LEADER?

America is a resilient country. We have met every challenge and overcome every obstacle in our illustrious history. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and the end of slavery, to the great depression and two world wars we have always triumphed. Heck, we even overcame four years of Jimmy Carter but I am beginning to have serious concerns about our ability to survive Barack Obama. Domestically, BHO has us hell bent on, in the words of Friedrich von Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom.” Bad enough. But while he and his czars are busy with health care, cap & trade and nationalizing American industry, the enemy is at the gates. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama’s number one job is ensuring the security of the United States. When attacked, a leader is charged with rallying the troops and citizenry for war. How has the dear leader done in this regard? To judge BHO it is helpful to look at past leaders to provide some historical context.

On May 13, 1940 Winston Churchill, having just replaced the appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, addressed the House of Commons for the first time as Britain’s new Prime Minister. World War II was in its early stages, Germany had already divvyed up Poland with the Russkies and the invasion of several European countries was under way. Following are some excerpts from his magnificent call to arms.

I say to the House as I said to the ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea and air. War with all our might and all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs-Victory in spite of all terrors-Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed Congress and the American People the following day. He said, in part:

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.

After the attacks of September 11, President Bush went before a joint session of Congress. His address included the following:

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

Americans are asking, “How will we fight and win this war?” We will direct every resource at our command-every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war-to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.

The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we’ll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Great speeches and you will notice that they have a few things in common. None of these leaders blamed their predecessor though Churchill and Bush certainly had reason to. They all state a specific goal of victory and how it will be achieved, through the perseverance of the people and the courage and commitment of a great military. They were also relatively short. Bush’s could have been shorter but he seemed to feel a need to spend ten minutes thanking liberals for pretending to love America. At least he got around to the salient points eventually.

And now the dear leader. On December 1, Obama went to the United States Military Academy at West Point to deliver the speech outlining his plan for the “Overseas Contingency Operation” in Afghanistan. He used the cadets as a prop thinking that surrounding himself with credible and courageous men and women would somehow give him an air of credibility and courage. It didn’t work. Here are some excerpts from his speech with my comments in red.

I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan-the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. You ask, what is our aim? Why, it is a successful conclusion! Go get ‘em boys! Please don’t forget to knock first and identify yourselves and make sure you read them their rights.

As we know [those that attacked us] belonged to al Qaeda-a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions…” We are not a Christian nation and we are not at war with that wonderful religion of peace.

The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention-and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. So you see, its Bush’s fault! Before we get all full of patriotic fervor in the defense of America, we must consider the feelings of France and other great nations.

When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. Did I mention that this is all Bush’s fault?

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. We will never surrender! Well, at least not for the next 18 months. Sorry Mr. Soros and other fellow lefties but I had to do something! I’m getting the feeling that people are beginning to think I’m an incompetent jackass. It’s not like I’m committing to victory, only 18 months. OK?

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. …Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. …So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. No more Army stuff until it goes on sale. Acorn needs money too! And then there is the cost of buying votes for my health care plan. Senators don’t come cheap, you know!

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Did I mention this is all Bush’s fault? Besides, I spent more than that in my first 8 months! Ha Ha.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. Just ask those young people that protested the elections in Iran. Oops. Sorry about that.

In Obama’s recent appearance on “60 Minutes” Steve Kroft brought up his West Point speech. “There were no exhortations or promises of victory. Why? Why that tone.” Obama replied, “…And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war. …[Like] this is some glorious exercise. When in fact, this is tough business.”

Like he has any f’ing clue. A man that lacks the courage and conviction to defend freedom has no business being the leader of the United States of America and a man that can send our best and bravest off to war with no call for total victory is unfit for command.

OFFENSIVE JIHADISTS

The Dear Leader Obama continues to demonstrate his disconnect with freedom - loving Americans. On the day 13 people were slaughtered at Fort Hood, Obama was scheduled to give a speech at something called the Tribal Nations Conference. A president that recognized the implications of the attack and its affect on the American people would have cancelled his silly publicity opportunity and addressed the entire nation. Not Obama. He went out and joked around with the audience and gave a “shout out” to some guy. After nearly three minutes of this inanity he finally got around to the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9-11.

But then, Obama considers the Fort Hood attack just a “man caused disaster” and nothing to get all worked up about. The next day he admonished the American people not to “jump to conclusions” over the motives of the shooter. His condescending warning was a little late for me. The moment I heard of the attack, I thought it was probably a Muslim. When my suspicion was confirmed, I “jumped to the conclusion” that it was an act of Islamic terrorism. Not much of a jump really. It was more like a little hop along the path of reason and logic.

Common sense is incompatible with liberalism as demonstrated by the Main Stream Media reports following the attack. Taking Obama’s lead, the liberal media engaged in all sorts of convoluted speculation in an effort to cloud a perfectly clear picture of Islamic terrorism. One of the many ridiculous N.Y. Times articles had the headline: PRELIMINARY INQUIRY FINDS NO LINK TO TERROR PLOT. Who did the inquiry? Inspector Clouseau? Syndicated columnist and committed lefty Leonard Pitts opined with an article entitled: ACKNOWLEDGE MUSLIM HEROES. An Islamic terrorist murders 13 people and the first thing Pitts does is urge us to remember Muslim heroes! What? This has nothing to do with loyal Americans who happen to be Muslim. No reasonable person is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists. What Pitts and his liberal colleagues refuse to acknowledge, however, is that ALL Jihadists are Muslim! Pitts states:

“At this writing, we know next to nothing of why he did it.

Maybe he was a stone-cold psychopath like Eric Harris who, with Dylan Klebold, shot up Columbine High in 1999.

Maybe he was deranged and delusional like Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Maybe he was driven by a grudge against the federal government like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a federal building in 1995.

Maybe he was a terrorist.”

Gee, Leonard, you think? Liberals can be such predictable idiots. Millions of Muslims have declared a holy war against the United States and when they strike us Pavlov’s lefties immediately cite Columbine and Timothy McVeigh in an effort to equate Islamic terrorism with domestic crime. Pitts laments, “So it is for Muslims, now, sacrifices and service unremembered and unremarked.” Give me a break! We bend over backwards to accommodate and coddle Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent. Muslims that happen to not be murderous jihadists are depicted uniformly as great Americans. As if our country would be immeasurably worse off without them.

Liberals are constantly lecturing us about stereotyping. They tell us that Muslims are just like Christians and these religions all have their crazies. As Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation, explained about the Fort Hood attack: “It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has it’s full, you know, full helping of nuts too.” I’m not sure what “nuts” Bob is referring too here. One of the liberal favorites is when someone attacks an abortion clinic or kills an abortionist. Well Bob, call me nuts but I make a distinction between the random murder of innocents and the killing of a baby killer. Abortionists are not innocent people! That does not mean I condone these killings. In fact, “mainstream” Christian denominations are always quick to condemn these types of attacks. Compare this with that “vast majority” of “peace loving” Muslims who never say a damn thing when some jihadist goes on a killing spree. To try and equate the isolated and rare actions of some supposed Christians to an organized and persistent jihad against the United States and “infidels” everywhere is ridiculous and dangerous. Instead of trying to put veterans, gun owners and pro-lifers on his terrorist watch list, I think Obama should maybe take a closer look at these curiously silent Muslims.

With liberals in control of the government, Mainstream Media, academia and Hollywood, it’s not too surprising that political correctness permeates society in general. That’s bad enough. But when it bleeds into our military structure we’ve got real problems. The more we learn about what the Army and FBI knew about Major Nidal Hasan, the scarier it gets. Yet nothing was done! Afraid of being charged with racism and discrimination, the Army and FBI let a “soldier of allah” continue on as an officer in the U.S. Army. It gets worse. Even after knowing what we now know, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” Unbelievable! Our soldiers deserve so much better. Diversity as a goal is a liberal concept and it has no place in our armed forces. The goal of our military can only be greatness. Diversity, as an ancillary condition of achieving this goal, is fine. Any other kind deserves to be a casualty of this war.

PEACE FOR OUR TIME?

So that august body of socialists over in Norway has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Hussein Obama. How nice! In presenting the award, the committee cited Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples “ and “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Let’s see. Iran and North Korea are launching test missiles every other day and Iran continues unabated with their nuclear weapons program. The Dear Leader has ditched the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe because it upset the Russians and he needs their help with Iran. He left our allies twisting in the wind and in return got some oblique statement from the Russkies about possible sanctions against Iran. Then, just last month, the Russian Foreign Minister stated “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” Wow. What a shocker! China seems unimpressed with our Nobel Laureate and continues to do nothing while North Korea runs amok and they remain opposed to sanctions against Iran. Yes, everybody seems to be getting along splendidly!

This latest joke is nothing new for the Nobel Committee. With their ideological litmus test and penchant for wishful thinking, they have been on a steady path to clownish irrelevance. Consider this collection of charlatans, commies and miscreants, Nobel Laureates all:

2007 – AL GORE

The “Goracle” shared the prize with something called the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (our tax dollars at work). The Committee awarded them the Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” What any of this nonsense has to do with peace is beyond a logical person’s understanding. I think they just felt a need to award him for not being George Bush.



2002 – JIMMY CARTER

Jimmy won “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” This sounds like more Norwegian speak for “he’s not George Bush.” Economic development? When Jimmy left office in 1980, after four disastrous years, the unemployment rate was seven percent, the inflation rate was 13.5 percent and interest rates were at 21 percent. Oh, those were heady times!

Maybe it was the way he handled the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Jimmy’s bold response to this “international conflict” was to send Moscow a sternly worded letter and then he manned up by boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics. Wow! After spending ten years getting their asses kicked by the U.S. backed mujahideen, the Soviet’s pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989.

Then there was his “peaceful solution” to the Iranian hostage crises. Actually, the American people solved this one for Jimmy. Americans had the good sense to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 444 days of whining and pleading by Carter, the hostages were released on the day Reagan took office.



1994 – YASSER ARAFAT, et al

The committee gave Arafat, the head of the Palistine Liberation Organization, and leaders from Israel the peace prize “For their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.”

Some of you younger readers might not know this but the Middle East was not always the land of peace and harmony that it is today. Israel was constantly being attacked by suicide bombers, mortars, rockets and bombs. The preferred targets were usually innocent women and children. The man that funded and planned many of these attacks was Yasser Arafat, a lifelong terrorist. He signed a worthless agreement with Israel and never stopped murdering innocent civilians but he did get his “peace prize.”

1990 – MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

Those nutty Norwegians gave Gorbachev the award “for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community.” So it was the commies that ended the cold war and brought peace to the “international community”? I don’t think so. Let’s review some facts.

In a 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, President Ronald Reagan said:

“In your discussion of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

Reagan rejected the liberal concept of moral equivalency and believed America had not only the responsibility and moral authority to confront and defeat Soviet tyranny, but also the singular ability to do so. The only thing lefty politicians and the Main Stream Media took from his speech was that he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” They were quite distraught and there was much hand wringing and whining. They thought Reagan was unstable and dangerous and now he was calling commies evil! Well, from the time of the Russian revolution to 1987, 70 years, it is estimated that 50 to 60 million people were killed in the Soviet Union through starvation, forced labor camps and outright murder of political dissidents. I think evil empire is an accurate description. Reagan decided that the United States, with the wealth generated by a capitalistic economy and the superior technology facilitated by free markets and private property rights could bury the Soviet Union. And he was right. Even the Soviet Union understood what American liberals would not or could not contemplate. Speaking to the Politburo in October 1986, just days before he was to meet with Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, Gorbachev told his fellow commies:

“We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limits of our capabilities. …If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.”

So Reagan’s doctrine of “peace thru strength” worked. The leader of an oppressive, tyrannical regime realized he could not beat us so he quit. And the idiot Norwegians made a defeated bully a Nobel Laureate.

1973 – LE DUC THO

In a mild upset, Le Duc Tho, chief negotiator for North Vietnam, shared the award with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for reaching a cease fire agreement in the Vietnam War. Hollywood lefties and media elites were hopeful that Jane Fonda would win the award for her “heroic” trip to North Vietnam in 1972. “Hanoi” Jane spent two weeks cavorting with the enemy, posing for pictures and accusing our armed forces of being baby killers. Jane was ultimately vindicated in 1995 when Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese Army General Staff said that Ms. Fonda and the American antiwar movement “was essential to our strategy.” Traitorous Bitch.

So, U.S. forces left Vietnam and the commie Le Duc Tho got his Nobel Prize. Of course, this paved the way for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to turn Cambodia into the killing fields where they slaughtered nearly two million people in four years. No matter. The imperialistic, war-mongering Americans were out of Southeast Asia.

Barack Hussein Obama received his prize not for anything he has done, obviously, but because of who he is. The Nobel Committee was so giddy that America finally had a president that subscribes to their guiding principle – NOTHING IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR – that they couldn’t wait to give him a prize. This principle is antithetical to the belief of American Patriots. As Patrick Henry said:

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

That a bunch of Norwegian socialists would find the views of an American Patriot to be extreme and misguided means nothing to me. But an American President? God help us!

DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE

“Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams

Think of the founding fathers. Men such as Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and so many others. Common men and intellectual giants they all possessed great courage and character. They proved themselves eminently worthy in the leadership of a new nation.

Now consider our “leaders” of today. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the wannabes in congress. Man, are we in trouble!

The founders gave us one of the most profound documents in the history of man, the Declaration of Independence. What if the “leaders” of today possessed the courage to honestly put forth their concept of the proper relationship between citizen and government? Below is the text of the original Declaration of Independence. It is lengthy but it will do you good to read it again. Following that is my version of what I think today’s “leaders” would come up with.

Declaration of Independence-July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

And now a new version as I see our contemporary "Floundering Fathers" would have it.

Declaration of Dependence-September, 2009

When in the course of elitist frustration it becomes necessary for the ruling class to dissolve the constitutional constraints which have rendered them subservient to the common people and to assume among the tyrants of the earth, the separate and equal suppression of our people to which the will of the State and of the State’s legislature entitle them, a decent attempt at rationalization requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this power grab.
We hold these truths to be self evident to us, that all survivors of Roe vs. Wade are created equal but some are more equal than others, that they are endowed by the State with sundry rights, subject to the caprice of the legislature. That among these are free education, free housing, free health care, a clean environment, a living wage, eight weeks paid vacation and card check. That to secure these rights, the State will confiscate the guns of the American citizen and the wealth of those that produce, deriving their just powers from the consent of a plurality of qualified voters as determined by ACORN. Convenience, indeed, will dictate that this State, newly established, shall not be challenged for light and transient causes such as liberty and self determination; and accordingly all experience hath shown that freedom is insufferable to the ruling elite. So when a long train of advancements, pursuing invariably the same object of individual freedom and happiness evinces a design to reduce the State to a condition of mere servitude to the people, it is the ruling elites duty to throw off such pursuits of the individual, and to provide new guards for their future subjugation. Such has been the patient sufferance of these elitists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations of State power, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute freedom from tyranny. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a sleeping world.

The American Patriot:
Has continued to read the Bible and make assertions that there is a power higher than the State.

Continues to believe that individual autonomy supersedes the collective good, as determined by the State.

Has insisted on his right to own guns thereby scaring the crap out of liberal wienies everywhere.

Continues to insist he is entitled to the fruits of his labor.

Has objected to our establishment of a multitude of new offices and has resisted the swarms of bureaucrats we have sent hither to harass him and eat out his substance.

Desires to destroy evil rather than compromise with it.

Believes people in this country illegally should be treated as if they have broken the law.

Believes it is right and proper to execute murderers but would deny a mother the “right” to kill her unborn child.

Objects when the judiciary creates new law, out of whole cloth, merely because such law would never be codified by the legislature with the consent of the people.

Would rather kill our enemies than try to understand them.

Believes it takes a mom and dad, not a village, to raise a child.

Continues to question the credibility of Al Gore just because he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas.

Prefers freedom to the illusion of security we so graciously provide.

In every stage of these annoyances we have petitioned the common people to just shut up and behave. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by the obstinate behavior of free men. A people, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define an American Patriot, needs to be taught a lesson. We must, therefore, hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in freedom, in chains servants. We, therefore, the self anointed elite of the Ruling Class, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Main Stream Media for the distortion of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of our own hubris, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and if they swallow this, ought to be, subservient to the Central Government, that they are absolved from all allegiance to any concept of States Rights, and that all divine connections between U.S. Citizens and freedom is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the timid acquiescence of the masses, we mutually pledge the vacuum of our honor and conscience.

SOCIALISM SUCKS

Over 30 years ago a satellite photo of an area in Northern Africa showed a peculiar condition. In the middle of a wide expanse of barren land was a dark patch approximately 400 square miles in area. When investigators made a visit to the area they discovered that the dark patch was a fenced in area of lush grass. The area outside the fence was virtually devoid of vegetation. Turns out the fenced in area was private property surrounded by public land. The private property was subdivided into five areas which the owners used to rotate their animal grazing. This rotation allowed the fallow areas to recover between grazing cycles. The public land was owned by everyone or no one, depending how you look at it. It was available to all herdsmen for animal grazing. This is a textbook example of what has been called the “Tragedy of the Commons” and it demonstrates a fundamental flaw of socialism; the severing of the relationship between costs and benefits. The owners of the private property had a vested interest in the stewardship of the land. While they received the benefits of grazing the land, they also bore the costs. Any temptation of the owners to over graze the land, thereby increasing their immediate benefit, was tempered by their knowledge of the unacceptable future costs of having no land suitable for grazing. Acting in their own self interest, the owners were able to sustain a viable and beneficial operation. The herdsmen who used the public land for grazing received the benefits but bore none of the costs. These guys had every incentive to increase the size of their herds to maximize their benefits and they did. I guess things would have been ok if the public land available for grazing was limitless. But it wasn’t. All resources, public and private, are limited. Eventually the pasture land could not sustain the continued grazing from an ever increasing number of cattle. Many cattle starved and then many people died. Acting in their own self interest, the herdsmen using public resources eventually hurt everyone, including themselves.

This fatal flaw of socialism should be obvious to even the most casual student of history or human behavior. Yet the elite liberals in this country keep insisting they can make this discredited theory work. It is inherent in human nature that a free individual will engage in pursuits according to his own self interests. Who among us does not want to improve their own lot in life? Normal people want to secure the best for themselves and their families. Many liberals believe that the “greedy” pursuit of individual wealth diminishes society as a whole. In his 1776 book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith refutes this notion with his concept of an Invisible Hand:

“…every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

The “Flower Power” wing of the liberal movement believes it is possible to change human nature. They seem to think that if we would just join hands and sing “Kumbaya” we would all be motivated to go out and bust our asses for the benefit of people we don’t even know thereby enabling us to achieve some sort of ridiculous egalitarian nirvana. The ruling elites of liberalism know this is a bunch of crap. They understand the folly of trying to change human nature. They know that only through coercion or force can they direct the actions of each individual. This is why they lust for power and will do just about anything to get it and keep it. They know that only the government can provide them with the illusion of legitimacy to wield the power necessary to usurp individual rights. They understand what George Washington was talking about when he said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

President Washington knew there would be days like these and he was trying to warn us.

BOMBS AWAY

I have always tried to avoid the gratuitous use of profanity here but I guess I’m not eloquent enough to express how I feel about the Lockerbie bomber’s release other than to say FUCK Scotland and FUCK Libya! Scotland just released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. This murderous bastard served a total of eight years in prison after he blew up a commercial airliner killing 270 people, including 189 Americans. Al Megrahi was given a life sentence but the Scots’ decided to set him free because he has cancer and they thought it was compassionate to let him die at home in Libya. Excuse my naïveté but I thought a life sentence kinda means you will die in prison! Nice message you sent to terrorists there Scotland. Evil men do not respond in kind to acts of compassion. They view it as weakness and they exploit it. The only thing evil men understand is force and they fear those willing to use it.

Al Megrahi arrived in Libya to a hero’s welcome. Big shocker! After a luxurious flight on good old Colonel Gadhafi’s private jet, he was greeted by thousands of cheering Libyans. These multitudes were obviously part of that infinitesimally small faction of Islamic extremists we are always told not to worry about. You know the ones. Like the hoards we see celebrating in the streets all across the Middle East every time an atrocity is committed against innocent U.S. citizens. They are all part of that teeny-tiny little group that has grossly miss-represented Islam, the religion of peace. Sure, whatever.

The government of the United States has few legitimate functions. One of them is ensuring the security of U.S. citizens. With that in mind, here is the recommended response from Society’s Ditch Peace Czar. We tell old Colonel Gadhafi the he has 24 hours to hand over Al Megrahi to the United States for immediate execution or the bombing begins. We will systematically bomb his country to hell until he produces this bastard. If we don’t get a body, he better pray to allah that Scotland has a DNA sample to verify the terrorists remains. That’s it! No more fucking around! The world needs to be put on notice that you don’t kill Americans with impunity. Screw the lefties and their constant whining about a disproportionate response. The hell with that nonsense! Just because the muslim culture and way of life has produced nothing more than expert rock throwers doesn’t mean we can only respond with sticks. Now that they have managed to buy or steal advanced technologies that give them the ability to do major damage, we cannot limit ourselves in the extent of our response.

So where is the “chosen one” in all of this? The American people were told if Obama was elected, friend and foe alike would embrace us. There would be a new beginning. Lions would lay down with lambs, the seas would recede and all that happy horseshit. So what has happened? Obama went to Europe and begged for more help in Afghanistan. Our “allies” responded with something like five troops. All of Europe! Gee, thanks! Apparently Obama sent word to Scotland that he “strongly” opposed the release of Al Megrahi. Nice job there Barack. The Scots’ told us to fuck off too! Thanks for the leadership you arrogant, narcissistic little Marxist!

The situation we find ourselves in is tenuous. Our domestic problems are obvious but we Americans must never lose sight of our singular ability to lead the world and defend freedom. Our first order of business must always be our national defense. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, without the United States all is lost.

HEALTHCARE FOR IDIOTS

Liberals love a good crisis. They are skilled at inciting panic and fabricating a need for government intervention. They do this because their very existence is predicated on the helplessness of their constituents. As Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Because real crises are rare, liberals need to invent them. As an example, if John Edwards wasn’t a total asshole, he might be president and we would all be talking about the homeless crisis. If you’ve forgotten, Edwards was the little twit running around telling people that every culvert in America had 20 homeless guys living in it. It was a crisis! Well, he wasn’t elected so Katie Couric won’t be interviewing homeless guys for awhile. No, instead we got Obama (BHO) and the crisis du jour is health care.

BHO says we have a crisis because costs are out of control and 46 million people in this country don’t have health insurance. While both these things may be true, I think we should consider how we got to this point before we implement some massive and outrageously expensive government program to remedy these conditions.

OUT OF CONTROL COSTS

You’ve got to hand it to liberals. What they lack in integrity, they make up for in audacity. Cost are out of control so let the government take charge! What? So they can bring to health care the high quality and affordability they brought to the postal service and public schools? Gee, thanks.

BHO has said that the government needs to get involved to provide more competition in the market place. More competition? By my count there is something like 10 thousand insurance companies in this country. Not enough competition, my ass! How about the government doing away with all their stupid mandates that have created “one size fits all” insurance plans. Give insurance companies the freedom to structure plans that are actually tailored to the needs and wants of their customers. Competition will explode and costs will be driven down.

Just recently I heard BHO railing on the insurance industry and their huge profits. He seeks to blame their greed for our high costs. I’m no apologist for insurance companies. I know they are making money but those of us in the private sector are not offended by profits. We actually spend a lot of time trying to increase our own! It would be hypocritical of me to criticize the profits of another. BHO, having never made a profit in his life, has no such concern. But are insurance company profits the biggest problem? BHO has never discussed how medicare and medicaid factor into the cost equation. When a doctor charges $500 for some procedure but the government plan only allows for a $400 payment, who pays the difference? We do, of course. And what affect does that have on our insurance premiums?

BHO has also never mentioned tort reform and how it might affect costs. Doctors pay huge premiums for liability insurance. In some areas, family practitioners are paying over $200,000 a year and as the amount in jury awards rises, doctor’s premiums rise. And this does not even factor in the cost of all the additional tests that doctors now require in an effort to cover their asses in the event of a lawsuit. With lawyers collecting 1/3 of the award, they are doing quite nicely. There is a reason that “ambulance chaser” is part of the American lexicon but I’ve never heard BHO bitching about lawyer profits.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DITCH CHECK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BHO talking about the free market is like me talking about soccer. He knows nothing about how it works but he instinctively dislikes it. He keeps insisting that “if you like your current plan or doctor, you can keep them.” He has no idea how the free market will adapt to his plan. The fact is, his rules will force private businesses to dump their health insurance plans to remain competitive. Private insurance companies will eventually be wiped out forcing everyone into the government system.
When BHO and his lefty comrades want to target a certain industry, they always rip on their “outrageous profits.” This is right out of Karl Marx’s playbook. Marx theorized that surplus value (profit) was accumulated by bourgeoisie pigs (capitalists) by ripping off the proletariat (employee). It is this theory that was applied to give the world those “workers paradises” in Eastern Europe, China and North Korea among others. Left unchecked, these people are going to destroy our country!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

46 MILLION UNINSURED

BHO has been pretty careful when he throws this number out there. You’ll notice he generally refers to just the “46 million uninsured” or the “46 million uninsured in America.” He never says there are 46 million uninsured AMERICANS. There is a good reason for this. Of the 46 million, 9.7 million-more than 20 percent, are not U.S. citizens! Why should hard working Americans be on the hook for them? I’m sure there are a couple billion uninsured Chinese, too. So, what!

Also included in the 46 million are five million people who qualify for medicare but don’t use it. There are also 17 million Americans living in households with annual incomes in excess of $50,000 that CHOOSE not to have health insurance. Forty percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34. Being young and healthy, they have CHOSEN to spend their money on things other than health insurance.

Add it all up and you get about eight million people that want health insurance and can’t get it. Because America is the most benevolent country in the world, these people will be taken care of. Only liberals would think that blowing up the best health care system in the world to help three percent of the population is a good idea. But the liberal elite aren’t that stupid. Freedom loving Americans should consider what their real motivation might be.

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

According to some recent articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Democratic legislators are “stunned at the choices they face to rebalance a budget with a deficit now as high as 6.5 billion…” Stunned, they say! What, they never saw this coming? Apparently there is no minimum IQ level required to serve in the state legislature. Last year there were over 70,000 private sector jobs lost in Wisconsin. Businesses are fleeing Wisconsin and relocating to states that won’t tax them into oblivion. And legislators can’t figure out why tax collections are down nearly 800 million over the last ten months! Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed 1.7 billion in tax and fee increases with the new biannual budget. This is on top of the 1.2 billion in tax and fee increases he signed into law in February as part of his super duper budget repair package. Nearly 3 billion in NEW taxes and yet it’s still not enough! Now Democratic legislators are, gasp!, looking at the possibility of cutting spending. Not without some trepidation though. These liberal dopes are all in a tizzy over Doyle’s pathetic little plan to require state employees to take 16 days of unpaid leave over the next two years and to forgo a planned 2% pay increase. Oh, the humanity! Senate president Fred Risser of Madison (shocker) said it’s unfair to require “dedicated and loyal” state workers to take unpaid furloughs. He added that he would rather raise taxes because state workers aren’t responsible for the budget mess. Another breathtakingly stupid remark by a liberal that goes unchallenged. Who’s fault is it Fred? Private businesses and those 70,000+ people that lost their jobs last year? I don’t think so. In 2007, Wisconsin taxpayers paid 12.3% of their income in sales, property and state income taxes. This puts us at 7th on the list of highest taxing states. No Fred, I think it’s your fault. And Doyle’s. And all your liberal colleagues in the state legislature. I think government employees bear some responsibility too. How much, I don’t know but with the liberals theory of joint and several liability, it doesn’t matter.

So what should Wisconsin do? When looking at the state budget, it is necessary to also include local government functions as well. There are myriad government programs ostensibly under local jurisdiction that are funded in large part by the state. For instance, 67% of public school costs are funded by the state. There are so many different programs, incentives and subsidies that it’s like trying to decipher a mobster’s money laundering scheme. Ultimately, everything government does is funded by the taxpayers so I include local government in this analysis.

According to the Census of Government Employment, there were 282,000 people working for state and local government in Wisconsin in 2009. If we exclude those that provide essential or legitimate government services, police and firefighters, that leaves us with 261,000 employees. The average wage of these employees is $46,200. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the government spends 35 cents on benefits for every dollar in wages. So the actual cost to employ each of these people averages $62,370. per year. Liberal politicians are always telling us that we need to make sacrifices in tough economic times. They also prattle on incessantly about “fairness.” Then lets be fair with the sacrifice. The unemployment rate for Wisconsin in March was 9.4%. In the interest of fairness, state and local governments should immediately lay off 9.4% of the non-essential workforce. That’s 24,534 employees. This would save taxpayers 1.5 billion a year. That’s 3 billion over the course of the biannual budget. Liberals won’t like this but they won’t be able to argue the fairness aspect of it.

Now comes the really hard part. We apply free market principles to the government workforce. The lefties won’t understand this at all. The free market to a liberal is as a rubics cube in the hands of a 4 year old. They have no idea how it works or what it does. They will want to cast it aside and go back to their milk and cookies. We conservatives need to educate them. Conservatives know that the free market is really good at maximizing productivity and minimizing costs. In a word, it promotes efficiency. So, after the layoffs, government is left with 236,500 employees. I’m guessing that many of these people are going to start to realize that they are damn lucky to have a job. Here is where we inject a little free market reality. We cut all wages and benefits by 10%. This saves taxpayers another 3 billion over the two years. Budget crisis averted! But why stop? Oh sure, the government workers will scream and whine and wallow in self pity. But will they quit? I don’t know but in two years the free market will tell us if we can cut another 10%. We can continue to cut until there is no longer a surplus of applicants for these jobs. The government workers will call these actions “draconian.” Any cut in government spending is always called a draconian cut. What a bunch of crap. It’s called competition and those of us in the real world deal with it every day. I think it’s time that government workers experience the existential pleasures of market forces in the real world. They will be better people for it.

Liberals will accuse the taxpayers of greed and selfishness. I don’t think so. What is selfish (and immoral) is politicians currying favor with one segment of society by overpaying them with other peoples money.

100 FREAK'N DAYS

President Obama held a press conference last Wednesday in celebration of his first 100 days in office. The teleprompter was in good working order and he delivered his opening remarks with a style and grace befitting the smoothest of the smooth. I’m sure liberals around the country “felt a thrill going up their leg” during his presentation. Being a conservative, I was able to maintain my composure and actually listened to what he said. Of particular interest to me were his comments on enhanced interrogation or what the lefties call torture. Of course, subjecting a murderous jihadist to anything beyond polite conversation is considered torture by Obama.

The president stated: "We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals, by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception."

One of the pre-approved reporters asked Obama if he thought that the previous administration sanctioned torture. His response in part:

"…waterboarding violates our ideals and values. I do believe that it is torture. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do – not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways – in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

It corrodes the character of a country."

It’s easy to make ridiculous and unsupportable statements when you are never called to explain or defend them. Obama knows that we obtained a great deal of valuable information as a result of these interrogations. Yet he flippantly states that we could have gotten this information in other ways.
Really? What ways would those be? And how much time would these unmentioned techniques take? Intelligence gathering is, by its very nature, time sensitive. Intelligence gathered after the fact isn’t intelligence. It’s history. If a bad guy says they are going to blow up some buildings in two weeks and Obama’s PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELLS US WHERE technique takes two weeks and a day to work, well, what’s the point?

From 2001 to 2008, the time frame we were “torturing” terrorists, there were more than 10 million abortions in this country. That’s fine and dandy with Obama. No moral implications there. No “corrosive” affect on the character of the country. But when we dump a bucket of water on three, that’s right three, murderous psychopaths and obtain information that saved countless lives, Obama gets all indignant and proclaims: "It corrodes the character of a country." Come on now. Really?

Recognizing that he has no credibility on this issue, Obama invoked the name of a true leader, Winston Churchill: "And Churchill said, 'we don’t torture,' when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

Leaving aside the obvious facts that Churchill and Obama would have far different definitions of torture and that if Churchill did authorize torture he wouldn’t tell the whole world, let’s assume Obama is correct. If Churchill did not authorize torture, he had at least two good reasons:

1. Both Great Britain and Germany were signatories to the
Geneva conventions. Churchill might have refrained from
torture with the idea that Germany would reciprocate. We
are not bound by an agreement that our enemy has not
signed!
2. There was probably not much that the typical German POW
could tell Churchill that he didn’t already know. In 1941,
Great Britain, with a big assist from some Polish
mathematicians, had broken the enigma code used by the
German armed forces for all sensitive communications.
This was no small thing. Many historians credit the Allies
intelligence gathering capabilities with shortening the war
by at least two years.

Obama finished up his answer with this liberal tripe: "At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians." Here is a list to consider:

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans.

December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.

August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.

June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.

April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.

October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.

April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

November 4, 1979 – A group of Islamist students in Iran take over the American embassy in support of the Iranian revolution. 52 U.S. diplomats are held hostage for 444 days.

Two things all these attacks have in common:

1. They were all perpetrated by Muslims.

2. Not one of the terrorists ever said they did it
because the U.S. engaged in waterboarding.

The terrorists hate us because we support Israel and, despite what Obama says, we are a Christian nation. The terrorists hated us before it became official U.S. policy to reveal state secrets to the world and they hate us now. I’m sure now that we are fighting back this upsets them even more. So what? Obama and the left’s unwillingness to accept this reality puts us all in serious danger.

AMERICA'S ADVENTURE IN OBAMALAND

I woke up Monday morning and what did I see? Barack Obama is now running General Motors and Chrysler! Am I still in America?

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen…
Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There

Welcome to America’s adventures in Obamaland! The president of the United States has just fired the chairman and CEO of GM and gave Chrysler 30 days to merge with Italian automaker Fiat, or else!

Only in Obamaland can a guy go from “community organizer” to president in a few short years. And now the guy who couldn’t run a lemonade stand without a government subsidy is running two of the largest auto makers in the world. Said Obama, “We cannot, and must not, and will not let our auto industry simply vanish.”

Notice he was not talking about just GM and Chrysler but the entire auto industry. Ford, which took no government money, and Honda and Toyota which don’t need it, are in his sights too. Imagine how the CEO’s of those companies must be feeling. They are now in competition with the guy that makes all the rules!

So what’s the plan? According to president and CEO Obama:

[I’m confident we can create] an auto industry that is once more out-competing the world; a 21st century auto industry that is creating new jobs, unleashing new prosperity, and manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us towards an energy-independent future. I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.

In the old America, companies were in business to make a profit. They did this by providing a superior product or service at an affordable price. I see no mention of these concepts in Obama’s plan. No, the new goal of the American auto industry is to build fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Hope those market-hungry profiteers at Ford, Honda and Toyota are listening.

So, how is this going to work? As per their new “business plan,” GM and Chrysler will start building four-seater golf carts and selling them as the “next generation” of clean cars. The 10 or so honest and committed tree huggers in this country will get all excited and buy these cars. That won’t be enough, even for GM and Chrysler who have freed themselves from the chains of profit margins. If Ford, Honda and Toyota continue to make cars that people actually want to buy this will be a problem for the enlightened one. Obama might think profits are yucky but he’s not going to continue diverting tax money from Planned Parenthood and Acorn to prop up his new car companies. Obama noted that his sycophants in Congress have the solution:

Finally, several members of congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet. And such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars, have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries.

Oh yea! The benefits of a truly cosmopolitan president! When in doubt, look to the Euro’s! They can’t defend themselves but they are so sophisticated!

If that’s not enough, maybe he will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to a level only his car companies can meet.
Then there is his insane “Cap and Trade” legislation. Once he artificially raises the price of gas to five or six bucks a gallon, his piece of crap cars will start to sell. This has the ancillary benefit of getting brain dead Americans pissed at “Big Oil.” Then Obama can become CEO of an oil company too!

Some of you right wing extremists may call this the nationalization of the auto industry. Not to worry. Obama is an ardent capitalist and just loves the free market, “Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.”

Doesn’t make sense? To understand Obama you need to study Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less.” The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Things in Obamaland are getting curiouser and curiouser!

TOUGH DECISIONS

According to my local fishwrap, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has decided that these tough economic times require bold action. The front page article caught my attention with the headline: “DNR DISCONTINUING LOCAL COUNTER SERVICE.” My first thought was-It’s about time! But, my naiveté belies my years. My reaction should have been-It sounds too good to be true. Well, of course, it is. It turns out that while the DNR is in fact discontinuing counter service, the jobs of the 51 state employees who provided that service are not being cut. No, they will keep their jobs with the DNR but will be “serving the public” in some, as yet undetermined, “different capacity.” The article states, in part:

Although the service centers will remain open as a base of operations
for local field staff, biologists and wardens, starting next spring people
will have to look elsewhere to obtain hunting licenses and information.
Eliminating counter service is expected to save the state $3.2 million
over the course of the next biennium.

I can see how this will inconvenience taxpayers but I don’t understand how it will save them any money. This question did not occur to the reporter who wrote the article so I am left only to contemplate the statements made by a DNR spokesman: “We are really facing an economic struggle. The state government had to make some tough decisions [because] decisions aren’t ever easy when you are facing a deficit.” Oh, really? How tough can it be when your solution is to cut customer service while maintaining a robust payroll? The truth is that the DNR and government in general have only one crucial decision to make. They have to decide where that imaginary and dangerously nebulous line in the sand is. They know they can’t cross it. It’s the one where the taxpayers finally say, “FUCK YOU! We’re not going to take this shit anymore!”

The line has been moving further and further…to the left, of course. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (gotta love these government bureaucracies), the state lost over 72,000 private- sector jobs last year. During this same time period, all those tough decisions being made in Madison have resulted in 900 new government jobs!

The DNR spokesman went on to say that “We will do what we can to avoid layoffs…” And what might that be? Increase production? No, they don’t produce anything. Increase customer service? Obviously not. Who knows?
Apparently the only thing we know for sure is that the consequences of a less than fully staffed DNR are too dire to contemplate. An immediate spike in global temperatures? Bands of renegade hunters decimating entire species of wild game? Maybe the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District would start dumping millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into Lake Michigan every time it rains! Oh, that’s right, they’re doing that now. Gosh, maybe the DNR does need to hire more people. After all, they’ve got 72,000 additional people to choose from this year.

AN EVIL PIECE OF STEEL

Robert Smith Jr. writes a regular column for the Detroit News Politics Blog. On December 30, he posted a commentary titled BAN ALL GUNS in which he shows a refreshing level of honesty for a liberal. Unfortunately, his honesty is accompanied by a boatload of ignorance.

Mr. Smith states: “The Founding Fathers made a mistake when they said we had a right to bear arms.” Unlike so many liberals, he is not trying to convince us that the 2nd Amendment says something it does not. In fact, his statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the 2nd Amendment does indeed secure our individual right to own guns. He just thinks that the Founders were wrong. I can appreciate that many liberals agree with him but his explanation as to why he feels this way is absurd. He is either grossly ignorant of American history or he is willfully exploiting the ignorance of his fellow liberals. Smith claims that “[The Founders] did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.” A couple of points; The Founders did not write the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about the British or any other foreign invaders. Thomas Jefferson explained the reasoning for the Amendment this way: “And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It is clear these men were concerned about oppression by the very government they were establishing. They understood that all governments inherently drift towards tyranny. It is only the people that can keep them in check. Secondly, the British actually did look back on the United States after the Revolutionary War. Those hostilities are commonly referred to as the War of 1812. That would be the one where the British burned Washington, D.C. and the White House.

Smith goes on to site a 2005 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
that reported over 3000 children and teens were killed by gunfire, most of them black males in inner-city neighborhoods. (Shouldn’t the CDC be doing studies on AIDS or something?) So Mr. Smith wants to ban all guns to solve this problem. What’s next? Do we ban spoons and forks to solve the ongoing obesity crisis? This is how the liberal mind works – Poor black men are shooting each other in inner-city neighborhoods and their solution is to take the guns away from middle class, rural, white people. The plethora of gun restrictions already in place did nothing to prevent these murders. Does Mr. Smith really believe these crimes were committed by people who own guns legally?

Liberals don’t offer viable solutions because they either can’t or won’t recognize the actual problems. Black on black murder rates are rising and instead of advocating responsible behavior with societal consequences, Mr. Smith wants to ban a piece of steel.
Smith says that the person he most admires is Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps he should consider what Gandhi said about gun control: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”