropriate action, and went about the appropriate steps."
O'Reilly: "I hate to be graphic, but I have to ladies, this action took place in about a five-minute period of time. If you're in a classroom and you've got kids looking out, and you don't know what your students are doing for five minutes, you don't deserve to be in that classroom."
Over the remainder of the interview, Bill (O'Reilly) posed to the women whether or not they were shocked when Board Supervisor Dr. Hinckley said she didn't even know the details of the situation. Their respective responses were, "Maybe she does, and she's just not reporting it. I don't feel like she's lying. These things are going to happen", and "She may not." Hardly an assuring position from two concerned, caring parents.
Cover-Up Exposed:
The story was uncovered today that not only was a full investigation overlooked, but the School Board apparently attempted to hide and cover up the incident altogether, until exposed by the (FoxNews) press. The 'Big Media' and their ilk continue to sit this one out.
Let's hope this was an isolated incident. Let's hope the two parents learn to better understand the protection of their children. Let's hope FoxNews continues to champion the untold stories of child exploitation around the country that some parents and Superintendents (and media) alike are willing to turn away from; after all, in Ms. Kaiser's own misguided words, this is only a 'negative' story "not where or when it happened, but the fact that it happened, depending on what light" its viewed from.
The only responsible light on this view is for the teacher and Superintendent to step down, or the people of Warren, Indianapolis (Indiana) to not accept anything less than their resignations.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Why Securing Borders is Just Plain, Common Sense
Hoover Dam, one of the nation's largest and most extraordinary of its kind, rests on the Arizona/Nevada border. It's purpose, along with generating power with the flowing water current from the Colorado River, also serves to protect the Las Vegas and surrounding valley areas from imminent flooding. Should the dam break open, many homes and residents would certainly face a violent and deadly disaster the likes of many we've seen in recent years.
Let's assume for a moment you were the Operations Manager and Head Supervisor of the dam and all of its responsibilities. One day you receive a call from the closest town's Mayor, informing you of a curiously strange puddle; one that's very thin but showing up not just in parts, but around the entire city. On a hunch you go to visit the dam and, to your surprise, the colossal wall appears to have a small, barely visible crack, trickling water like a kitchen sink.
What do you do?
While the wall is incredibly vast, you could bear the cost of building a new one in front of it, but that just wouldn't prove economically viable. You could stick a piece of chewing gum in the crack or hole to patch it up, which would not only be cost effective, but would stop the slow, steady drip from transforming the town's puddle into a disaster area. Let's say for the sake of argument, you go with the gum.
Now, while the problem may be temporarily solved; of course the pressure in the wall will begin to build and, over time, the water will either increase the crack or burst a larger hole right through the wall. In the meantime, the townspeople have been and continue to hire local contractors to bring in pails and buckets to reduce the areas water depth. Siphening it out isn't an option, since it's volume isn't enough to warrant the size of the costly machines and its oversized tubes.
For quite some time, the water ebbs and flows; sometimes higher, sometimes lower, and the townspeople simply tolerate their civic roles and help out when necessary, ultimately having to call in outside contractors and pay them to assist in the restoration process.
My point in this analogy is this: What sense does it make to waste the taxpayers time, money and resources to continue to throw the water back out that's just going to continue coming right back in anyway? Why not simply fix the problem at it's source and repair the portion of the wall that needs attention; stopping the flow (and future costs) in the process?
Sounds like pure, obvious common sense, right? Then why is it called common sense only after it's been pointed out to us?
Take for example our country's illegal alien population, and apply the same rationale and logic to our Mexican/American border. We have a porous border with illegal, undocumented immigrants running rampant in a surge to get here, yet our "Homeland Security", "I.C.E." and "Border Patrol" only seem to be playing "catch and release", strangely similar to putting the water back on the other side of the dam. In doing so, the illegals are in no way deterred from their cause, and will continue, until the Will of the American people is broken, to illegaly cross the border and wreak havoc in the surrounding communities much like the water does in our example.
Without fixing the problem at its source, i.e. shutting down the border, the problem will never cease to a fully efficient stop.
Aside from the political antics of both Republicans and Democrats alike on this "special interest" issue, the problem (when viewed as such, and upon looking for a solution) indicates clearly that without a hidden agenda in mind, it is relatively easy to contain and control. Yet it continues to this day, the "flood" unnoticed (or tolerated/ disconcerned) by the masses.
Moving around the globe to our War on Terror; the same, simple logic can be applied and understood even without a military background or having read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". The basic premise to cutting off funding from surrounding state's providing of arms and insurgents appeals to the "common sense" of us to monitor and shut down the borders there to avoid (and contain) the swelling increase of suicide bombers and others with which are attempting to kill innocent people, not to mention our beloved troops. By securing the borders of the areas with which we have a vested interest in protecting, we could very well quell the violence and better "corner" the terrorists to an area where their demise would be met with more expedience (and cost-effective to the American taxpayer, too, I might add).
While there is no way to tell if our nation's top "Most Wanted" man, Osama bin Laden, is alive or dead, it must be assumed that he is alive and well after just turning 50 last week. In the absence of our Generals plans, if we had employed the simple "fix the problem at its source" philosophy and surrounded the borders and closed in from the mountaintops when he was "cornered" before his escape; we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, or possibly Iraq for that matter, right now.
I won't pretend to have a military history background or know anything of what's actually happening on the ground there, but doesn't this seem to be a little easier to plan to anyone other than me? Though I understand this is a difficult battle and we're fighting an ideology, not a country; just as going 'door to door' for insurgents seems as reasonable as selling Amway, it's painfully clear that the matter in which we're fighting this war is wrong.
The problem is not the troops, the Generals, or the Iraqis; it's the (lack of the) Will of the American people and the incessant, narcissistic undermining of the effort by the American, ultra-liberally biased Big Media.
Though the networks (both major as well as cable) have drawn considerably favorable coverage for a "lost cause", only FoxNews seems to share the patriotic view of balancing coverage and revealing the positive aspects this war has developed through that country's democracy and industrialism. Many groups have stood up to the Giants to be heard in an effort to shake some sense into many Americans who have grown reluctant and catatonic over time due to the constant bombardment of negative news. Some papers even run a daily "death count" (See Las Vegas Sun); hardly a service to this country or its citizens (not to mention the families of the brave heroes protecting our futures).
Until our elected officials wake up and stop the finger-pointing and partisan political vie for office, we'll never be squared with the truth any more than we will a victory. The sad truth is that many prefer their blind ideology to undermine this Presidential Administration over the safety of our own countrymen; and that, my friends, is not just dangerous... it's outright treasonous.
Let's assume for a moment you were the Operations Manager and Head Supervisor of the dam and all of its responsibilities. One day you receive a call from the closest town's Mayor, informing you of a curiously strange puddle; one that's very thin but showing up not just in parts, but around the entire city. On a hunch you go to visit the dam and, to your surprise, the colossal wall appears to have a small, barely visible crack, trickling water like a kitchen sink.
What do you do?
While the wall is incredibly vast, you could bear the cost of building a new one in front of it, but that just wouldn't prove economically viable. You could stick a piece of chewing gum in the crack or hole to patch it up, which would not only be cost effective, but would stop the slow, steady drip from transforming the town's puddle into a disaster area. Let's say for the sake of argument, you go with the gum.
Now, while the problem may be temporarily solved; of course the pressure in the wall will begin to build and, over time, the water will either increase the crack or burst a larger hole right through the wall. In the meantime, the townspeople have been and continue to hire local contractors to bring in pails and buckets to reduce the areas water depth. Siphening it out isn't an option, since it's volume isn't enough to warrant the size of the costly machines and its oversized tubes.
For quite some time, the water ebbs and flows; sometimes higher, sometimes lower, and the townspeople simply tolerate their civic roles and help out when necessary, ultimately having to call in outside contractors and pay them to assist in the restoration process.
My point in this analogy is this: What sense does it make to waste the taxpayers time, money and resources to continue to throw the water back out that's just going to continue coming right back in anyway? Why not simply fix the problem at it's source and repair the portion of the wall that needs attention; stopping the flow (and future costs) in the process?
Sounds like pure, obvious common sense, right? Then why is it called common sense only after it's been pointed out to us?
Take for example our country's illegal alien population, and apply the same rationale and logic to our Mexican/American border. We have a porous border with illegal, undocumented immigrants running rampant in a surge to get here, yet our "Homeland Security", "I.C.E." and "Border Patrol" only seem to be playing "catch and release", strangely similar to putting the water back on the other side of the dam. In doing so, the illegals are in no way deterred from their cause, and will continue, until the Will of the American people is broken, to illegaly cross the border and wreak havoc in the surrounding communities much like the water does in our example.
Without fixing the problem at its source, i.e. shutting down the border, the problem will never cease to a fully efficient stop.
Aside from the political antics of both Republicans and Democrats alike on this "special interest" issue, the problem (when viewed as such, and upon looking for a solution) indicates clearly that without a hidden agenda in mind, it is relatively easy to contain and control. Yet it continues to this day, the "flood" unnoticed (or tolerated/ disconcerned) by the masses.
Moving around the globe to our War on Terror; the same, simple logic can be applied and understood even without a military background or having read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". The basic premise to cutting off funding from surrounding state's providing of arms and insurgents appeals to the "common sense" of us to monitor and shut down the borders there to avoid (and contain) the swelling increase of suicide bombers and others with which are attempting to kill innocent people, not to mention our beloved troops. By securing the borders of the areas with which we have a vested interest in protecting, we could very well quell the violence and better "corner" the terrorists to an area where their demise would be met with more expedience (and cost-effective to the American taxpayer, too, I might add).
While there is no way to tell if our nation's top "Most Wanted" man, Osama bin Laden, is alive or dead, it must be assumed that he is alive and well after just turning 50 last week. In the absence of our Generals plans, if we had employed the simple "fix the problem at its source" philosophy and surrounded the borders and closed in from the mountaintops when he was "cornered" before his escape; we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, or possibly Iraq for that matter, right now.
I won't pretend to have a military history background or know anything of what's actually happening on the ground there, but doesn't this seem to be a little easier to plan to anyone other than me? Though I understand this is a difficult battle and we're fighting an ideology, not a country; just as going 'door to door' for insurgents seems as reasonable as selling Amway, it's painfully clear that the matter in which we're fighting this war is wrong.
The problem is not the troops, the Generals, or the Iraqis; it's the (lack of the) Will of the American people and the incessant, narcissistic undermining of the effort by the American, ultra-liberally biased Big Media.
Though the networks (both major as well as cable) have drawn considerably favorable coverage for a "lost cause", only FoxNews seems to share the patriotic view of balancing coverage and revealing the positive aspects this war has developed through that country's democracy and industrialism. Many groups have stood up to the Giants to be heard in an effort to shake some sense into many Americans who have grown reluctant and catatonic over time due to the constant bombardment of negative news. Some papers even run a daily "death count" (See Las Vegas Sun); hardly a service to this country or its citizens (not to mention the families of the brave heroes protecting our futures).
Until our elected officials wake up and stop the finger-pointing and partisan political vie for office, we'll never be squared with the truth any more than we will a victory. The sad truth is that many prefer their blind ideology to undermine this Presidential Administration over the safety of our own countrymen; and that, my friends, is not just dangerous... it's outright treasonous.
Unsung Heroes: Hit & Run Accident WITNESSES
I was cut off and became the victim of a hit-and-run while riding my yellow Ducati 900SS motorcycle home from work the Saturday before Halloween last year, (on) October 28, 2006.
Upon what appeared to be a drunk driver swerving into the lane immediately ahead of me and "hard-braking" upon hearing my horn, my evasive maneuvers proved no match for pure physics. Bearing no license plate and only recognizable by a shoe-polished rear window, the driver quickly fled as my bike and body collided with the vehicle, totaling my own as it slid over 100 yards; much of which as it ran alongside the late Ford-Tempo looking automobile as I lay in the street, sliding and tumbling for only a mere 50 yards or so myself.
Dressed in a bright yellow helmet, yellow leather (armored) jacket, and armored riding boots, I still took quite a beating against the harsh brutalities of the road on my highly-visible (yet now long-gone) love. In fact, my knees were the only "unprotected" part(s) of my body, and both appeared to be broken with the swelling and "road-burn" inflicted on them while portraying a rag doll in the rear view of the unidentifiable driver who paid no mind.
As he was already going about 15 mph in a 35 mph zone, which was the primary reason I decided to (attempt to) pass, he continued to slow and move to the right after obvious contact and injury had been made. Just as it appeared he would slow to a stop and pull over to help, he drove off, turning into a corner convenience store/gas station without a second thought as I lay there in the street, rested on my knees; my vehicle just coming to a stop far ahead of me, pointing and signaling for help to follow and identify the assailant.
No one did.
The first vehicle immediately succeeding me slowed in a rubber-necking fashion, having been the benefactor of the best view of the crash, so as to get a good look at my condition; as it continued to drive straight ahead and disappear into the night. Lucky enough, the second, third and many other concerned drivers witnessing the event stopped to call 911, provide aid, and remove me to the side of the road away from imminent traffic threats.
As I was taken to the hospital's trauma unit via ambulance, many witnesses stayed behind to provide information to the police officer who first arrived on-scene. Though I would luckily walk out of the hospital on my own power (along with the help of 10 mg of liquid morphine) 4-5 hours later without a broken bone in my body, the injuries I suffered internally would later prove to be life-sustaining (in my upper and lower back and knees). The trouble arose when I picked up the accident report a few days later, only to find that the officer didn't obtain a single witness' name, statement, or contact information to corroborate my story. My own insurance company, the one with the gecko, would provide only the MedPay coverage ($2,000) I paid for on my premium, but refused to communicate with me or open the $100,000 Uninsured Motorist Policy Coverage my premium covered as well.
As a result of the officer's laziness, the accident report reflected minimal damage to my vehicle, an incorrect statement (from me) regarding the incident, and suggested I was at fault.
But, a break had occurred: around 5 a.m., fading in and out of consciousness (as a passenger, of course) on the way home from the hospital, nearly 5 hours after the accident, I spotted the suspect vehicle parked in the lot it had previously entered upon fleeing the scene. Upon contacting the police, the same officer arrived, to conclude (with visual confirmation, paint transferred from the car onto my helmet, damage indicators, and subsequently photographs) that this was, in fact the assailant's vehicle. After completing his quick investigation, he promised to visit the address of the owner (as indicated on the expired, temporary permit in the window) the following day. Nearly a month later, upon contacting the authorities, I discovered what I'd learned about the case being closed and an investigation never being conducted.
While transferred to the Hit & Run division and speaking to an investigative officer, I gave the details and information regarding the case and the fact that the perpetrator had now obtained at least a month-long head start. This first officer informed me he was on 'light duty' himself, and had some personal matters of his own he had been attending to. After another few weeks had passed, we were making some progress. He had gone to the last known address of the owner of the vehicle believed to be involved in the accident (we still weren't 100% sure), where he was told that the woman who owned it had moved out and mysteriously disappeared; an attempt to keep her child from her boyfriend in a custody dispute. Now gone, and the car proving difficult to find, it seemed we were at a dead end. My bills were stacking up, and a few creditors had begun 'collection' against me for things like MRI's, E.R. visit 'readings', and my portion of the co-pay and deductible costs. My insurance company claimed to have done all it was capable of without another party to pursue or another driver (or witnesses to corroborate, for that matter) to authenticate an Uninsured Motorist Claim. In a word, I was screwed.
Then came a sudden change in direction. I had called the investigative officer and found he would be gone for about two months, out on medical leave. Another officer would ultimately taking his place, and as a result, I would be starting over.
Enter Officer Michael Harris.
What this man could do for law enforcement is beyond words. If all the police and city officials took to heart and embraced this city's crime like this man did my particular case, I'm convinced we'd be living in Utopia. Within roughly three weeks of receiving, reviewing and working my file, he had closed it: signed, sealed, delivered. And I mean delivered.
A special thank-you to Officer Harris, who without his fine detective work I'd still (and would forever) be lost in the system's bureaucracy. Not only did he locate the missing vehicle, track down it's history, put out alerts with friends and family of the (female) owner, and discover (through her own admission) it had been involved in a hit & run (Corroborating my story!), he had overdone himself; found the boyfriend (involved in the custody battle) and got a confession that he was driving the car on the night of the accident. Apparently, without license and uninsured, and (for whatever reason) after side-swiping a motorcyclist into a potentially fatal accident, he figured his best option was to run in the event I was dead on the roadway (so as to avoid charges and imprisonment). What a guy, huh?
While Officer Harris' fine work rendered 7 citations to the driver, he would never cop to being drunk at the time. In his words, the car was experiencing "mechanical failure"... yet somehow I doubt so much as the driver was.
In conclusion, to have successfully confronted the man and simply ask what had happened with the vehicle's involvement was purely genius; the driver didn't have to confess and without it, I'd be nowhere.
No; either Officer Harris pretended to have information he didn't (to encourage the driver to admit it for the sake of a merciful sentence), or whether it was admitted as a result of a guilty conscience, I'll never know... but the Unsung Hero(es) are the witnesses who called 911 the night of the accident, getting me immediate medical treatment and ultimately coming through as witnesses.
What finally got my U.M. Policy cracked and opened so I could receive (and be compensated for) treatment was not only the confession by the driver, but the gentleman who actually dialed the number for help. You see, when Officer Harris contacted him, he admitted to having a blocked view of the accident from being in the rear seat, but provided the detective with the number of his female friend who was driving (behind me), who witnessed the event in full, and gladly explained, in great and specific detail, everything I had said (nearly verbatim) to Mr. Harris.
It was with this testimony that my insurance company felt opening my U.M. Policy was so easy, that even THEY could do it. Now I'm able to have some peace and continue my treatment as needed. And as to whether or not I'll ever be the same, I just don't know; but I've already forgiven and hold no grudge against the woman or her boyfriend driver who could have killed me that night.... because life's just too long to be miserable.
A Very Special Thanks go out to Officer Hoyt for his care, Officer Harris for his impeccable diligence in hammering out my case, and the following heroes who saved my insurance claim (and my faith in humanity) with their care, assistance and 911 call: Good Samaritans and the Golden Rule prevail again. I owe you all dearly.
Kenneth/Cody Simmons, KC Simmons; Ashley Wittle; and Kristen (?) - May God Bless and Keep Each of You.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your time and dedication in my time of need.
Godfather of Soul, James Brown, Awaits Burial 75 Days After Death
Apparently someone's having difficulty letting go. Here's a brief synopsis of the history of a "wake" before someone's burial:
According to Fred Amerson, "England is old and small and [Centuries ago] the local folks started running out of places to bury people. As a result, they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a 'bone-house', and re-use the grave. When re-opening these coffins, about 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So, they began tying a string on the wrist of the corpse, leading it through the coffin, and up through the ground and tying it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the "Graveyard shift,") to listen for the bell; thus someone could be "Saved by the bell," or was considered a "Dead ringer."
Also, lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of "Holding a wake."
Okay. Now that we've had our history lesson, what ever happened to the burial of James Brown?
Could it be someone's waiting a little too long for him to "wake" up? The "Godfather of Soul" passed away on Christmas last year (12/25/06) and is still awaiting his peaceful, eternal rest. So why the delay?
With several paternity tests to be settled, Brown's trustees want DNA samples taken before the artist is entombed. The decomposing Godfather of Soul is being held in an undisclosed location.
Perhaps the irony in this story is that he may already be spiritually "saved"; and though his body remains with us for a little while longer, the "Godfather's" soul is long, long gone. May he rest in peace.
According to Fred Amerson, "England is old and small and [Centuries ago] the local folks started running out of places to bury people. As a result, they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a 'bone-house', and re-use the grave. When re-opening these coffins, about 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So, they began tying a string on the wrist of the corpse, leading it through the coffin, and up through the ground and tying it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the "Graveyard shift,") to listen for the bell; thus someone could be "Saved by the bell," or was considered a "Dead ringer."
Also, lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of "Holding a wake."
Okay. Now that we've had our history lesson, what ever happened to the burial of James Brown?
Could it be someone's waiting a little too long for him to "wake" up? The "Godfather of Soul" passed away on Christmas last year (12/25/06) and is still awaiting his peaceful, eternal rest. So why the delay?
With several paternity tests to be settled, Brown's trustees want DNA samples taken before the artist is entombed. The decomposing Godfather of Soul is being held in an undisclosed location.
Perhaps the irony in this story is that he may already be spiritually "saved"; and though his body remains with us for a little while longer, the "Godfather's" soul is long, long gone. May he rest in peace.
Should Hillary Apologize? Is Bush to Blame?
I recently posed a question to a good friend regarding whether or not Hillary should 'apologize' for her flip-flopping on voting for/supporting the war. His response was to put the focus on President Bush putting us there; a typical distraction technique and diningenuous action usually put forth by the left. And although he claims not to be from 'the left', he claimed Bush is personally (and almost solely) responsible for this quagmire in Iraq. Here was my response (almost in it's entirety):
Okay, let's assume you're right. Bush hates America AND our troops. He just wanted to finish the war his daddy started. He likes seeing American soldiers killed for his own, sick, sadistic, personal pleasure. He and all the other Republicans (Hell, even some Democrats, too, like Kerry, CLINTON, Murtha, Edwards, etc.) just wanted to start an 'All-Out' war for, oh, OIL RIGHTS (which we're still waiting for, by the way).
We just wanted to 'flex' our International muscles and show the world we're a force to be reckoned with, regardless of your country's political makeup, how many WMD's you HAD let alone USED on your own people... by the way, for what was Saddam hanged again? I forget... I think his own people found him GUILTY in a court of law (where his own attorneys, a judge, and witnesses were killed) of, yep, murdering his own people with WMD's.
We know he had them because we allegedly gave them to him in 1983 to fight a terrorist-camp Dictatorship Iran, which was doing then the same thing they're doing today: sending in IED's and their own militia to provide suicide attacks in a region we, with Britain, are shouldered to stabilize because the rest of the world is more concerned with their image and possibly avoiding the ire of the terrorists by 'flying under their radar'. Has it worked? Ask Israel, Bali, Moscow, Morocco, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid.... to see the full list of attacks by terrorists, click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523552,00.html
Okay, back to reality. While we obviously disagree, I think Hillary should apologize. The truth, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder. Hillary always wants her cake and to eat it, too. She changes her position on each and every issue, partisan or not, to suit her political agenda, which now includes a Presidential nomination.
I'm not sure where your mind is; but she did flip-flop, regardless of an apology. Just like Kerry did, just like the others who have apologized... and admitted their mistakes. Apparently she refuses to, simply so she won't appear 'weak'. If you haven't already looked at Hillary's voting record for proof, click here: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268 .
I respect all opinions, but I have to admit for people to believe that Bush 'trumped up' this war; they're really reaching. Sounds like the typical "Hollywood liberal" mantra. I agree that, given the alternative (to war), we could have spent that money inside the U.S. (for better schools, beefing up airport security, etc.), to make things in our economy better, but you and I both know that would have NEVER happened. In fact, the only reason that might have happened, if ever allowed to be put to a vote, is because of Al-Qaeda attacking this country, unprovoked. Osama's taken the blame as the Muslim extremists cheered in the streets of Baghdad and all over the Middle East the day of September 11th; and if you want to get into why he wasn't caught; I'll cede you we had him cornered and allegedly 'let him go' shortly after our initial strike, but that has nothing to do with Bush directly OR indirectly. In fact, look at the examples here citing (Bill) Clinton's failures to directly capture or kill Osama, from a liberally-biased news network, MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ . What more proof do you need?
Let's at least be honest: Bush relied on the same intelligence several other "First World" Nations' "Major Intelligence Organizations" analyzed, deduced and provided. This list partially includes members attending the East Asia Summit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia_Summit#Countries_involved
'Afghanistan' may very well have "Gotten off the hook"; while our troops are still there fighting a war against terrorists (from terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and mostly, believe it or not, Iraq), which our very own (predominantly liberal) media calls "Freedom Fighters".
These "Freedom Fighters" were (before 9/11), are currently, and will continue to train to kill anyone who is non-Muslim until the end of time. That's why (now brace yourself): we're over THERE instead of allowing them to come and bomb our streets and buildings HERE. Did you not notice that no other attacks by Muslim extremists, although many have certainly been plotted, have been carried out under "Bush's watch?" Let's not forget, if you clicked on the above (Bill Clinton) link, that he inherited this jihadist war from the (Democrat-run) Clinton Administration.
Look: I'm no fan of being in this war (at least any longer) than the next guy, but yes, I did support it in the beginning, as did everyone else with a sense of resentment, disdain, retaliation, human decency, etcetera AFTER we were (cowardly) attacked on that sunny September morning. All because it says they should (and WILL) in their bible, a.k.a. "The Koran". You should read (I believe it's) Chapter 9:29, where it says (my own words) they:
1) Shall convert any non-Muslim to become a Muslim,
2) Offer them a 'Second-rate Citizen' status and continue to attempt conversion while forcing them to condone their own religious beliefs, OR
3) KILL THEM.
What makes you think we'd be safer if we follow the excuses laid out by our liberal leaders who simply want to "go against what isn't working" for the sake of a vote, which = money = power (control)? If we never went into Baghdad to depose Saddam, who WAS murdering his own people in mass genocide, he not only would have continued, but nothing ever would have been discovered about the highly-controversial yet also highly-underreported Oil-for-Food Scandal at the U.N., by which (as you probably know) involved members of the U.N. "Security Council" (like Russia, China, France, Germany, etc.) who deliberately allowed Saddam to violate 17 binding non-proliferation (among other) resolutions. He played everyone (especially the U.S.) by undermining the United Nations, and bribed nearly every other major country with a vote (who, by the way, used it to OPPOSE deposing him). Further, our liberal-charged media constantly raves about our failure in entering Rwanda, and now (almost daily) whines when we "sit back and do nothing" in regards to the same thing (Saddam did to his own people, for which we went in), in DARFUR.
Come on, now. That's quite hypocritical, don't you think? How can democrats sit back with any objective conscience at all and not see how truly preposterous that accusation is? It's not only disingenuous, it's deplorable. Liberals always want to 'throw mud'; the equivalent of spraying an uzi and attempting to hit as many targets as possible, just so Republicans (or Conservatives) can't possibly find or pull out all the bullets (evidence/proof) liberals make up. Whatever's left, sticks. That's their policy. It's worked for years; but not anymore. Why do you think circulation numbers across the county in liberal newspapers (and even radio shows) are declining or disappearing completely? People are not only realizing the truth for themselves and seeing the light, they're getting fed up with being 'fed' lies.
Bush simply did what any Patriotic American would have done; certainly not quite as bad as I would have, for example, but within reason. I, myself may have very well warned the entire country, knowing the costs and intel we know now about restructuring/rebuilding, to leave before I leveled the place into a desert oasis. The 'innocents' would have left while the 'fighters' remained; and justice would have been done. But let's not forget; war is war. There are no rules (other than Geneva). You're in it to win it; casualties are an inevitable part of war that are unavoidable but controllable; which is (to say the least) what our military's accomplished thus far. But you won't see that reported in your daily newspaper or local station.
As it's been said, we could have invaded anyone with Bush's approval ratings after we were caught with our pants down in an unprovoked war with Radical Muslim Extremists who want to kill people simply because they disagree religiously. But this war was inherited by Clinton, no question; there's (at least, highly circumstantial) evidence to that... and Bush is taking the "hit", just like the Democrats intended (especially with primary control of the dissemination of ideas, information, and political propaganda).
My position is that, in addition to the hypocrisy on the left to invade Darfur and help them while whining about the same genocide-murders Saddam was committing is ludicrous at best. Secondly, Saddam (Iraq) was PROVEN to be aiding and providing assisting to not only Al-Queda, but other terrorist militias (just as the Iranians are doing). There is direct evidence of Bin Laden seeking a meeting with Saddam, if not only for asylum, as well as of previous monetary support. Fairly assuming this is all true, how is Saddam NOT a threat to the U.S.?
Again, what about his undermining of the United Nations (that is almost entirely, generously funded by These United States of America); how is bribing countries for votes against the safety of our country (or the enforcement of 17 treaty violations sanctions against HIM) after we've been maliciously attacked, 3000+ dead (far more than your NYT editorial-based "Dead Troop Count") NOT a threat to our sovereignty? You gotta be kidding!
As far as the WMD's; okay, okay. That's the only point the liberals can claim Bush was wrong about; until they show up again from Syria onto our doorsteps. From reporting I've seen, there exists satellite surveillance showing movement along the border from Iraq to Syria months before we 'Invaded'; when we gave him a warning we were coming in (Bush's BIGGEST mistake); he quickly moved the WMD's out so when we took over he'd win the PR war in the world court of public opinion. He wasn't a stupid dictator, just a murderous one.
On a more serious note, how else do you explain where they went? Do you honestly believe he didn't have them? We KNOW he did! Other than those he used on his own people, where are the others?
Fun Question: Should we have left Hitler alone to exterminate the Jews, too, since it didn't 'directly involve a threat to us'?
We are there for a noble reason. We are liberating a country, freeing people, giving them choices they've never had before, establishing their ability to form a democracy, like we did ourselves in 1776.... how can you find fault in giving human beings independence, hope and a future?
I know what you're thinking.... "That's not why Bush said we were going in. He lied to us. He cited WMD's".... right?
True. And he was wrong on many accounts. Look; I'm no apologist for the administration. But given the choice between the alternative (Kerry) or Bush; I'd rather have a cowboy than an inflatable chicken.
At least we're on the offensive. We're making progress. You don't hear about it because you're probably watching something other than FoxNews; probably some leftist outfit hellbent on making Bush look like an international fool, our country like a bunch of warmongers, our people like a bunch of blood-thirsty lunatics.
Don't you know they (terrorists from any faction) would just as soon blow you sky-high, along with themselves, so they can have their martyrdom and a few dozen virgins?
I also strongly supported this war for the first two years, then, as the news media wears on about troop death and suicide bombings EACH AND EVERY DAY, I (like the rest of America, as they knew would) grew tired of hearing about it, became part of the attrition, and now want my 'boys back, in the simplest, safest, most winnable way. But, we can't just run from Iraq and abandon those people who've helped, depended and counted on us. That would be just plain deadly.
I agree we should have been more focused and concentrated on Afghanistan; but that's in the past. We have to live with today. To Hell with Bush's "screw-ups", we know he's committed some, even 'right of centers' like myself know better... the difference is we're not only willing to discuss and admit it; we'll look for solutions to fix it, too; not just complain and bemoan about being 'mislead'.
Fact: We lose more people (than lost so far in Iraq) every year in/by:
automobile accidents
alcohol-related fatalities
cancer
the flu (6x more annually)
doctors (yes, hospitalized patients)
pharmacy errors
properly prescribed medications authorized by the FDC
the death rate in Philadelphia http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020017 Now THERE'S a civil war!!
.... where are the cries from the hysterical, liberal media (once in awhile, let alone daily) to stop these atrocities?!
In fact, the likelihood of an Iraqi being killed before the U.S. Coalition went into Iraq was 1.5 times higher. See PROOF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
The truth is, these numbers on the local networks (and some cable sources) including MOST paper print media ALL exaggerate these numbers by as many as 400,000+. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The notion that 'Afghanistan is Gaining Power and Growing in Strength' is simply another inaccurate and unprovable 'source' that is used as a scare and fear tactic by the far-left to drum up ratings and circulation (and to stir up and cause hysteria and dissent within our country.... wait. What were we talking about?) The funny thing is; that's what they keep accusing the Bush Administration of doing!!! Bush lied! Bush lied!
But here's a better question: what would liberals have done? While you may 'want out' like the rest of us now (though we obviously don't want to lose), some in our country would like to see us lose the political war, as well as the popular one at home, simply for the sake of gaining power. Which side do you fall on?
Okay, let's assume you're right. Bush hates America AND our troops. He just wanted to finish the war his daddy started. He likes seeing American soldiers killed for his own, sick, sadistic, personal pleasure. He and all the other Republicans (Hell, even some Democrats, too, like Kerry, CLINTON, Murtha, Edwards, etc.) just wanted to start an 'All-Out' war for, oh, OIL RIGHTS (which we're still waiting for, by the way).
We just wanted to 'flex' our International muscles and show the world we're a force to be reckoned with, regardless of your country's political makeup, how many WMD's you HAD let alone USED on your own people... by the way, for what was Saddam hanged again? I forget... I think his own people found him GUILTY in a court of law (where his own attorneys, a judge, and witnesses were killed) of, yep, murdering his own people with WMD's.
We know he had them because we allegedly gave them to him in 1983 to fight a terrorist-camp Dictatorship Iran, which was doing then the same thing they're doing today: sending in IED's and their own militia to provide suicide attacks in a region we, with Britain, are shouldered to stabilize because the rest of the world is more concerned with their image and possibly avoiding the ire of the terrorists by 'flying under their radar'. Has it worked? Ask Israel, Bali, Moscow, Morocco, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid.... to see the full list of attacks by terrorists, click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523552,00.html
Okay, back to reality. While we obviously disagree, I think Hillary should apologize. The truth, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder. Hillary always wants her cake and to eat it, too. She changes her position on each and every issue, partisan or not, to suit her political agenda, which now includes a Presidential nomination.
I'm not sure where your mind is; but she did flip-flop, regardless of an apology. Just like Kerry did, just like the others who have apologized... and admitted their mistakes. Apparently she refuses to, simply so she won't appear 'weak'. If you haven't already looked at Hillary's voting record for proof, click here: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268 .
I respect all opinions, but I have to admit for people to believe that Bush 'trumped up' this war; they're really reaching. Sounds like the typical "Hollywood liberal" mantra. I agree that, given the alternative (to war), we could have spent that money inside the U.S. (for better schools, beefing up airport security, etc.), to make things in our economy better, but you and I both know that would have NEVER happened. In fact, the only reason that might have happened, if ever allowed to be put to a vote, is because of Al-Qaeda attacking this country, unprovoked. Osama's taken the blame as the Muslim extremists cheered in the streets of Baghdad and all over the Middle East the day of September 11th; and if you want to get into why he wasn't caught; I'll cede you we had him cornered and allegedly 'let him go' shortly after our initial strike, but that has nothing to do with Bush directly OR indirectly. In fact, look at the examples here citing (Bill) Clinton's failures to directly capture or kill Osama, from a liberally-biased news network, MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ . What more proof do you need?
Let's at least be honest: Bush relied on the same intelligence several other "First World" Nations' "Major Intelligence Organizations" analyzed, deduced and provided. This list partially includes members attending the East Asia Summit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia_Summit#Countries_involved
'Afghanistan' may very well have "Gotten off the hook"; while our troops are still there fighting a war against terrorists (from terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and mostly, believe it or not, Iraq), which our very own (predominantly liberal) media calls "Freedom Fighters".
These "Freedom Fighters" were (before 9/11), are currently, and will continue to train to kill anyone who is non-Muslim until the end of time. That's why (now brace yourself): we're over THERE instead of allowing them to come and bomb our streets and buildings HERE. Did you not notice that no other attacks by Muslim extremists, although many have certainly been plotted, have been carried out under "Bush's watch?" Let's not forget, if you clicked on the above (Bill Clinton) link, that he inherited this jihadist war from the (Democrat-run) Clinton Administration.
Look: I'm no fan of being in this war (at least any longer) than the next guy, but yes, I did support it in the beginning, as did everyone else with a sense of resentment, disdain, retaliation, human decency, etcetera AFTER we were (cowardly) attacked on that sunny September morning. All because it says they should (and WILL) in their bible, a.k.a. "The Koran". You should read (I believe it's) Chapter 9:29, where it says (my own words) they:
1) Shall convert any non-Muslim to become a Muslim,
2) Offer them a 'Second-rate Citizen' status and continue to attempt conversion while forcing them to condone their own religious beliefs, OR
3) KILL THEM.
What makes you think we'd be safer if we follow the excuses laid out by our liberal leaders who simply want to "go against what isn't working" for the sake of a vote, which = money = power (control)? If we never went into Baghdad to depose Saddam, who WAS murdering his own people in mass genocide, he not only would have continued, but nothing ever would have been discovered about the highly-controversial yet also highly-underreported Oil-for-Food Scandal at the U.N., by which (as you probably know) involved members of the U.N. "Security Council" (like Russia, China, France, Germany, etc.) who deliberately allowed Saddam to violate 17 binding non-proliferation (among other) resolutions. He played everyone (especially the U.S.) by undermining the United Nations, and bribed nearly every other major country with a vote (who, by the way, used it to OPPOSE deposing him). Further, our liberal-charged media constantly raves about our failure in entering Rwanda, and now (almost daily) whines when we "sit back and do nothing" in regards to the same thing (Saddam did to his own people, for which we went in), in DARFUR.
Come on, now. That's quite hypocritical, don't you think? How can democrats sit back with any objective conscience at all and not see how truly preposterous that accusation is? It's not only disingenuous, it's deplorable. Liberals always want to 'throw mud'; the equivalent of spraying an uzi and attempting to hit as many targets as possible, just so Republicans (or Conservatives) can't possibly find or pull out all the bullets (evidence/proof) liberals make up. Whatever's left, sticks. That's their policy. It's worked for years; but not anymore. Why do you think circulation numbers across the county in liberal newspapers (and even radio shows) are declining or disappearing completely? People are not only realizing the truth for themselves and seeing the light, they're getting fed up with being 'fed' lies.
Bush simply did what any Patriotic American would have done; certainly not quite as bad as I would have, for example, but within reason. I, myself may have very well warned the entire country, knowing the costs and intel we know now about restructuring/rebuilding, to leave before I leveled the place into a desert oasis. The 'innocents' would have left while the 'fighters' remained; and justice would have been done. But let's not forget; war is war. There are no rules (other than Geneva). You're in it to win it; casualties are an inevitable part of war that are unavoidable but controllable; which is (to say the least) what our military's accomplished thus far. But you won't see that reported in your daily newspaper or local station.
As it's been said, we could have invaded anyone with Bush's approval ratings after we were caught with our pants down in an unprovoked war with Radical Muslim Extremists who want to kill people simply because they disagree religiously. But this war was inherited by Clinton, no question; there's (at least, highly circumstantial) evidence to that... and Bush is taking the "hit", just like the Democrats intended (especially with primary control of the dissemination of ideas, information, and political propaganda).
My position is that, in addition to the hypocrisy on the left to invade Darfur and help them while whining about the same genocide-murders Saddam was committing is ludicrous at best. Secondly, Saddam (Iraq) was PROVEN to be aiding and providing assisting to not only Al-Queda, but other terrorist militias (just as the Iranians are doing). There is direct evidence of Bin Laden seeking a meeting with Saddam, if not only for asylum, as well as of previous monetary support. Fairly assuming this is all true, how is Saddam NOT a threat to the U.S.?
Again, what about his undermining of the United Nations (that is almost entirely, generously funded by These United States of America); how is bribing countries for votes against the safety of our country (or the enforcement of 17 treaty violations sanctions against HIM) after we've been maliciously attacked, 3000+ dead (far more than your NYT editorial-based "Dead Troop Count") NOT a threat to our sovereignty? You gotta be kidding!
As far as the WMD's; okay, okay. That's the only point the liberals can claim Bush was wrong about; until they show up again from Syria onto our doorsteps. From reporting I've seen, there exists satellite surveillance showing movement along the border from Iraq to Syria months before we 'Invaded'; when we gave him a warning we were coming in (Bush's BIGGEST mistake); he quickly moved the WMD's out so when we took over he'd win the PR war in the world court of public opinion. He wasn't a stupid dictator, just a murderous one.
On a more serious note, how else do you explain where they went? Do you honestly believe he didn't have them? We KNOW he did! Other than those he used on his own people, where are the others?
Fun Question: Should we have left Hitler alone to exterminate the Jews, too, since it didn't 'directly involve a threat to us'?
We are there for a noble reason. We are liberating a country, freeing people, giving them choices they've never had before, establishing their ability to form a democracy, like we did ourselves in 1776.... how can you find fault in giving human beings independence, hope and a future?
I know what you're thinking.... "That's not why Bush said we were going in. He lied to us. He cited WMD's".... right?
True. And he was wrong on many accounts. Look; I'm no apologist for the administration. But given the choice between the alternative (Kerry) or Bush; I'd rather have a cowboy than an inflatable chicken.
At least we're on the offensive. We're making progress. You don't hear about it because you're probably watching something other than FoxNews; probably some leftist outfit hellbent on making Bush look like an international fool, our country like a bunch of warmongers, our people like a bunch of blood-thirsty lunatics.
Don't you know they (terrorists from any faction) would just as soon blow you sky-high, along with themselves, so they can have their martyrdom and a few dozen virgins?
I also strongly supported this war for the first two years, then, as the news media wears on about troop death and suicide bombings EACH AND EVERY DAY, I (like the rest of America, as they knew would) grew tired of hearing about it, became part of the attrition, and now want my 'boys back, in the simplest, safest, most winnable way. But, we can't just run from Iraq and abandon those people who've helped, depended and counted on us. That would be just plain deadly.
I agree we should have been more focused and concentrated on Afghanistan; but that's in the past. We have to live with today. To Hell with Bush's "screw-ups", we know he's committed some, even 'right of centers' like myself know better... the difference is we're not only willing to discuss and admit it; we'll look for solutions to fix it, too; not just complain and bemoan about being 'mislead'.
Fact: We lose more people (than lost so far in Iraq) every year in/by:
automobile accidents
alcohol-related fatalities
cancer
the flu (6x more annually)
doctors (yes, hospitalized patients)
pharmacy errors
properly prescribed medications authorized by the FDC
the death rate in Philadelphia http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020017 Now THERE'S a civil war!!
.... where are the cries from the hysterical, liberal media (once in awhile, let alone daily) to stop these atrocities?!
In fact, the likelihood of an Iraqi being killed before the U.S. Coalition went into Iraq was 1.5 times higher. See PROOF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
The truth is, these numbers on the local networks (and some cable sources) including MOST paper print media ALL exaggerate these numbers by as many as 400,000+. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The notion that 'Afghanistan is Gaining Power and Growing in Strength' is simply another inaccurate and unprovable 'source' that is used as a scare and fear tactic by the far-left to drum up ratings and circulation (and to stir up and cause hysteria and dissent within our country.... wait. What were we talking about?) The funny thing is; that's what they keep accusing the Bush Administration of doing!!! Bush lied! Bush lied!
But here's a better question: what would liberals have done? While you may 'want out' like the rest of us now (though we obviously don't want to lose), some in our country would like to see us lose the political war, as well as the popular one at home, simply for the sake of gaining power. Which side do you fall on?
We Must Condemn Radical Islam; Moderates Welcome
Where are all the moderate Muslim voices? Why are they not forming a louder sounding board than those literally ruining the Islamic religion's name? Suidice bombers have nothing to lose, in fact, everything to gain: martyrdom, the prospect of 47 wives,
Here's an interesting and yet while unlikely, still possible thought: Assume, if only for a moment, that you are a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in his sinless, perfect life and documented historical miracles; religious persecution (crucifixion), and subsequent resurrection.
If you were say, captured by Al Qaeda, or any other extremist, fanatical Muslim group, and threatened with your very life only to be spared with your denouncement of your very religious beliefs, would you decry and forsake your God and Creator for the sake of saving your own (flesh and) skin?
As President Bush said, "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." (regarding Saddam Hussein and the proof of his torture chambers, using of weapons of mass destruction... see How to talk...(Coulter, pg. ??)
Here's an interesting and yet while unlikely, still possible thought: Assume, if only for a moment, that you are a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in his sinless, perfect life and documented historical miracles; religious persecution (crucifixion), and subsequent resurrection.
If you were say, captured by Al Qaeda, or any other extremist, fanatical Muslim group, and threatened with your very life only to be spared with your denouncement of your very religious beliefs, would you decry and forsake your God and Creator for the sake of saving your own (flesh and) skin?
As President Bush said, "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." (regarding Saddam Hussein and the proof of his torture chambers, using of weapons of mass destruction... see How to talk...(Coulter, pg. ??)
The New Racism-Hannity...Interrupted
The NAACP. La Raza. The New Black Panther Party. Urban League. MEChA. Amnesty International. Family Research Institute. Nation of Islam. Black Hebrew Israelites. Institute for Historical Review. Nation of Aztlan. Caucasian-American Males Pursuing Segregation (CAMPS). What do these groups have in common? Further, which one isn't actually considered to be an actual racially-charged ethnic hate group?
Obviously, the last one. Any organization in this country favoring whites, especially males, would be 'put down' like an old dog faster than, well, the KKK.
There's a new breed of racism alive today, that's been rolling along and picking up steam for over a decade now. Some call it 'reverse racism', but logically, that simply reeks as an oxymoron. Racism is racism, no matter who's doing the name-calling.
Enter the minority in this country: Who exactly would that be?
Latinos? Blacks (a.k.a. 'African Americans')? Women? The Native American (Indian)? The Chinese? Japanese? Koreans? Just who is the single-most downtrodden ethnicity these days whose rights are trampled on more than any other race, color or creed?
That's right: the White Male.
No other race or gender can fathom the obsequious nature the white man must walk; in a world where politically correct terminology reigns and affirmative action, whether collectively used or not (against blacks or women), puts this particular 'endangered species' in a remarkably and uncharacteristically pacifist position.
Today, the white male is as good as a whale. Hunted down, ripped apart, and only few care to notice, this 'whale' has become an apologist for his ancestral heritage and is as guilty as slave-ownership as far back as his geneology takes him.
Today, on the O'Reilly Factor (FoxNews), the Rev. Al Sharpton was on to talk of his recent discovery of former South Carolina Republican Senator Strom Thurmon's family ownership of Sharpton's family only a few generations past.
When asked what this potentially meant to him in discovering the "Segregationalist's" history and record, Mr. Sharpton only noted his displeasure in having linked, with proof, that his family geneology was linked to slavery.
Now, while this may come as a shock to some of you, the highly-respected and internationally known Reverend Al Sharpton is a major player in the Civil Rights Arena. For decades this man has paraded around from spotlight to highlight, masquerading and disparaging the White Man's devilish nature in oppressing the "African American". While I can say with certainty that I most certainly do NOT have any knowledge of my geneology being linked to slave ownership; why is it I, too, am forced in this society to feel the shame and embarrassment those who actually chose to own slaves didn't feel themselves?
Why must I watch what I say, where I walk, mind myself as if each and every other 'minority' in this country is still oppressed today; all so I don't inflict further emotional trauma on an otherwise extremely sensitive and racially hate-charged pandemic? Just exactly is responsible for making all the 'minorities' so angry and mad at the White Man? I'll tell you... it's none other than, yep, the White Man.
Now brace yourselves...We, the Whale (White Male; hunted) have manifestly created a whole, separate "People of oppression" in this country, themselves, by giving away every basic right and freedom previously held solely for themselves, for the sole purpose of creating harmony and unity and growth in this great country since the 1960's. Now, I know that not a long time has passed since, but I have to say, being born in 1973 ain't no picnic either. I've been branded a racist, slave-trader, fascist, communist, and more; and those were all by or before the 6th grade elementary!
Truth be told, I hold no ill feelings whatsoever toward any other race, color or ethnicity (okay, unless you're a Muslim Extremist and loyal brother the Jihad) and am proud of our nation's growth in women in black cultures rising up to take what is and has always been rightfully and equally theirs, under ours and God's laws. However, I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm a little skeptical of these NEW black civil rights activists, most of whom are my age (33), known today as the New Black Panther Party, also appearing on FoxNews (Hannity & Colmes) today. Mr. Malik Zulu Shabazz, an apparent attorney (much as I consider my paralegal degree to elevate me to one) and leader of the NBPP, viciously attacked and pulled the race card on Hannity within seconds of the commencement of his interview.
During his first two minutes on the program, when prompted by Sean Hannity to respond to a question (to defend the position) regarding the inflaming anti-semantic rhetoric used by the Nation of Islam's leader, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, in previous speeches, Mr. Shabazz immediately asserted Sean's blatant racism.
Hannity- "Do you or do you not condemn the words of Minister Farrakhan in regards to his speech of ranting anti-semitism".......(interrupted)
Shabazz- "Are you going to let me respond? Are you going to let your black guest speak? That's Racism."
Even Alan Colmes couldn't believe it. "Mr. Shabazz, you just called Sean a racist for talking at the same time as you while asking a question you refused to answer"....
That's when the program took a neverending turn down "Racist Road", where Mr. Shabazz usually platforms himself on his prepared soapbox and rants everyone else (white) is a racist and needs to repent (although he believes his God won't accept your apologies), or you simply can't, so your white-devilish self is just, well, forever doomed to Hell. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Obviously, the last one. Any organization in this country favoring whites, especially males, would be 'put down' like an old dog faster than, well, the KKK.
There's a new breed of racism alive today, that's been rolling along and picking up steam for over a decade now. Some call it 'reverse racism', but logically, that simply reeks as an oxymoron. Racism is racism, no matter who's doing the name-calling.
Enter the minority in this country: Who exactly would that be?
Latinos? Blacks (a.k.a. 'African Americans')? Women? The Native American (Indian)? The Chinese? Japanese? Koreans? Just who is the single-most downtrodden ethnicity these days whose rights are trampled on more than any other race, color or creed?
That's right: the White Male.
No other race or gender can fathom the obsequious nature the white man must walk; in a world where politically correct terminology reigns and affirmative action, whether collectively used or not (against blacks or women), puts this particular 'endangered species' in a remarkably and uncharacteristically pacifist position.
Today, the white male is as good as a whale. Hunted down, ripped apart, and only few care to notice, this 'whale' has become an apologist for his ancestral heritage and is as guilty as slave-ownership as far back as his geneology takes him.
Today, on the O'Reilly Factor (FoxNews), the Rev. Al Sharpton was on to talk of his recent discovery of former South Carolina Republican Senator Strom Thurmon's family ownership of Sharpton's family only a few generations past.
When asked what this potentially meant to him in discovering the "Segregationalist's" history and record, Mr. Sharpton only noted his displeasure in having linked, with proof, that his family geneology was linked to slavery.
Now, while this may come as a shock to some of you, the highly-respected and internationally known Reverend Al Sharpton is a major player in the Civil Rights Arena. For decades this man has paraded around from spotlight to highlight, masquerading and disparaging the White Man's devilish nature in oppressing the "African American". While I can say with certainty that I most certainly do NOT have any knowledge of my geneology being linked to slave ownership; why is it I, too, am forced in this society to feel the shame and embarrassment those who actually chose to own slaves didn't feel themselves?
Why must I watch what I say, where I walk, mind myself as if each and every other 'minority' in this country is still oppressed today; all so I don't inflict further emotional trauma on an otherwise extremely sensitive and racially hate-charged pandemic? Just exactly is responsible for making all the 'minorities' so angry and mad at the White Man? I'll tell you... it's none other than, yep, the White Man.
Now brace yourselves...We, the Whale (White Male; hunted) have manifestly created a whole, separate "People of oppression" in this country, themselves, by giving away every basic right and freedom previously held solely for themselves, for the sole purpose of creating harmony and unity and growth in this great country since the 1960's. Now, I know that not a long time has passed since, but I have to say, being born in 1973 ain't no picnic either. I've been branded a racist, slave-trader, fascist, communist, and more; and those were all by or before the 6th grade elementary!
Truth be told, I hold no ill feelings whatsoever toward any other race, color or ethnicity (okay, unless you're a Muslim Extremist and loyal brother the Jihad) and am proud of our nation's growth in women in black cultures rising up to take what is and has always been rightfully and equally theirs, under ours and God's laws. However, I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm a little skeptical of these NEW black civil rights activists, most of whom are my age (33), known today as the New Black Panther Party, also appearing on FoxNews (Hannity & Colmes) today. Mr. Malik Zulu Shabazz, an apparent attorney (much as I consider my paralegal degree to elevate me to one) and leader of the NBPP, viciously attacked and pulled the race card on Hannity within seconds of the commencement of his interview.
During his first two minutes on the program, when prompted by Sean Hannity to respond to a question (to defend the position) regarding the inflaming anti-semantic rhetoric used by the Nation of Islam's leader, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, in previous speeches, Mr. Shabazz immediately asserted Sean's blatant racism.
Hannity- "Do you or do you not condemn the words of Minister Farrakhan in regards to his speech of ranting anti-semitism".......(interrupted)
Shabazz- "Are you going to let me respond? Are you going to let your black guest speak? That's Racism."
Even Alan Colmes couldn't believe it. "Mr. Shabazz, you just called Sean a racist for talking at the same time as you while asking a question you refused to answer"....
That's when the program took a neverending turn down "Racist Road", where Mr. Shabazz usually platforms himself on his prepared soapbox and rants everyone else (white) is a racist and needs to repent (although he believes his God won't accept your apologies), or you simply can't, so your white-devilish self is just, well, forever doomed to Hell. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
All-Day Kindergarten is Socialism to Undermine Parent's Rights
Apparently at issue, in what is turning out to be a heated debate (as reported by Vin Suprynowics, Las Vegas Review-Journal Assistant Editorial Page Editor 'Few show effects by the third grade') school district officials belabor the long-term benefits of educational and social stigmas in children associated with the current "half-day" kindergarten versus the newly, more socialistic approach of "full-day" kindergarten.
As many of us (parents and non-parents alike) know, our children in schools today are under seige by a barrage of government-imposed, activist-motivated programs that rival the parents' beliefs structure and undermine their authority.
As the state attempts to create a larger sphere of influence to coax our children into such an all-day expenditure, a litany of motives arises in one's mind:
For example, state Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, called recent results "laughable" when a mere 3.1 percentage points indicated growth for an all-day regimen over its half-day counterpart. "Studies do show remnant effects of full-day kindergarten by the second grade," he pointed out. "Few show effects by the third grade. Most don't show any effect by junior high school and high school.... Calling it longitudinal is over the top."
The real point here is in the RAND Corporations 1998-99 study of all-day kindergarten; admitting to show no real long-term academic advantage, but the postscript is typically added that at least, "There were no negative findings."
That, however, is because no one's looking for a connection between additional years of incarceration in the government homogeneity camps - an earlier stripping of children away from their families as primary instructors - and the ongoing growth of social pathologies among the young: violent crime, vandalism, unwed pregnancy, escapist drug use, an abysmal ignorance of our traditions of liberty,hatred of enterprise and success, and a thorough scorn for their parents' beliefs and standards.
As further indicated by Vin: Even though these unpleasant and socially costly outcomes track perfectly with the progressively greater amount of time kids have spent in government-run "Schools" over the past 70 years, most Americans will look at you like you're nuts if you posit any causal relationship between these social problems and progressively grabbing our kids away from their parents and locking them up in the state's mandatory youth 'propaganda camps' for ever more hours, days and years.
So just what is "kindergarten"?
As the name implies, "kindergarten was conceived as a garden of children to be cultivated in the same manner as plants", writes Joel Spring, in "The American School, 1642-1885." Friedrich Froebel opened the first kindergarten, in Germany, in 1840, as a means of "socializing" children.
Mr. Spring comments, "By the early twentieth century the school in fact had expanded its functions into areas not dreamed of in the early part of the previous century. Kindergartens, playgrounds, school showers, nurses, social centers and Americanization centers turned the school into a central social agency in urban America...Within this framework, the school became a major agency for social control."
"Today's advocates of "early intervention" and year-round schools seem to share that objective," comments Sheldon Richman, author of the 1994 book "Separating School and State."
New York City (and state) Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto asks:
"Did you know that in Sweden, a country legendary for its quality of life and a nation which beats American school performance in every academic category, a kid isn't allowed to start school before the age of 7? The hard-headed Swedes don't want to pay for the social pathologies attendant on ripping a child away from his home and mother and dumping him into a pen with strangers..."
"Did you know that the entire Swedish school sequence is only 9 years long, a net 25 percent time and tax savings over our own 12-year sequence?..."
"Did you know that Hong Kong, a country with a population the size of Norway's, beats Japan in every scientific and mathematical category in which the two countries compete? Did you know that Hong Kong has a school year ten and one half weeks shorter than Japan's? How on earth do they manage that if longer school years translate into higher performances?"
As many of us (parents and non-parents alike) know, our children in schools today are under seige by a barrage of government-imposed, activist-motivated programs that rival the parents' beliefs structure and undermine their authority.
As the state attempts to create a larger sphere of influence to coax our children into such an all-day expenditure, a litany of motives arises in one's mind:
For example, state Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, called recent results "laughable" when a mere 3.1 percentage points indicated growth for an all-day regimen over its half-day counterpart. "Studies do show remnant effects of full-day kindergarten by the second grade," he pointed out. "Few show effects by the third grade. Most don't show any effect by junior high school and high school.... Calling it longitudinal is over the top."
The real point here is in the RAND Corporations 1998-99 study of all-day kindergarten; admitting to show no real long-term academic advantage, but the postscript is typically added that at least, "There were no negative findings."
That, however, is because no one's looking for a connection between additional years of incarceration in the government homogeneity camps - an earlier stripping of children away from their families as primary instructors - and the ongoing growth of social pathologies among the young: violent crime, vandalism, unwed pregnancy, escapist drug use, an abysmal ignorance of our traditions of liberty,hatred of enterprise and success, and a thorough scorn for their parents' beliefs and standards.
As further indicated by Vin: Even though these unpleasant and socially costly outcomes track perfectly with the progressively greater amount of time kids have spent in government-run "Schools" over the past 70 years, most Americans will look at you like you're nuts if you posit any causal relationship between these social problems and progressively grabbing our kids away from their parents and locking them up in the state's mandatory youth 'propaganda camps' for ever more hours, days and years.
So just what is "kindergarten"?
As the name implies, "kindergarten was conceived as a garden of children to be cultivated in the same manner as plants", writes Joel Spring, in "The American School, 1642-1885." Friedrich Froebel opened the first kindergarten, in Germany, in 1840, as a means of "socializing" children.
Mr. Spring comments, "By the early twentieth century the school in fact had expanded its functions into areas not dreamed of in the early part of the previous century. Kindergartens, playgrounds, school showers, nurses, social centers and Americanization centers turned the school into a central social agency in urban America...Within this framework, the school became a major agency for social control."
"Today's advocates of "early intervention" and year-round schools seem to share that objective," comments Sheldon Richman, author of the 1994 book "Separating School and State."
New York City (and state) Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto asks:
"Did you know that in Sweden, a country legendary for its quality of life and a nation which beats American school performance in every academic category, a kid isn't allowed to start school before the age of 7? The hard-headed Swedes don't want to pay for the social pathologies attendant on ripping a child away from his home and mother and dumping him into a pen with strangers..."
"Did you know that the entire Swedish school sequence is only 9 years long, a net 25 percent time and tax savings over our own 12-year sequence?..."
"Did you know that Hong Kong, a country with a population the size of Norway's, beats Japan in every scientific and mathematical category in which the two countries compete? Did you know that Hong Kong has a school year ten and one half weeks shorter than Japan's? How on earth do they manage that if longer school years translate into higher performances?"
Amnesty for Illegal Gays?
On the heels of a nationwide Bank of "America" scandal, where I've called upon everyone to admonish and stand up to this corporate giant and make an example of what our nation's security should mean to them by withdrawing our funds and putting them in another, more "America Friendly" financial institution (I recommend Wells Fargo or U.S. Bank); now comes news that a GAY illegal alien has been granted AMNESTY, for nothing other than being homosexual.
The Far-Left Liberal, America-Hating, Bush Bashing, Republican Loathing, Military Ousting, Gay Rights Loving, Pot Legalizing, Judicial Activist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a suit today originally lost by Jorge Soto Vega, a Mexican Nationalist and admitted illegal immigrant into the U.S., who was in the lower courts ordered to return to his home country of Mexico after he claimed to have been a victim of humiliation there.
In an unfathomable move by the 9th Circuit (Then again, what exactly could they do that would be a shock, except maybe legalizing three-way public orgy displays on the Golden Gate Bridge), the court ruled that Mr. Soto Vega can now legally stay in the safe harbor of the United States as a citizen of Amnesty since, when he returned home to Mexico, his fellow countrymen harassed and humiliated him for his homosexual tendencies.
In an effort to embrace his meager, oppressed life, he was welcomed with open arms into Uncle Sam's arms, where the case will forever rest without the apparent need on behalf of the feds to appeal his case any further. In what surely will amount to an unprecedented wave of similar filings, the "Wicked 9th Circuit of the West" has yet again opened the floodgates of opportunity for other illegals to gather in its 'huddled masses'. Just what exactly is going on in those pea-sized brains of the "Justices of the West" Supreme Court? Lawlessness, I tell you. And a heck of a lot of absent-minded sensibility. God help us.
The Far-Left Liberal, America-Hating, Bush Bashing, Republican Loathing, Military Ousting, Gay Rights Loving, Pot Legalizing, Judicial Activist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a suit today originally lost by Jorge Soto Vega, a Mexican Nationalist and admitted illegal immigrant into the U.S., who was in the lower courts ordered to return to his home country of Mexico after he claimed to have been a victim of humiliation there.
In an unfathomable move by the 9th Circuit (Then again, what exactly could they do that would be a shock, except maybe legalizing three-way public orgy displays on the Golden Gate Bridge), the court ruled that Mr. Soto Vega can now legally stay in the safe harbor of the United States as a citizen of Amnesty since, when he returned home to Mexico, his fellow countrymen harassed and humiliated him for his homosexual tendencies.
In an effort to embrace his meager, oppressed life, he was welcomed with open arms into Uncle Sam's arms, where the case will forever rest without the apparent need on behalf of the feds to appeal his case any further. In what surely will amount to an unprecedented wave of similar filings, the "Wicked 9th Circuit of the West" has yet again opened the floodgates of opportunity for other illegals to gather in its 'huddled masses'. Just what exactly is going on in those pea-sized brains of the "Justices of the West" Supreme Court? Lawlessness, I tell you. And a heck of a lot of absent-minded sensibility. God help us.
Bank of America???
Bank of America, the nations fourth largest bank, at least according to customer volume and reported Wall Street assets & revenues, recently was ousted for its committment and dedication to marketing to, you guessed it, illegal aliens. Now I'm not one to mince words when it comes to being politically correct, a spade is a spade; and if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... well, you get the picture. "Immigrant" is a word concocted by the hysterical left used to induce the desensitization of those "Illegals" unlawfully in our country.
Upon this obviously despicable news, one FoxNews analyst claimed that other companies, such as supermarkets, convenience stores, and McDonalds don't verify their customers' status on purchases, so why should Bank of America? Uhhh, I know this may seem naive, but does Mickie D's set the tone in this country for inflation, or dictate if someone defaults on their cheeseburger that I, as a LEGAL American citizen, will have to "flip" the cost when the burden falls on the taxpayer?
Jonathan Hoenig, a business correspondent, argues that matters such as 'Breaking and Entering' are actual criminal acts that warrant pursuing, but apparently 'Invasion and illegally crossing borders and violating a nation's sovereignty' doesn't quite make the definition of 'Illegality'. Instead, he referred in a disingenuous remark that these "Immigrants" that "Pick our cabbage for $1 an hour" are deserving of what our great nation has to offer, social security number or not.
Bank of America, while refusing to appear on any network or answer any direct questions in response to this deplorable act, issued a statement reading, "In order to open an account at Bank of America, we require proof that you are a federal taxpayer ....". They claim to be following all rules and regulations set forth in the Patriot Act and meeting all federal guidelines.
Now, as anyone in this country illegally knows, good 'ol Uncle Sam will gleefully assign you a federal taxpayer I.D. number, simply for the purpose of paying your 'Constitutional Dues'. However, what makes a valid citizen in this country, green card or not, is the issuance of a certifiable Social Security Number; also used to track an individual and his/her responsibilities for tax purposes.
My question is, "Where is the I.R.S. in all of this?
As B of A markets (with brochures written in Spanish, of course) to these illegal aliens, it will (according to Bank of America Services) take merely three months after opening such an account before said alien is able to request (and be granted) a viable credit card. While the card is expected to cost around $99 and offer a line of credit in the area of $500, we have to be reasonable here; a little 'thinking outside the box' is necessary. What happens when this market of estimated 12 million illegals obtain credit, build it up, and subsequently flee the country, leaving the American taxpayer to hold the tab? What if the credit gets built up enough for, God forbid, a home loan in the illegals name, and when it gets foreclosed upon, who's left paying for the higher interest rates the banks will ultimately charge to make up for their loss? You guessed it.
Granting such purchasing power to illegal 'immigrants' opens up a frightening gateway for fraud, in addition to devaluing our dollar since a large portion of the illegally obtained funds earned through Hoenig's 'Dollar an hour cabbage industry' already go back to the country of the illegal's origin in the first place.
These 'Under the table' wage earners are a constant drain on our economy; not reporting income, free medical attention, subsidized government help; they're not looking for the 'American Dream' so much as they are to break more laws than they did when they snuck across the border.
They assemble in undocumentable numbers in the streets decrying discrimination and chanting for amnesty, calling us haters and bigots, then start foundations for latinos only (La Raza), go into business and accept foreign currency (the Mexican Peso; Pizzapatron.com) as payment for services within our borders; set up shops in cities across the country that harbor their illegal activities and abuse our sovereignty on a daily basis, and have the nerve to call us rascists? This almost sounds as ludicrous as the New Black Panther Party.
This "Bank of Profiteering and Pirating" devalues our citizenship as well as allows illegals an opportunity to further blend into our society. It should be a concern to every U.S. citizen that Bank of America has chosen to market to those that have blatantly disregarded our laws by unlawfully entering this country, regarless of motive. The Patriot Act must be repealed and reviewed to disallow this pillaging and infringement of our rights. Payday and Check Cashing companies have already perverted our system by allowing such a breach in our national security, allowing these people to utilize their services, whether at a ridiculous Mob-Style racketeering rate or not; allowing illegals to continue this progressive path to outright Amnesty proves that the almighty dollar is more important (at least for businesses), than the very patriotic people who follow our rules of law and their credit and concern.
Americans need to speak up; not doing so is the same as condoning the actions of violating our national security. We need to show that this cavalier attitude exhibited by Bank of America will not be tolerated. We must rise up, withdraw our money, and take it to a place that understands our nation's purposes and respects its laws.
Upon this obviously despicable news, one FoxNews analyst claimed that other companies, such as supermarkets, convenience stores, and McDonalds don't verify their customers' status on purchases, so why should Bank of America? Uhhh, I know this may seem naive, but does Mickie D's set the tone in this country for inflation, or dictate if someone defaults on their cheeseburger that I, as a LEGAL American citizen, will have to "flip" the cost when the burden falls on the taxpayer?
Jonathan Hoenig, a business correspondent, argues that matters such as 'Breaking and Entering' are actual criminal acts that warrant pursuing, but apparently 'Invasion and illegally crossing borders and violating a nation's sovereignty' doesn't quite make the definition of 'Illegality'. Instead, he referred in a disingenuous remark that these "Immigrants" that "Pick our cabbage for $1 an hour" are deserving of what our great nation has to offer, social security number or not.
Bank of America, while refusing to appear on any network or answer any direct questions in response to this deplorable act, issued a statement reading, "In order to open an account at Bank of America, we require proof that you are a federal taxpayer ....". They claim to be following all rules and regulations set forth in the Patriot Act and meeting all federal guidelines.
Now, as anyone in this country illegally knows, good 'ol Uncle Sam will gleefully assign you a federal taxpayer I.D. number, simply for the purpose of paying your 'Constitutional Dues'. However, what makes a valid citizen in this country, green card or not, is the issuance of a certifiable Social Security Number; also used to track an individual and his/her responsibilities for tax purposes.
My question is, "Where is the I.R.S. in all of this?
As B of A markets (with brochures written in Spanish, of course) to these illegal aliens, it will (according to Bank of America Services) take merely three months after opening such an account before said alien is able to request (and be granted) a viable credit card. While the card is expected to cost around $99 and offer a line of credit in the area of $500, we have to be reasonable here; a little 'thinking outside the box' is necessary. What happens when this market of estimated 12 million illegals obtain credit, build it up, and subsequently flee the country, leaving the American taxpayer to hold the tab? What if the credit gets built up enough for, God forbid, a home loan in the illegals name, and when it gets foreclosed upon, who's left paying for the higher interest rates the banks will ultimately charge to make up for their loss? You guessed it.
Granting such purchasing power to illegal 'immigrants' opens up a frightening gateway for fraud, in addition to devaluing our dollar since a large portion of the illegally obtained funds earned through Hoenig's 'Dollar an hour cabbage industry' already go back to the country of the illegal's origin in the first place.
These 'Under the table' wage earners are a constant drain on our economy; not reporting income, free medical attention, subsidized government help; they're not looking for the 'American Dream' so much as they are to break more laws than they did when they snuck across the border.
They assemble in undocumentable numbers in the streets decrying discrimination and chanting for amnesty, calling us haters and bigots, then start foundations for latinos only (La Raza), go into business and accept foreign currency (the Mexican Peso; Pizzapatron.com) as payment for services within our borders; set up shops in cities across the country that harbor their illegal activities and abuse our sovereignty on a daily basis, and have the nerve to call us rascists? This almost sounds as ludicrous as the New Black Panther Party.
This "Bank of Profiteering and Pirating" devalues our citizenship as well as allows illegals an opportunity to further blend into our society. It should be a concern to every U.S. citizen that Bank of America has chosen to market to those that have blatantly disregarded our laws by unlawfully entering this country, regarless of motive. The Patriot Act must be repealed and reviewed to disallow this pillaging and infringement of our rights. Payday and Check Cashing companies have already perverted our system by allowing such a breach in our national security, allowing these people to utilize their services, whether at a ridiculous Mob-Style racketeering rate or not; allowing illegals to continue this progressive path to outright Amnesty proves that the almighty dollar is more important (at least for businesses), than the very patriotic people who follow our rules of law and their credit and concern.
Americans need to speak up; not doing so is the same as condoning the actions of violating our national security. We need to show that this cavalier attitude exhibited by Bank of America will not be tolerated. We must rise up, withdraw our money, and take it to a place that understands our nation's purposes and respects its laws.
Liberal Media Bias Evident Even in 'Balanced' Papers
No wonder nationwide circulations are declining. There's no longer any mystery as to why "internet offers" are spouting '52 weeks for $52 Specials', or the newer, more appealing two-year (pre-paid) lock-in rate of '$104 for 104 weeks' for the locally monopolized newsprint is practically giving away their pride and effort; no matter the gimmick or giveaway, readers simply aren't buying it. They're getting smarter, and wanting more journalistic integrity rather than ideological ranting by condescending, know-it-all commentators. You never know; before long, they just might be offering to pay YOU to read their hidden agendas. Recently, the Las Vegas-based Review-Journal Newspaper, owned by the Stephens Media Group, exposed themselves yet again on the front page of their very own Nevada section on Saturday, February 10th, 2007. The headline read, "Score one for Buckley, zero for Gibbons in first week of new job", where writer Jane Ann Morrison, whose liberal-charged column appears three times weekly, offers her own contemptuous anecdotal of new Republican Governor-elect Jim Gibbons' 'sadly misguided, temultuous first week' in office's failures as compared against the likes of Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley's first 'awe-inspiring' week in office, in which she merely introduced more than 70 bills in which 'substantive' hearings have been held. Did I miss something, or are these elected positions adversarial ones, or at the very least competitive, or is this simply an opportunistic 'hit-job'?
As she opines in the typical, liberal mud-slinging modus-operandi, Morrison attacks Gibbons' family history by mocking his "hand tremors", which have caused confusion and growing concern over Gibbons' medical condition (and possible Parkinson's disease) in the past, which have lingered because he has not given his physician permission to speak publicly about his health and refuses to release his medical records. (I guess she feels that's his own fault for not clarifying things.)
Still needing more blood to satisfy her cravings, she goes on to mention his wife's "booze ban" at the Mansion to bring on further satirical 'shock-value' (and credibility) to her column.
In addition to the mere plug for advocating Buckley's possible run for the Governor's Office in 2010, where the seat isn't even warm yet; Morrison goes on to spew the myriad of liberal bias seen in every facet of the (blatantly obvious) Las Vegas Sun's "Conservative Counterpart" Review-Journal editorials. As if it isn't enough to suggest the reader's aren't capable of discerning themselves what is and isn't a traditional or liberal viewpoint, we're expected to believe that (along with a pre-paid subscription of the LVRJ; where the LV Sun comes involuntarily included) the first-elected Democratic (female) Speaker's "serious and praiseworthy" speech was without any hidden agenda.
No, Jane Ann, we reserve those talking points for those disingenuious 'columnists' who do their bidding for them, such as yourself.
In the midst of the bash-the-Republicans commentary, Morrison barely manages to point out a single positive about the newly-elected Governor of our state; perhaps because the focus from her view was too dark...
But I digress. Can we take a local media giant, such as the Review-Journal (or the LV Sun, for that matter, since we must receive it with delivery), where the journalistic viewpoint is so lopsided and one-dimensional, seriously at all? How with all the hidden editorials disguised as commentary ridden throughout the paper can one ever read with an open mind when it's all but between the lines that the secular-progressive movement has infiltrated and overrun yet another monopolized print agency?
As for me, I quit my subscription early last year, and I encourage and advise everyone else to do the same. I contacted customer service, the editor, and publisher about the pervasive liberal content permeating throughout the 'alleged, balanced' R-J, and was told to tolerate it. When I later contacted the R-J to unsubscribe to the hate-filled, fanatical-left infested LV Sun last June and was told I must receive it as part of my regular subscription, I'd had enough. As anyone who's read either paper knows, there's a candle burning at both ends there. I put it down as fast as possible to avoid getting burned any more (at least economically) than I already had.
As she opines in the typical, liberal mud-slinging modus-operandi, Morrison attacks Gibbons' family history by mocking his "hand tremors", which have caused confusion and growing concern over Gibbons' medical condition (and possible Parkinson's disease) in the past, which have lingered because he has not given his physician permission to speak publicly about his health and refuses to release his medical records. (I guess she feels that's his own fault for not clarifying things.)
Still needing more blood to satisfy her cravings, she goes on to mention his wife's "booze ban" at the Mansion to bring on further satirical 'shock-value' (and credibility) to her column.
In addition to the mere plug for advocating Buckley's possible run for the Governor's Office in 2010, where the seat isn't even warm yet; Morrison goes on to spew the myriad of liberal bias seen in every facet of the (blatantly obvious) Las Vegas Sun's "Conservative Counterpart" Review-Journal editorials. As if it isn't enough to suggest the reader's aren't capable of discerning themselves what is and isn't a traditional or liberal viewpoint, we're expected to believe that (along with a pre-paid subscription of the LVRJ; where the LV Sun comes involuntarily included) the first-elected Democratic (female) Speaker's "serious and praiseworthy" speech was without any hidden agenda.
No, Jane Ann, we reserve those talking points for those disingenuious 'columnists' who do their bidding for them, such as yourself.
In the midst of the bash-the-Republicans commentary, Morrison barely manages to point out a single positive about the newly-elected Governor of our state; perhaps because the focus from her view was too dark...
But I digress. Can we take a local media giant, such as the Review-Journal (or the LV Sun, for that matter, since we must receive it with delivery), where the journalistic viewpoint is so lopsided and one-dimensional, seriously at all? How with all the hidden editorials disguised as commentary ridden throughout the paper can one ever read with an open mind when it's all but between the lines that the secular-progressive movement has infiltrated and overrun yet another monopolized print agency?
As for me, I quit my subscription early last year, and I encourage and advise everyone else to do the same. I contacted customer service, the editor, and publisher about the pervasive liberal content permeating throughout the 'alleged, balanced' R-J, and was told to tolerate it. When I later contacted the R-J to unsubscribe to the hate-filled, fanatical-left infested LV Sun last June and was told I must receive it as part of my regular subscription, I'd had enough. As anyone who's read either paper knows, there's a candle burning at both ends there. I put it down as fast as possible to avoid getting burned any more (at least economically) than I already had.
Welcome/Acknowlegements
WELCOME CREDITS
Welcome to NationsPatriot.com. This site, as indicated, is open to all who choose to participate in the discussion forum by simply signing up with a FREE QuickBlog (or other feed) account to do so. (Please remember that in posting your comments on this site, you are adhering to specific Rules of Use by which threatening and abusive language are prohibited.)
A SPECIAL THANK YOU
This site, and first of many articles, wouldn't be possible if not for the support and direction of many people, primarily political advisors and pundits. Some who I would like to specially thank at this time (in no particular order) are:
Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Scott Stantis (Prickly City cartoonist).
The influence of the aforementioned, although only mentors at this point, have each contributed to my political makeup and assisted in my own character development through their rigorous research and invaluable insight. It is my hope and aspiration to attain the respectable status each has acquired and someday meet and work with them, separately and/or collectively, to give hope and guidance to those who seek it as I continue to myself.
Welcome to NationsPatriot.com. This site, as indicated, is open to all who choose to participate in the discussion forum by simply signing up with a FREE QuickBlog (or other feed) account to do so. (Please remember that in posting your comments on this site, you are adhering to specific Rules of Use by which threatening and abusive language are prohibited.)
A SPECIAL THANK YOU
This site, and first of many articles, wouldn't be possible if not for the support and direction of many people, primarily political advisors and pundits. Some who I would like to specially thank at this time (in no particular order) are:
Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Scott Stantis (Prickly City cartoonist).
The influence of the aforementioned, although only mentors at this point, have each contributed to my political makeup and assisted in my own character development through their rigorous research and invaluable insight. It is my hope and aspiration to attain the respectable status each has acquired and someday meet and work with them, separately and/or collectively, to give hope and guidance to those who seek it as I continue to myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
