Tarheel Cheesehead

Tarheel-Cheesehead

2008-09-20T04:27:00.001-04:00

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

A Letter to Senator McCain

2008-03-28T13:31:00.001-04:00

This is a letter I sent to Senator McCain's Campaign. Whether he read it, or takes heed, I don't know.

Senator John McCain:

My name is Daniel Krenzke. I am a registered Republican in the State of North Carolina. Born and raised in Wisconsin, I joined the Marine Corps in 1987 and served for ten years. I respect and thank you for your service in the US Navy and your trials in the war lost by our enemies at home. One does not achieve what you have by chance or luck. It is by skill, perseverance and the grace of God. Your victory in becoming the de facto nominee of our party is an accomplishment that will be remembered by historians for many years to come.

However, I write this to you to tell you I cannot in good conscience vote for you in the November general election, and I will not mark your name on the ballot merely to vote against the Democratic nominee, whether it is Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. I am a Reagan conservative. You ask me for loyalty that you have not shown our party. You claim that the differences between you and us conservatives are small. I strongly disagree. Those are the same differences that separate us from the socialist in the Democratic Party.

You voted to inhibit free speech through McCain-Feingold. Why should any individual or group be prohibited from printing or airing political ads for or against any candidate at any time? That is the core of Freedom of Speech. Why should any person or group be prohibited from giving any sum of money to any political group or candidate? That is the essence of the Freedom of Assembly as well as Speech. You violated your oath to uphold the US Constitution by your support and passage of this bad law. I equally blame President GW Bush for signing it into law and the US Supreme Court for upholding it. But, it is your name that you proudly attach to it that earns my ire. You never should have brought it to the floor of the Senate.

You voted to sacrifice our national sovereignty through Comprehensive Immigration Reform that you co-sponsored with Senator Kennedy. The general amnesty of 1986 came with a promise of vigorous enforcement of border and employment law. We never got the enforcement. You and our political enemies cobbled a piece of legislation together with no debate, no committee hearings, no openness with the same empty promises of enforcement. If you never enforced the first set of laws, then how can we trust you to enforce the second set? We can’t. That piece of legislation would have destroyed our party and our nation. Until the border is sealed and employment law is vigorously enforced we cannot not revisit any change in immigration law. I cannot trust you to do this.

You stand for the shackling our economy through the belief in unproven science by implementing dubious environmental regulation. Man-made global warming is a myth. While the climate of the world maybe changing, to think that it is caused by the daily activities of our lives is a philosophy of pure hubris. While I agree we need to be good stewards of what God has given us, we can and should use the resources we have to ensure the vibrancy of our economy. If we fall into the fallacies of the global warming prophets, we will find ourselves at the mercies of the rising economic powers of Asia, particularly the People’s Republic of China. They are not going to put the breaks on their economy by strangulating it with useless regulations. Why should we? As with so many other decisions you put political expediency over thoughtful, fact-based judgment.

On tax cuts, you sided with our political enemies and used their rhetoric in defense of your position. On judicial nominees, you sided with our political enemies to prevent many strict constructionist judges (in the mold of Thomas and Scalia) from being sat on the bench at the district and appellate level. On spending, while you have been consistent with core conservatism in your words and actions, you never bothered to capture the spotlight on this like you have on the issues of campaign financing, immigration reform, or climate change. For all I know it is done with calculation to manipulate the party’s conservative base.

On these major issues you have abandoned our party’s conservative philosophies and ideals. There was no compromise, only capitulation. There was no loyalty to party and country, only loyalty your own selfish ambitions. The only issue of major importance that we agree upon is the War against Islamo-fascism. It is the only issue that separates you and your Democratic opponents. And with your record of political pragmatism I would not be surprised if you were to abandon us on that issue too.

I have judged you on the whole of your record, not just on your words but by your actions. I find you wanting.

With your ascension as the leader of the Republican Party I find myself without a political home. I have been asked once too many times to compromise conviction for victory – a victory I never get to share in. Reagan left the Democrats, because they left him. I find myself leaving the Republicans, because they left me – and, unlike Reagan, I have no where to go to have my voice properly heard at the federal or state level of government. All I can do is stand back, allow the corruption of the political class to have its affect, and watch the country God has blessed me to be citizen of crumble to the ashes of history.

Enjoy your fame, fortune, and glory. It will be a fleeting moment never to be as sweet as it is now.

Yours in dissatisfaction,

Daniel W. Krenzke

Romney, Religion, & Politics

2007-12-07T07:57:00.000-05:00

As a Christian I do believe Mormonism is a Christ-based cult that does not adhere to the Gospel message of the Old & New Testaments, but as a Christian I honor the grace God has given us to choose or reject His message. That is the liberty of freewill.

While I disagree with Mormonism core doctrines in the Book of Mormon, I affirm the truths that are taught and practice by Governor Romney and his brethren, that of service, charity, family, and integrity.

Would I vote for Governor Romney? As that I am undecided in this primary election, he has my ear. It is good that his religion gives him a foundation upon which to build a quality character. It will be his vision of a future America and how he will achieve it that will sway my vote. That is the test I apply to all candidates, not that of lockstep theology.

Civics Lesson: Part VI (The Pursuit)

2007-10-26T08:56:00.001-04:00

Now, we come to the last of the rights Jefferson specifically enumerated in our nation's Declaration of Independence; the Pursuit of Happiness. But, what specifically is the Pursuit of Happiness? If one were to actually do some basic digging into our nations founding, one would find that the three rights colonial Patriots demanded were Life, Liberty, & Property. Our Founding Fathers understood that in order to pursue happiness one needed to acquire property and have the right (and responsibility) to keep it.

Why did the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" become a major battle cry in the 1770s? Because, what the Founders knew is that taxation deprives people of property. While they knew taxes were needed to run any government, the fact that the colonies had no say in the implementation of the taxes the English Parliament imposed upon them. If the colonies had members in Parliament advocating their position, there might not have been a Boston Massacre or Tea Party. It was the fact that the farmers of western Pennsylvania had representation in the new federal US Congress that allowed President Washington to federalize the militia and quell the 1790s Whiskey Rebellion.

Colonial Patriots viewed English taxation as a confiscation of property without due process protections that those in the Mother Country were entitled. If taxes could be imposed without the consent of the colonist or through their colonial legislature, then what other abuses would King or Parliament enact if the colonist had no recourse to address grievances?

The Pursuit of Happiness, the acquisition of property, is the culmination of having the right to live and the responsible exercise of liberty. It is the equal access to the opportunity to excel as best as our talents and ambition will allow. Unfortunately, some people look at the inequality of outcome as a wrong to be corrected. (Are we all created for equal outcomes?)

There are people that have not learned that it is God that dispenses blessings. They are easily duped by those that promise to use the force of government to take care of them. They have not learned the lessons of the apostle Paul to be content no matter one's circumstances (Philippians 4:10-13). These poor people are robbed of the Pursuit of Happiness and are enslaved to a welfare system that does not bring happiness, just misery that comes from the lack of effort to better themselves.

And just because you have acquired property and wealth does not mean you will have achieved the happiness we all are trying to pursue. Money does not buy happiness, and merely acquiring wealth and property does not bestow contentment. Just as Paul found contentment through God in want or plenty, rich and poor can find discontentment in their situation because of the selfishness of the human heart each of us is born with.

God has given us the right to acquire possessions and property. The amount should be based on the talent, knowledge, blessing, and some would say luck that has been given each individual. But as with all rights, the right to Pursue Happiness has its responsibility. What do we do with the wealth and property we obtain? Jesus put it as simple as possible, "Rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:15-22 & Mark 12:13-17). Pay taxes, because God has blessed us to be citizens of a great nation. Give to church and charity, because God has blessed you, period. Either way - Give. Give with a grateful heart without the spiritual cancer of selfishness.

Civics Lesson: Part V (Liberty)

2007-10-03T22:20:00.000-04:00

The next right that Jefferson enumerated is Liberty. What is Liberty? Many use freedom and liberty interchangeably. This is a misnomer. Freedom is merely a component of Liberty. So, what is liberty? It is a fine balance between freedom of choice (freewill) and objective morality.

When one has too much freedom without the constraint of objective morality, ones life will descend into anarchy. When one is constrained by too much morality with out the ability to freely choose between right and wrong, ones life will descend into tyranny.

What is objective morality? It is the laws of nature and nature's God that our Creator has given us in Holy Scriptures - a form that the finite mind of fallen men & women can understand. These laws are apart of the self-evident Truths that Jefferson alluded to in the Declaration of Independence. Subjective morality (each individual defining their own moral laws) is the same as the relative truth of secular humanism (See Part I). When a society that operates in subjective morality, it operates in unbridled freedom that leads to anarchy. When anarchy becomes unbearable, one person's or group's subjective morality becomes the standard (instead of God's morality). It is the subjective morality of the few that becomes the objective morality for the rest of society. The only way for it to be enforced is by corrosion. A tyranny manifests itself where the rule of law based on the objective morality of God is replace with the rule of personality based on the subjective morality of the tyrant.

We must beware that we don't use the objective morality that was lovingly give to us by God as a religiously legalist tyranny. While the Truth of God's morality is good the use of this truth to tear people down to build yourself up is just as evil as the imposition of another person's subjective morality on the rest of us. Liberty is not license to sin, but freedom to make our choices and reap the consequences for them (for more on the tyranny of condemnation).

We see the basis for liberty in the Creation Story in Genesis. God's love for humanity (consisting of just Adam & Eve at the time) was demonstrated by the freedom given by God (eat of any tree in the garden) and the morality set by God (except for the tree of the knowledge of good & evil) with the consequences spelled out by God (life for choosing not to eat, death for choosing to eat).

When Eve chose to listen to the lies of the serpent, when Adam chose not to protect his wife from the serpent, when they used their freewill to choose to eat from the forbidden tree, they reaped the responsibility of the right of the liberty they exercised. The consequences we are still reaping today.

Liberty is the freedom to choose between what God defines as right and wrong, and to be awarded the consequence of those choices - in the here & now and the hereafter.

Author Note & Edit: I just saw this quote and thought that is summed up what I was trying to say in this article:

"We can breathe the air of liberty only to the extent that we are ready to bear the burden of moral responsibility associated with it."
—Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1965)

Civics Lesson: Part IV (Life)

2007-09-13T14:18:00.000-04:00

When Jefferson began to enumerate the rights given to us by God, he first said the these rights were "among" other rights granted us from a gracious Creator. But, it is these rights that are the most important in the existence of humankind. The first of these rights is the greatest of them. It is Life.

Without Life the other rights mean nothing. If you are not living, you cannot exercise liberty, you cannot pursue happiness. But why is the life of a human that precious? Because, all of us are made in the image of the Creator. That is reason God places great value on the life of each of us, and we should place that same value on each other.

When anybody murders another person, aborts a baby, creates an embryo merely to harvest cells, euthanizes the infirm, commits suicide, even rapes, assaults, or maliciously maligns a person, they show an udder lack of respect for life. If we are endowed by a Creator with life, then that Creator has known all people, knows all people, and will know all people from before they were a thought in another person's mind until long after people have lost all recollection of them (Psalm 139:14-18, Jeremiah 1:4-7).

Then what is the difference between someone murdering another person and the government executing the murderer for his crime? The taking of the life of a murderer is a just punishment. Nothing more is demanded of the murderer than what he took (Leviticus 24:17-22). Plus the execution of a murderer sends a message that innocent life is valued highly. It is valued as much as that of the condemned. When we do not allow for the death penalty, we add more value to the life of a murderer than that of the murdered.

What about Jesus' words on turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)? Remember that what Jesus is talking about individuals forgiving other individuals, especially if we are His disciples. He does not absolve anyone of the responsibility of their actions (Matthew 5:17-20). (I'll be discussing more on this in the definition of Liberty.) What Jesus wants of us is for the victim and/or their family to forgive the murderer as God has forgiven us, but He also wants the murderer to pay the full temporal price for his actions.

Life is a precious gift from God. Each human being is created in the image of God. Each human body contains the breath of God. How we take responsibility for this right and how we respect another's right to life tells a lot of our character.

Civics Lesson: Part III

2007-08-20T10:53:00.000-04:00

The next self-evident truth our founding fathers is the all people are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights. This rights are not given by people to other people. They are gifts of grace from a loving and merciful God. Anyone that would deprive another person of these basic rights is evil - period - plain and simple. For anyone to take the life of an innocent, for anyone to remove the ability of a person to make a freewill decision, for anyone to rob another of morally, legally, ethically earned wealth and property it is a slap in the face of God. It is one person's sinful desire to set themselves up as god in their life as well as in the lives of others.

What we must remember that with rights come responsibilities. We are responsible how we live our life. We are responsible how we use our liberty. We are responsible how we pursue our happiness. We are responsible to each other. That is why we have laws against murder, theft, sexual indecency, lying, etc. That is why we have laws for honoring authority, honoring honest work, remembering our national past (good and bad), upholding right and rectifying wrong. We are responsible to God. All of us, whether we believe in God or not, must give an account of the use of our life. Life is a gift from God. What we do with it is the gift we give back.

We live in a day and age where people are more interested in the acquisition and selfish exercise rights all the while trying to duck the responsibilities that come with the way they exercise their rights. The great mistake that we make is that we are due these rights merely because we are Americans. The only thing we are due - every single one of us - is hell's fire and damnation. What has been given to us are gifts of a gracious God to give to others and bring glory to Him in the way we use our rights and accept responsibility for the use of them.

Civics Lesson: Part II

2007-07-06T12:47:00.000-04:00

The first self-evident truth Jefferson tells us is that , "all Men are created equal..." The question we must ask ourselves, "By what measure are we going to quantify equality?"

Many look at the equality of outcome, an equality set by men. Do people have the same wealth? The same house? The same access to health care? The same 'rights'? Equality of outcome can only be enforced by people who are 'more equal' than others to ensure that the equality is set.

The equality that our Founders alluded to is that of being equal before the laws of nature and nature's God. Not all of us will be wealthy, highly-educated, extremely talented, etc. But we all should have equal access to the opportunity to be the best as far as our talent, intelligence, and ambition will allow. It is God who dispenses challenges and talents, blessings and curses.Where we are equal is the opportunity to overcome curse and challenge and to use to the fullest talent and blessing.

What has made our nation the greatest the world has seen is that we acknowledge that Truth that we are equal before God and can be the best at the calling God has placed in our hearts. Our outcomes will never be equal. They will be as different as our fingerprints.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Those that look for the equality of outcome prefer cold, timid souls. God wants those who dare greatly for Him. Our Founders dared greatly. For over 200 years of our nations history we dared greatly. Will we continue to dare greatly or will we be the cold, timid souls?

A Civics Lesson: Part I

2007-06-28T14:02:00.000-04:00

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.

These words penned by Thomas Jefferson and edited by the greatest of American founding history are immortal to our nation and set the foundation of basic Judeo-Christian governance. As it is July I thought I would expound on these words and give 21st Century relivance to them.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident..." In a day and age where 'truth' is relative to the beholder of what is seen or experienced self-evident Truth is harder to come by. With the rise of the religion secular humanism Einstein's theory of Relativity is liberally applied to the abstractness of thought instead of the reality of space and time. The Apostle Paul told the Christians in Rome that, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NIV). Jesus told his followers, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." He never illuded to another truth other than God.

The Truths spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are from God, so they are self-evident. They come from the wisdom of the Creator and not from the finite mind of men.

Comprehensive Lunacy

2007-06-15T13:29:00.000-04:00

As I listen to the news and talk radio on the comprehensive immigration fiasco I am incensed by the Republican Party's posture towards me and the rest of us in the party's base.

We are called the same names by our own party leadership that our political foes use, because of our oppostion to a sneaky, dead-of-night, compromise bill. The portions of the media which gets the Republican message out is derided by Republican leadership as an obstacle to passing a bill that the American people do NOT want.

'08 Elections are around the corner. Money and volunteers will not be forth coming unless the Republican Party gets back to its small governement-low tax-secure the nation roots.

Makes me wonder why I vote at all.

If Hatred Is a Sin...

2007-05-18T07:51:00.000-04:00

...Why Do Liberals Hate So Much?

For all of Jerry Falwell's faults he was a good and decent man. While he did things that made Christians look self righteous instead of righteous by the blood of Christ he did stand for the Gospel and had the hope that his words would bring people to repent and into the family of God through His only Son, Jesus.

The venom from Falwell's political enemies is astoundingly hypocritical. Falwell's enemies crucified him for his 'hatred' and intolerance while they preached that the world needed to be as love-filled and tolerant as they are. Jesus, when he walked the earth, drew the least, last, and lost to Him because of His perfect love. His 'tolerance' and love allowed him to love them as they were and that same love transformed those sinners into saints that God redeemed.

That was Jerry's flaw. He, in his fallen condition, through the Holy Spirit, tried to transform people from sinners to saints. Unfortunately, he allow his spirit and not the Holy Spirit to control his words and tone. It's a flaw that all Christian have to greater or lesser extent.

Now that he has passed on to his heavenly home, those that despised Jerry try to tear down a man that stood on the principle of the Gospel - in all of its grace and justice. But, Jesus said that the world would hate us, because the world hated Him first. It's what happens when people are trying to make their heaven here on earth. Beware, God in His grace will give you heaven on earth, and in His justice He will give you hell for eternity.

Reclaiming Partriotism

2007-05-15T08:35:00.000-04:00

John "I need a $400 haircut to cover my bald spot" Edwards wants reclaim patriotism by protesting against the war in Iraq at Memorial Day celebrations. The "peace is patriotic" crowd adheres to the John Lennon school of Foreign Policy. Our Democrat countrymen believe they are patriotic. Well, let's look at their actions.

Capitulation and appeasement to one's enemies is unpatriotic.
Cutting off funding and resources to our military as they fight a war is unpatriotic.
Suggesting that our country has lost a war is unpatriotic.
Suggesting that our country is losing a war with no hope of winning is unpatriotic.
Subverting our president's foreign policies by talking to our enemies is unpatriotic.
Peace at any non-violent cost is unpatriotic.
Hoping your country looses a war or goes into economic chaos to gain political power is unpatriotic.
Using national holidays that should bind us together as a people for political gain is unpatriotic.

The current crop of Democrats running for president and their supports are socialist and anti-American, viewing America only through her faults and never through her goodness and strengths. While we should always acknowledge our shortcomings and failures, we should never dwell on them. That would only drain our confidence and embitter us toward each other and the world.

With Rights Comes Responsibilities

2007-02-13T09:01:00.000-05:00

With the maelstrom over the bloggers hired by the Edwards '08 campaign a few things should be clarified over the First Amendment's Right of Free Speech.

You may have the right to say it, but you don't have the right to be heard. You can say all that you want, but nobody has to listen to you. In fact, if you look at Air America as an example, when one is shrill and obnoxiously offensive to others beliefs, nobody will listen to you.
When you do say something and it's heard, be prepared for consequences - good or bad. Too many people only want the good consequences for their actions, none of the bad. The young 'ladies' that blogged for Edwards (even in their free time) should have understood that there would have been a backlash for their ugly diatribe. One can civilly disagree with another's opinion. If they did that, there would have been no call for their resignation by their opponents. It was the ugly language they used that got them in trouble.
Tolerance is a two-way street. The young 'ladies' expected conservative Catholics (and Christians as a whole) to put up and shut up about their views on Catholicism and Christianity. When people spoke up for themselves and ask that the Edward's campaign to fire these 'ladies', charges of censorship rang out loud and clear. Meanwhile these 'ladies' and others of their ilk do what they can to squash those that dissent from their point of view.

Most of Americans do want a more civil tone in the political arena, but with people like Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan it is difficult. These 'ladies' and their allies don't care for tolerance or civility. They attack movements they don't like in vial and violent term and drag the people that lead those movements through the mud. They use the tyranny of Political Correctness to badger opponents and stifle debate. The tolerance they demand for their point of view is never extended to those that disagree with them.

Voltaire, for all his detractors, at least gave people a fair chance in the arena of ideas (a chance that these people do not wish to give their opponents). Those that need to debase the debate with personal attacks and vulgar demeaning of another's beliefs should expect to be impugned, ridiculed, and ostracized.

U.S. International Street Cred

2007-01-23T07:05:00.000-05:00

There is always a grain of truth that the pearl of humor is based upon. The humor is this cartoon is not based on President Bush's inability to use or mold U.S. credibility. The truth of the matter is that we as a nation are unwilling to use a real gun.

The liberals based in the Democratic Party have done all they can to strip the United States of any credibility by tying our national security interests to the United Nations, which has absolutely no interest in the security of any nation, let alone America (the U.N.'s greatest rival). I wrote earlier on the differing foreign policy philosophies. The mere talk that most of Europe and the Democratics in the U.S. want plays into the hands of our common Islamofacist enemy. It is well known that our enemy will use negotiations and peace treaties as a delay tactic in order to undermine us until they are in a stronger position to achieve their aims, which is the conversion of all people to their religion under their control.

Why does the United States lack credibility? Because, we value the lives of our enemy more than they values their lives. We think this is a strength. Our enemy view it as a weakness. If they don't value their lives, why should they value ours? They go into malls and restaurants to blow themselves with innocent people. They hijack planes and slam them into buildings as people are going to work. They cow people into submission through terror and tyranny.

How can the U.S. regain its credibility? By taking a real gun into the street for the showdown, and be willing to use it! Talking to a bully never stops him from bullying. Talking to the evil gunslinger never stops him from robbing banks and killing innocent people. Talking to a dictator never stops him from terrorizing his people, his neighbors, or the international community. Standing up to the bully, the gunslinger, the dictator and willing to use the violence that they use to empower themselves is the only way to overcome them and gain the credibility true leaders need to lead.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke (Why are we as a nation doing nothing?)

Friends...

2007-01-08T09:33:00.000-05:00

...the family you chose.

This weekend I had a party with friends. It was our "Three King's Day" celebration in commemoration of the three wise men that came to worship Baby Jesus. We started to do this to have a Christmas celebration with our small group of friends, so we could exchange gifts and enjoy the company of one another.

It really has hit me that how God works to bring people in our lives. Our blood relatives (or adoptive family) is the family God chooses for us. For the most part we have no choice in who are our parents or siblings. We are stuck living with these people around two decades. We end up knowing all their faults and foibles during this time and see few of their goodnesses and strengths. It's only when time and distance passes between us, do we begin to see God's wisdom in picking our family by blood (or adoption).

Thankfully for us God does give us a freewill choice in picking a family of friends. The problem with this freedom is the curse that is attached if we choose poorly.

I have been blessed through each major chapter in my life to have friends that have complemented me. Friends of love that have been compassionately honest with me. Friends that I have had the pleasure of helping in their times of trouble and been on the receiving end of help when I needed it.

I thank you, Lord Jesus, for the family you chose for me and the family of friends you have allowed me to choose. Give me the wisdom to always choose my family of friends that will complement me and glorify you. In your name-Amen.

Why the GOP Lost...

2006-11-08T11:43:00.000-05:00

...and how can they regain power.

Here is my blue-collar, average, conservative, Christian man's view of why the Republicans had their backsides handed to them.

1. The Dems nationalized the election behind and hate Bush/need-a-change theme. The Dems used the ever bad news out of Iraq and conservative disappointment/apathy over spending and corruption to fire up their base and sway enough of the typical ADHD electorate. The Dems put forth the idea a change was needed, and Americans believed them. Unfortunately, any semblance of a plan of governing ideas are microscopic.

2. The GOTV campaign of Rove came up short. The Republican base had every reason to vote agaisnt Democrats, but no reason to vote for Republicans. There was not enthusiam in the GOP base to get out and their support candidates. Republicans wanted power but gave no real reason as to why they should have it. They failed on illegal immigration, Social Security reform, tax reform, and doing the moral, legal, & ethically right thing when the Abramoff/Foley scandals came to light. Also, when the Republican leadership stood behind the corrupt William Jefferson (D-LA), it showed the base how out of touch the legislative leadership was with them. Why get out and vote when there is nothing to vote for?

How can they regain power?

It's back to the 1994 election, Contract with America II. All these points must be brought to an up-or-down vote of the floor of both houses.

1. Tax Reform
The current tax system is antiquated and broken. A new system is needed. Either the Fair Tax as brought forth by Neil Boortz or the Flat Tax as expoused by Steve Forbes and Dick Armey. There should be no reform of the old system, but a complete replacing of it (a repeal of the 16th Amendment is needed).

2. Immigration Reform
Each of these points must be brought up in individual bills to be debated on its individual merits.
A. Make American Standard English the Offical Language of the United States.
B. Redefine who is and can become a citizen (no anchor babies). Specifically spell out the rights and privilages of citizenship and legal residency (i.e. citizens receive the rights as specified in the Bill of Rights, residents, do not).
C. Give the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Agency the money and personnel to enforce the employment portion of current law.
D. Build a physical and virtual fence on the border.
E. End entitlements and education for illegal immigrants.
F. Allow all law enforcement officials at the local, state, and federal levels to enforce immigration law
G. Cut off all federal funding to any state that in part or as a whole will not enforce immigration law.
H. Set up a guest worker program.
I. Amnesty.

3. Social Security Reform
Set up individual retirement accounts with a percentage of the payroll tax put in by the individual.

4. Cut Spending/Government Reform
A. All Departments, except State, Defense, and Homeland Security, must undergo a full independent audit.
B. All earmarks must have a named sponsor.
C. All Amendments of reconciled bills coming out of the conference committee must have a sponsor and it must be voted on separately when brought to the floor of each house.
D. Scrap the Education Department, CPB, NEA, NEH, and privatize the USPS.

5. National Defense
Each branch of the military's fight ability will be increased by 25%.

6. Tort Reform
A. Limit lawyer fees to 15% of settlement/verdict.
B. End class action suits in federal court.

7. Judical Nominees/Cabinet appointees
All nomimees will receive an up or down vote in the Senate.

8. Campaign Finance Reform
Anybody can give any amount to any candidate or any organization. It would be the responsiblity of the candidate/organization to disclose within 48 hours who gave what amount. If this law is broken and fraud is committed, the candidate will go to prison for a minimum of 5 years in "real" prison.

The GOP in NC

The GOP in NC is utterly leaderless and inept. The Dems are corrupt and slowly strangulating economic growth in North Carolina and gave the state to the Republicans on a silver platter. Absolutely no one is willing to take it and do what is nessecary for the party and state. A Contract with NC is needed with the following points:

1. End forced annexation
2. Reform Education
3. Reform the tax code (a flat or fair tax).

The K.I.S.S. method right now is best. I just hope someone has the courage and is willing to lead, instead of saying that we want to run things as they are too.

GUILTY

2006-11-06T12:45:00.000-05:00

It is good to see Saddam get what he deserves. Although the Mussolini treatment would have been better for him, Iraq, the USA, and the world.

What is "the Mussolini treatment"?

As he tried to escape to Switerland Il Duce was caught by pro-Allies partisans. He and his mistress were caught, shot, and hung by his feet on a streetlight pole. Those that held the future of Italy showed there would be an immediate end to the brutal past of Italy.

Imagine if somehow Saddam would have come up in Iraqi Kurdistan or in Shiite territory. The trial would have been quick and painless for Hussein, Iraq, and the world.

NC Education

2006-11-02T12:42:00.000-05:00

There is a joke floating around NC the asks, "What does a high school graduate from Mississippi do for work? He comes to North Carolina to be a teacher." The current state of education in the Old North State is abysmal. In Wake County the school board has mismanaged the tax dollars they were entrusted. The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is only accountable to itself. And the teachers' union is more interested in politics & power instead of education & children.

The billion dollar bond that Wake County citizens are voting on is the first of three (possibly four) LARGE bonds that the school board is trying to con the people into approving. If the school board were better stewards, they could have had the money they "need". After the transportation scandal they have the hubris gall to ask the taxpayers for more.

DPI should be audited and have the whole of their operations exposed to the light of public scrutiny. The end of grade test should be placed on the internet for parents and taxpayers to see. The methods of accountiblity should be analyzed by outside organizations to see if it is an adequate system to prove whether or not children have earned to be moved on to the next grade.

The teachers' union does nothing for education in North Carolina (or the USA for that matter). Paycheck protection should be implemented. Each teacher should be responsible for developing the course of study for the class they teach and will be retained or let go on the basis of how well children do on national standardized tests (not DPI's farce). Knowledge retained needs to be the driving standard of education not self-esteem.

In the end parents should be given the choice on where to send their children to school. Money should follow the individual child not the system, otherwise the system has no insentive to reform.

When Losing Is A Good Thing.

2006-10-24T11:49:00.000-04:00

Like many of my Republican, conservative Christian, politicos I am frustrated at the morphing of many in the party to Dem-lite (same spending, half the demagoguery). The main similarity of both political parties in America is that they want power for power's sake. Those individuals seeking power want it to aggrandize themselves with the trappings of power, but do not want to lead - lest it jeapordizes the perks and privileges they covet.

The current leadership in the GOP (elected and appointed) have given me every reason to vote against the Democrats, but no reason to vote for Republicans. In 1994 we had every reason to vote against the Dems; but moreover, we had great reasons to vote for Republicans. In 1994 the GOP had the ideas, ten point to bring up, debate, and vote on. All of us, liberal, moderate, and consevative knew where definitively the GOP stood and had a clear vision of where the party was leading. It is what brought them to power.

Now, in 2006 there is no clear vision. Where will the GOP definitively lead the country? On the issues of taxes, spending, foreigh policy, immigration, welfare, Social Security, etc, what specific ideas will Republicans bring to the floor of the House and Senate to debate and vote on? I have not heard any.

If the GOP loses, it will be because of this lack of vision and willingness to lead. For the Republicans this can be a good thing. Unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican Party will soul search and ask tough questions of itself. The greatest thing of the American Republic is the soul-searching effort that goes on from the individual to communities and societies to the organizations of government themselves.

Two years removed from legislative power should wake up the GOP leadership. They should realize that with power come responsiblity. Power should never be sought without a clear vision as to why you want it, and that vision should be plainly articulated, honestly and passionately.

The New Copperheads

2006-07-25T08:33:00.000-04:00

The more things change the more they stay the same. The left-wing blogosphere and other radicals of the Democratic Party are nothing more than the old Copperheads of the American Civil War rearing their heads to strike and poison the American body politic, which would weaken it so badly that we could not fight the enemy that wishes to covert us to their tyrannical ideology or kill us.

The Copperheads of the Civil War were anti-war Democrats of the old Jacksonian order. They claimed to love liberty and defend the Constitution while the press was allowed to abuse their rights and to abdicate their responsibilities in doing so. They were racists that did not care to see black slaves freed. They thought of Lincoln as a tyrannt and a warmonger in the back pocket of the abolitionist. They idealized the old order, believing that a utopia of peace and tranquility was but around the corner, if things would just be allowed to continue as they were, under their control.

The Copperheads of the 21st Century are anti-war Democrats of the old Rooseveltian order. They claim to love liberty and defend the Constitution while allowing the ACLU and NY Times to abuse their rights and to abdicate their resposibilities in doing so. They are racists that do not care to see Arabs set free from the slavery of Islam. They think of Dubya as a tyrannt and a warmonger in the back pockets of the Jewish neocons. They idealize the old order, believeing that a utopia of peace and tranquility is just around the corner, if things would be allowed to continue as they were, under their control.

If we can weather this storm, the 21st Century Copperheads will be just like the Civil War Copperheads. On the ashheap of history. But, as in 1862 & 1864, the election of 2006 & 2008 will be the most defining in American History. Will we continue to be that shining city on a hill? Will we be that government of, by, and for the people? Or will we be subjected by a religion that allows men to rob us of the freewill that God has graciously imbued us with?

Lennon vs Cowboy Foreign Policy

2006-07-21T10:31:00.000-04:00

It seems the underlying philosophy of the Democratic (liberal) foreign policy is the John Lennon song "Give peace a Chance". It's as if they want peace at any cost, to include the loss of life and liberty ("Better Red than Dead"). Neville Chamberlain wanted peace in his time. Unfortunately, it was not peace on his terms.

The Republican (conservative) foreign policy philosophy is that of the mythical American cowboy, the marshal of the old west. A man of honor and integrity who is willing to give and take. A man whose word is his bond. A man who is always willing to use diplomacy, even diplomacy by violence. Peace is bought with a price and is on his terms, not his enemies.

Peace for peace's sake is no peace at all. The people that are given over to the evil nature of humanity will use peace to build up and wage war against those they consider weaker than them. They will use promises of peace to gain an advantage over their foes. Peace is that last thing they want as long as their enemy has hope and a spirit of freedom that these evil men want to crush so that they can enslave these masses to their will. Then the peace of slavery is all people will ever know.

Peace for liberty's sake is a true peace. A peace that brings joy. A peace that is on win-win terms that everyone can enjoy. This peace does not come cheap and most be guarded jealously from evil people who want power for the sake of power. They want a utopia for themselves at the expense of anyone that does not share in their utopian view.

In the fight we are engaged in against Islam is one where we must choose to have liberty's peace or slavery's peace. Apologist of Islam say that it is a religion of peace. This is false. It is a religion of pacification. The leaders of this religion want to have infidels as second class citizens, women as property, and new converts as cannon fodder to build themselves a heaven on earth where all their wants and desires are fulfilled. They care about nothing but their own appetites. For any individual to have peace on Islam's terms must convert, become apart of the Dhimmitude (second-class) within Islamic society under sharia law, or die. If we have our motto "All we are saying, is give peace a chance", then we only have these three decisions.

If we want liberty's peace, we had better be willing to water the tree of liberty with the blood of our enemies. Unfortunately, the blood of patroits will also nurish that tree. It's needed, lest we esteem liberty to cheaply or treat our enemies with contempt.

Peace with Islam must be on our terms, our terms only. These terms are more than generous. They are far better than what we would get from them. However, they need to not merely taste defeat, but have a steady and consistant diet of it until our terms are more palettable than a life with death and hell ever looking over their shoulder.

Sports Socialism?

2006-07-10T14:45:00.000-04:00

Art Modell owner of the NFL's B-more Ravens said that NFL owners "(are) 26 Republicans who vote Socialist!" The CBA agreements and profit sharing of TV and merchandising revenue is a bit socialistic in a way. But if one looks at it, you must realize that all pro-sport teams are not just competing against other teams in their own leagues for money. They're competeing against all various entertainment outlets for despendable dollars in the consumers' hands.

Communism as a national economic system does not work, but when done on a voluntary basis with known contractual expectations that apply to all as a part of a greater capitalist economy, it can be profitable and stable for all concerned.

CBAs of the NBA, NFL, and now NHL have salary caps place on teams. Each have their loopholes (some large, others very small and tight), but these caps have brought a parity of play within these leagues, which makes the entertainment value on the surfaces of play worth watching and following season after season. While MLB's 'luxury tax' make an attempt at implementing a salary cap it falls short, because large market teams can still lure stars and future stars from smaller markets. They pay the 'tax' and the dominance of the large markets continues.

The profit sharing of TV revenue and team merchandise is another leveler of the financal field within sports leagues. It's how the Green Bay Packers can survive in a town of 100,000 against teams in markets like Chicago, New York, and the Bay area of California. Why do the Yankees dominate baseball? They have lucrative TV contracts and keep much of the revenue from their merchandise. They have the money to attract talent to dominate on the field.

Most people of a capitalist mindset would ask, "What's wrong with that?" The problem is that in competive sports leagues you need other teams to compete against. If smaller market teams start go bankrupt and fold entirely, people in those markets are less likely to follow that sport and the league as a whole suffers. Hockey and baseball nearly saw the folding of franchises, because these leagues are ran on a feudal system of goverance. Each team is a vassel state with its own territory. Some of these states dominate the other, because of better access to resources and dominate the king and kingdom. The weaker states cannot strengthen themselves and the king (the commissioner and/or the league governing body) will not intervene (they like the status quo) or cannot intervene (the domineering teams are in control). It leaves the whole of the league in a weakened condition, because they compete against each other instead of other leagues for the sports-entertainment dollar.

Football has strong teams in a broad range of markets, because they run the league on a federal system. While each state is sovereign unto itself, each state voluntarily gives up a portion of their power and rights to ensure the strength and vitality of the whole. This is why football has skyrocketed in popularity since the sharing of TV revenue and the salary cap. The season is never a fore-gone conclusion. Teams that look good on paper have collapsed and the underdogs have gone on to the Super Bowl.

Hockey has started to come on board with the NFL model. If they can get a good, national (American) TV contract and can start producing ratings, they will find greater financal success.

Sports leagues and their teams will thrive if they realize they are competing against all forms of entertainment and not merely against each other.

Q: "DO YOU HAVE WORLD CUP FEVER?"

2006-06-27T10:21:00.000-04:00

A: "No, but I had gonorrhea once."

That has been the response from most Americans when it comes to the FIFA World Cup tournement. There has been many thoughts in the land of punditry as to why the USA is lukewarm on soccer's Super Bowl and on soccer in general. Here is my two-cents.

1- It is a low scoring, very defensive, game. Let's face it, a soccer match looks like an epileptic track meet with no finish line. You'd figure that with a goal that big more goals would be scored, but with the offside rule of soccer (where the offensive player cannot pass the defensive player until the ball is between the goal and the defense) it is next to impossible for any scoring to be generated. Hockey solved that problem by elminating their two-line pass rule to allow the puck to get out of the defensive zone quickly, making more scoring oppurtunities. Soccer needs to do something similar to bring about more goals.

2- Everytime there is minimal contact between players, someone is displaying skills they learned from the William Shatner school of over-acting. Now, I have seen players get injured badly in soccer matches, but most players put on a show to draw a foul. Which brings up...

3- Fouls don't mean squat. Fouls (unless overly bad) only mean a change in possesion. The only time it gets interesting is when the foul occurs near enough to a goal so that maybe - if the stars and planets align just right - a goal might be scored. In basketball a foul means a chance at a couple more buckets. In football it means a loss of yardage. In hockey is means you'll be down a man for two minutes. In baseball it means a fan get a souvenir or a player gets ejected. In soccer...eh...who cares?

4- There is no means for advertisers to exploit consumers through entertaining vehicles known as commericals. Because each half in soccer goes non-stop for forty-five minutes there is no room for commericals. The popularity of soccer in other countries could be attested to the fact that 99.99% of these countries have state-run media outlets, and these outlets don't have to turn a profit. All major American pro-sports have a way to interject commericals so broadcasters can make money. Plus, if you go to commerical, you might miss that ever important GGGOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL! GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLL! In NASCAR if you miss the crash, don't worry. A better one is on the way. Sure you got instant replay, but you can catch the soccer goal on the hightlight reel on ESPN at 7pm Eastern (6pm Central), and get to see the latest, greatest commerical with the hot babe or funny talking animals in it.

And finally, 5- It's more fun to play than watch. I played soccer in school and in the military. It is a demanding sports that requires speed, endurance, and dexterity. It's a good workout. It's why parents get their kids involved, especially the hyperactive one. They get to run around for an hour and a half, which calms them down for twenty minutes (enough for the ride home). To watch soccer on TV, it's like watching a geriatric tennis match in slow motion. The ball goes back and forth, back and forth across the screen without a stop, unless God performs a mircale and the ball finds its way by accident into the net.

Will soccer every become popular in the USA? Only if we continue to refuse to guard the borders.

Freedoms are not Free

2006-03-13T10:22:00.000-05:00

Too many people believe that the exercise of rights in conjunction with freewill should have only positive consequences. Several law schools tried to bar military recruiters from their campuses on the grounds of freedom of association and speech. The US Supreme Court did uphold the right of the schools, but also upheld the right of the government to attach strings to the tax sponsered grants that these schools covet. A high school teacher thought he had carte blanche to speak on any and every subject, but the one he was to be teaching. He has found out that while his job may be secure (for the moment) there is bad personal PR to abusing ones position of authority. In other words standing on principle has its consequences, some good and some bad.

Too many people (especially on the left of political center) take liberties with their God-given liberty. They forget that objective morality must be tempered with freedom for liberty to thrive in the fertile soil of human freewill. Too many wish to push the boundaries of divine grace in the exercise of their freewill, ignorant (at best) or willfully prideful (at worst) that there are detriments to their actions.

It is those folks that bring lawsuits because they don't like the way people think, or people who use their position of authority to coerce others to act and think as they demand, that pose the greatest threats to the rights and liberties they claim to cherish.

They tip the scales of liberty towards freedom and allow anarchy to foment. Once the chaos of too much freedom is at its pitch, they bring about their own standards of morality, which robs others (except themselves) of freewill. They claim that others wish to subjugate them to tryanny, when in reality, in there good intentions, they become the tyrants.

When will this end? When God's Kingdom comes.

EGO = Escort God Out

2006-02-09T09:27:00.000-05:00

The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) has come out with a report that says as Christians we need to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions to prevent global warming. If one goes to the Nation Review Online and reads the Iain Murray article (2/9/2006), one can read on the following of false teachings and see the holes in the 'evidence' that the ECI uses. I wish to deal with the self-righteous egotism that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have displayed.

If the ECI were to have attacked the problem of energy use and helping the environment from a stewardship point of view only, I would have totally agreed with that assessment and would endorsed their cause 100%. But, the folks at the ECI have bought into their arguement the doctrine of those who worship the false goddess of Mother Gaia that we, the created, can destroy the creation of the Creator. We can no more destroy this world than we can to create another planet from scratch.

It is amazing how this planet, even in its fallen, cursed, corrupt condition, can repair and/or overcome the damages caused by natural and man-made disasters. It is an awesome display of God's grace, mercy, and love. It shows the commitment God has for the jewel of His creation, Humanity. The arrogance as shown by the enviro-nazis is typical of people without the knowledge of the grace of God. It grieves me (and God) to see those who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior pick up the same pride as the God-less.

Now, do we have the right to do with the planet as we like? No. While we are to subdue the creation (Genesis 1:28), we are to be a good steward of that which we are given. We should take measures in curbing our energy use and use all resources wisely. It should not be out of fear we will destroy the earth for future generations, but out of gratitude and love to God for providing so well for us. We should also have faith that God will provide for the next generations. The fearmongering that the enviro-nazis engage with the public is based on their self-righteous convictions that they know better than anyone else. For any Christian group or individual to engage in the same tactics is the pinnicale of ego. It leads to hypocrisy, which alienates lost souls from searching for God.

We have questioned the validity of evolution for decades. The same people that have worshipped at the altar of Dawrinism have told us the world is doomed to be flooded by the melting ice caps unless we change our ways. If we believe that God created all we see, smell, hear, touch, and taste in a week, then why are some Christians balking at God's promise not to destroy the world by water? Oh, ye of little faith!

The American Auto Industry

2005-10-25T07:50:00.000-04:00

*A small cadre of friends had a spirited discussion about American vs Foreign cars. This is my response to an email about the poor state of the American car industry.*

The American auto industry finds itself in [their current] pickle because piss poor leadership (Labor as well as Maker) made piss poor decisions via piss poor management that brought about many piss poor products with a piss poor attitude that was conducive to piss poor customer service which proves that Marine Corps proverb piss poor planning leads to piss poor performance.

Considering that Union Leadership and American Auto Manufacturer Management could not bring about the combined brain power to figure out how to pour piss out of a boot with the instruction wrote on the heel, they piss into the wind and blame the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, consumers, the American government, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, NTSB, CAFÉ, and each other for pissing in their beds when they became drunk on their post-WWII success and lost bladder control after they passed-out sometime around 1971.

Now they vacillate between a drunken stupor and wicked hangover with complete loss of bodily functions. They're drunk, abusive, and smell of piss, crap, and vomit; then have the gall to wonder why their wife (the American consumer) left them for another man.

A summit is not needed, but a 12-step program that requires the Unions and the Auto Makers to take a good look in the mirror and take responsibility for their own piss poor predicament.

Why Did I Vote Republican?

2005-10-04T11:18:00.000-04:00

The nomination of Ms. Miers is one hellvua disappointment to me. While the President has courage on foreign policy, he utterly lacks any courage in domestic policy. The Main Stream Media (MSM) will vilify anyone that does not toe the Democratic-Liberal-Socialist line.

The "Can't-We-Just-All-Get-Along" tactic that the President and the some of the Republican leadership in Congress have tried will NEVER work. We must meet our political enemies on the battlefield of ideas and slaughter them. A Janice Rodgers Brown nomination would have brought the fight to the front and showed the nation (particualrly the squishy moderates) the Democrats do not want an honest debate on abortion, gay-rights, property rights, etc. The Dems merely want to dictate by judical decree their policies and become entrenched in power to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor (by enslaving them to the welfare state) and the middle class to moderately rich (by taxing away what they have earn through hard work).

"Trust Me" don't cut it with judical nominees. It's only after President Bush is long gone from the Oval Office will we find out if what was behind Door #2 was the grand prize or a zonk.

Why should I give money and time, let alone go to the polls, for the Repubs if they are always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Whose Sin Causes Disasters?

2005-09-22T09:24:00.000-04:00

Controversy brews over why would God send such devistation on the coasts on Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Some of our strict, conservative brothers and sisters in Christ are telling the world that the sins of alcohol, gambling, and sexual immorality cause Katerina to destroy one of America's oldest major cities and the area around it. While sin brought the destruction and lost of life, it was not merely the sins of the locals that wrought disaster.

In the Gospel of John Jesus and the disciples came upon a man blind since birth. The disciples asked Jesus who sinned the man or his parents. They automatically assumed that because of his condition that is was a punishment from God for sin. Jesus told them that his condition was not brought about by anyone's specific sin, but by sin in general, and he was there with that condition in order to bring God glory.

Katerina happened to show God's glory. How many were miraclously spared? How many have finally met and became acquainted with their neighbors? How many of us, thankful for God's grace in sparing us from the storm, have shown compassion for these people, either directly, through going to the area to help or indirectly, through the donations to various organizations that are bringing aid to these people? How many people discovered the love of God through the kindness of a stranger? When we help these people, Jesus said we did it to him.

It is sin that brings about the bad things of this world. And those who claim that the sins of the people on the Gulf Coast caused their calamity, beware. It is by the grace of God you have been spared, and before you throw stones at other sinners, you need to look in the mirror and point an accusing finger at yourself.

(See the post "Those Who Condemn")

Useful Idiots

2005-08-19T09:54:00.000-04:00

US Rep Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC) and US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) are playing into the hands of our enemies by advocating a time-table for a pullout of Iraq. These men have become useful idiots for the Islamofascist that wish to destroy the fabric of our national identity.

These evil people use the tools and technology that our liberty and work provide the world. They come into our nation and use our freedoms and the liberals' PC/multicultural mindset to murder 3000 people on an typically beautiful late-Summer day. They hope and pray to do the same or grander acts of butchery and announce to the world they will in order to devistate the society that gives them the trappings of luxury they are envious to possess.

We take the fight to the heart of the Islamofacsist backyard, where they die by the bushels by running into the teeth of the best military that the world has seen since the Roman Republic's Legionnaires. We, through these men and women, are giving hope to the hopeless as our parents and grandparents gave hope to a world in the grips of German and Japanese totalitarian terror, as many of us gave Eastern Europe in the grips of Communist dictatorship.

Now, these 'leaders' want us to abandon the Iraqis the same way we abandoned the Vietnamese. Was Osama bin Laden right? Will we cut and run, because we have become soft and squemish when it comes to a fight for our survival.

The price of life and a life of liberty is not paid for in dollars and sense. It's paid for in blood, the blood of youth and promise. The people of youth and promise in this era voluntarily sacrific themselves for the promise of a tomorrow of life and liberty.

If we put a timeline of a pullout in place, our enemies will rightfully see this as weakness. And the blood that has been shed already will have been in vain. This should be the lessons of Vietnam.

Can we do things better? Absolutely! We know that the majority 'insurgents' are not Iraqis but foreign fighter funnelling in from Iran and Syria. We must despose of these evil regimes if we are to succeed in Iraq and the rest of the world in our fight against the Islamic fanatics that believe the murder of the innocent will bring them into paradise.

The oceans no longer protect us. If we are not the aggressors in the global conflict, we will see attacks within our borders that will make 9/11 and Pearl Harbor look a game of cricket. Rep. Jones and Sen. Feinglod and their ilk must be stopped or we will find ourselves with a choice: convert to Islam, be a second-class citizen with no rights, or death. Which would you prefer?

When Are We Going to Do as We Say?

2005-07-27T11:26:00.000-04:00

As Iran makes nukes and Syria fuels the enemies of Iraq and the freedom coalition we find ourselves speaking the words of the Bush Doctrine and anemically enforcing it. When will we finally take on the terror masters?

IRS agents have been investigating Syria's role in food-for-oil. Syria illegally bought Iraqi oil (above and beyond the quota) with hard currency and military equipment. Now they think this money is funding the 'insurgency' and other terrorist acts. Iran is close to having nukes. Meanwhile, the mullahs ruthlessly suppress demonstrations against them. If these reasons are not enough to take on these tyrants that vow the destruction of us and our allies, I don't know what is. I remember being in boot camp in 1987, and our Series Commander told us that Iran had declared war on the United States. If this is true, we have our internationally legal recourse to take on the terror masters.

All we need to do to take on Iran is arm and train the folks that are already rising up against the Islamo-facists. We can give these true freedom fighters air cover and let them bleed for their own freedom. Iranians are yearning to be free. Their actions prove they want it. Let's help them achieve it.

With Syria it is more difficult. As with Iraq the oppression in Syria has been so long and thorough we'll have to go in hard and heavy. But with the Marines coming off the Mediterranean in the West and 4th ID coming over the desert from the East, the tyrants of Damascus would have no place to hide (I'm sure Turkey and Jordan would not like to take in the vagabonds of an old regime).

It's time to stop fiddling around and show they we are serious about those who hide terrorists.

Are Unions Needed?

2005-07-25T14:07:00.000-04:00

There seems to be a serpent in the American Workers' Paradise of the AFL-CIO. Seven unions are boycotting the AFL-CIO convention; because they are upset at the direction the parent federation is taking organized labor. Instead of entrenching themselves deeper into Democratic Party politics they want to spend more time in trying to organize workers, particularly the private sector, where unionization has dropped from a third to less than 8% of the total labor force.

The industries that are in trouble are the one that are heavily unionized. With unionization comes stagnation. Like the Communist of old, Unions want to make sure each plant uses as much labor as possible; more labor, more members, more dues, more money and power for the union bosses. Some of the greatest hindrances to modernization for the manufacturing plants have been unions. If plants modernize, there will be fewer workers in the plant. With few workers the union bosses cannot extort dues from the largest amount of workers possible. Unions stop these efforts thinking that they will save as many jobs as possible. Instead, the whole plant shuts down and is moved overseas where workers are paid a fraction of what the union demanded from the company.

Who gets the blame? The greedy company. Who should at the very lest share the blame? The greedy unions. How much do Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Hansen, & Mr. Stern et al. make in salary. I would bet a dollar to a donut that it is more than the typical union member makes. What kind of non-declared perks do they get as they wine and dine the politicians in Washington and various state capitals? Well, I don't see any of these people living a lifestyle in the abject poverty they claim American workers are living in.

The bulk of unionized jobs are found in the public-sector (the government). It is the last place where Marxist-collective mindset still has hold and will not come to the realization that the ideas of Marx and Lenin are as dead as they are. As individuals in the private-sector labor force realize they have more leverage by their individual training and initiative to better compensation. As time moves on labor unions will find themselves with less and less power as the 21st century gains steam.

Iraq:Vietnam or Iraq:?

2005-01-26T09:19:00.000-05:00

There have been many comparisons to the Iraqi War and Vietnam. We are fighting a guerilla war with the endless stream of bad news coming in from the front onto our televisions and web-browsers. As I read Mackubin Owens article in the National Review Online I was struck by the similarities of one of mankind's early modern wars, the Second Boer War (1899-1902).

The war was precipitated by the discovery of gold in the Boer republic of Transvaal. British colonist began to pure into Transvaal. The Boer worried that the influx of British would erode their sovereignty they defended in the First Boer War (1880-81). Heavy taxes were levied on the gold industry (and British mining companies that were mining the metal) and the uitlanders (British citizens living in the Boer republics of Transvaal and Orange-Free State) were denied voting rights. With the failed 1887 coup d'etat against the Boer government, sponsored by Cecil Rhodes, the tensions between Britain and the Boer grew. The tension snapped when the Boer republics declared war and made a preemptive strike against Cape Colony and Natal.

The first year of the war was a conventional war. The Boer militia (known as commandos) had early success and besieged several towns. Once Britain overcame the initial shock they began a counter-offensive and routed the Boers. Then came two years brutal guerilla war.

Owens postulates that guerillas can only be successful, in the long run, if they work in concert with a conventional force. He gives Napoleon's Spanish incursion of 1810. The French had to worry about Wellington and could not effectively fight the Spanish guerillas. He said the same of Vietnam. The Viet Cong worked in concert with the North Vietnamese Army.

After the collapse of conventional resistance the Boers had no regular army to occupy British commanders and the British developed tactics to fight the commandos on the veld.

The same is going on in Iraq. While Syria, Iran, and other countries maybe supporting the insurgents with money, volunteers, and arms, no nation wants to offer their military as target practice to keep the Americans busy. As it took Britain two years to quell the Boers, it will take time to defeat the terrorists in Iraq. The question is who has the greater will, the Islamo-fascists or the United State public?

Those Who Condemn

2004-12-08T14:35:00.000-05:00

Those who are in the condemnation business, whether they are on the right or the left - religious or atheist, give us a glimpse into the rot of their own soul.

If you usurp God's position and sit on His throne to dispense eternal justice without being able to see the full extent of a person's heart and the future that God has for them, chances are God is convicting you of sins that your sinful nature has a proclivity to engage in. In 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12 we see King David take part in adultery and murder. When his friend, the prophet Nathan, told the King of a rich man stealing a pet lamb of a poor man for a meal, David's conviction in his heart turned to rage and condemnation of the rich man. When Nathan told David that the king was the rich man, David saw his sin and allowed himself to be convicted of his wrong doing (read Psalm 51).

In the Gospel of John the leaders of the Jewish people tried to trap Jesus by bringing a woman caught in the act of adultery. They said the law proscribed stoning to death as her punishment. They asked Jesus for his opinion. Jesus wrote in the dirt at their feet. They kept badgering him for an answer. Jesus told them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," and continued to write on the ground. Today, no one knows what Jesus wrote at the feet of those leaders and the other people incited by them, but it was something that convicted them. My own opinion, Jesus saw that they were not judging the action of the woman, which the law allowed them to do, but they judged her soul, which only God can do.

Many of these people are wrapped up in their own self-righteous religiosity. They see someone break God's Law and tear them down to build up their ego, thinking they are more important and righteous in God's eyes. I have a bit of advice that God gave me, "Get off God's throne. He has to take a dump. Your self-righteousness is giving Him indigestion."

In the political-secular realm, our liberal countrymen judge conservatives as greedy, racist, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant, etc. Well, let's look at the way they conduct their life.

Greed: Many of President Clinton's scandal revolved around money. Whitewater, cattle futures, Castle del Grande, and Madison Guaranty were all about money and the Clinton's trying to secure their financial future, even at the expense of others. Senators Corzine, Kohl, Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry and Rockefeller are all millionaires (even multi-million and billionaires), yet they spew populist rhetoric. They want to raise taxes on the "rich" while ensuring loopholes to keep their money in their pocket. They demonized small business owners and professionals who make high five to low six figures for wanting to keep the money they have earned as greedy, when they, themselves, pay far less than the top tax rate they should be paying. One word: Selfishness.

Racism: The NAACP claims it is racist to use racial profiling while they promote the idea of guilt-ridden white people that blacks are too stupid to achieve anything in business or academia unless the government forces people to grant contracts to "minority" owned businesses or lower standards so that the eyes see a diversity of people represented, regardless if people are qualified or not. This is racism and it is more hideous than anything the KKK and Aryan Nation can come up with. At least white supremacy groups are bluntly open with their beliefs, even with asinine intellect to support flawed logic. The liberal and the white supremacist agree on one thing, blacks are stupid. What makes the liberal the more hideous racist is he acts as if he is the black person's friend, when in truth what the "black leadership" and guilt-ridden white politicians are doing is enacting the very oppression the open racists wish to implement. One word: Bigotry.

Misogyny: The greatest women-haters are the femi-nazis that are in charge of the modern feminist movement. Because they can only see the "power" men have and covet it, they do not see their inherent strength as women. When women do embrace their role in society as caretakers of the home, as wives, as mothers, femi-nazis are in a tizzy. They cannot understand how these women get any satisfaction from life without acquiring the money and power that men have. They miss the point that sometimes the greatest power one can have is to give up the money and "power" of the corporate world and nurture those whom they love to build them up so their loved ones can have the success some women waste a life time of chasing. Behind every successful man is a mother that nurtured him for a time a then let him go on his own and/or a wife that continued to build up her husband and became his partner in life, allowing herself to become the wings of his success instead of a weight that sinks him (and at the same time her). One word: Envy (penis or otherwise).

Homophobia: Liberals claim that to be "gay" is an asset that there is nothing wrong with it. They are completely tolerance and accepting of people sexually attracted to members of the same sex, unless they are in the way in gaining or retaining political power. When Governor McGreevy became a liability to New Jersey Democrats, all of a sudden his sexually became a liability to his career. As long as the homosexual lobby brings money and volunteers, gay marriage (and other "gay rights") will be held out as a carrot. If "gay-right" laws and rulings are past, they will stay on the books as long as liberals see a use for the homosexual lobby. Liberals do not care about "gay rights". If they did, Kerry-Edwards would have been endorsing "gay" marriage whole-heartedly throughout the 2004 campaign. Most conservatives do not fear (the phobia in homophobia) or hate "gay" men and women. They are willing to live and let live. What conservatives hate is being forced to accept something they believe is immoral and wrong. Most liberals believe homosexual activities are unusual, at least (why use someone's homosexuality against them if it's OK). Thing is most liberals appease their various appetites (sexual and otherwise) and are afraid of the number of skeletons that would dance out of their own closet. One word: Hedonism.

Intolerance: The ACLU has been on a rampage to make the first amendment mean freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion, particularly Christianity. It seems that if any hint of public display of Christian symbols in, on, or around government property is going to usurp people's freewill and establish Christianity as the state-ran religion. Meanwhile, in Covina, California all children in a middle school were to take part in Islam's Ramadan fast. Children cannot hand out Valentines with Bible verses on them, but condoms can be given to third graders. The basic law of God cannot be in a courthouse, but we pray to God to save the United States Supreme Court. It seems that the people who say they are tolerant and diverse are only tolerant of diversity that does not stray too far from their own utopian view. One Word: Hypocrisy.

Whether liberal or conservative, self-righteousness is the poison of a condemning heart that only God's Grace and Love can cure.

Manager or Leader

2004-12-02T08:38:00.000-05:00

There is a small cottage industry of writing books, issuing magazines, programming websites, and lecturing crowds on how to be better in their supervisory positions. All of these are nice and can help, but to get the best out of your organization it come down to the attitude of the supervisor. The attitude is, "Are people resources to be managed for benefit of the supervisor and his superiors, or are people individuals to be lead by the example of the supervisor to benefit the whole organization?"

Money, time, parts, raw material, data, etc. are resources to be managed. People are a myriad of individual of diverse hope, dreams, and goals that need to brought together for the common good of all to achieve a common purpose. Too many people in 'leadership' positions are there for the wrong reasons. They include the power and prestige of the position, the money, the spotlight, or the perks and privileges. If you are in a supervisory position with any of these reasons as the primary reason, then you need to leave. The reason you should be in any supervisory status is because you have a vision on how to operate the area you will be entrusted with that will bring a long-term, positive outcome for your immediate sphere of influence as well as for the greater organization. From shift manager at a fast-food restaurant to President of the United States any leader requires a vision on how to better operate the given area they are in charge of.

Next to the vision, respect is the key to effective leadership. There are two kinds of respect - respect for the rank and respect for the person. By tradition, law, or structure certain titles (and the people holding them) garner respect. While much can be done by people with the respect given through their position, exponentially more can be done when people have earned respect for their personnal character. The only way this can be done is to be firm, fair, and consistant.

For those who have the need to be liked by those around them have a difficult time in firmness, fairness, and consistancy (FFC). Soon or later you will have to make a decision that will displease someone. But, if the vision the popularity of the supervisor, FFC is gone and all will have contempt for the individual while trying to respect the position that they hold.

How do you like to be treated? Are you a resource to be managed or a person to be led? Are you a blob to be pushed around or a person with hopes and dream, wanting to be apart of something greater than yourself? The best leaders are first the best followers who know how they like to be treated and led to greater things.

Secession!?!

2004-11-17T07:51:00.000-05:00

There is talk about the 'blue states' seceeding from the Union. While all it will ever be is talk I have one thing to say to these nuevo Johnny Rebs, "Puhhhleeeezzze...oh please do it!" Where are the strictest gun-control laws? The blue states. Where are the fewest veterans? The blue states. Which states supply the fewest military personnel? The blue state (PA, MI, and WI would be exceptions rather than the rule).

With a vast majority of the military voting for Bush I would not have to worry about the loyalty of the active duty and active reserve military. But I don't see the state houses in Albany or Boston recalling their Senators or Congressmen. Oh but if they did....hehehehehebruhahahaha! How great would it be to run the B-52s over PETA HQ. How spectatular it would be to grease the treads of the M1A1 Abrams with the entrails of ACLU lawyers as tanks shells lay waste their offices. How fun it would be to watch the enviro-nazis be chased by Special Forces 'hounds' to the Delta Force 'hunters' in the forests of America?

But it's nothing but a pipe dream. They do not have the total quality of their convictions. Martyrdom to them is giving up their Tuesday latte at Starbucks, because they put their last $5.00 in the bucket to save the whales. Heroism is calling military people baby-killers. Sacrifice is skipping work or school to march in solidarity with the Palestinian people at the death of 'their George Washington'. No they won't die to fight evil - however they define it.

American Altruism

2004-11-16T08:00:00.000-05:00

'Breaker' Morant

The Boer War

(Above is the link to the movie 'Breaker Morant' and the book 'the Boer War' by Thomas Pakenham)

A young Marine was shown on world-wide television shooting a man during the offensive in Fallujah. The reports have the 'victim' unarmed and wounded. Reports also tell us that the enemy uses tactics that are inconsistent with the rules of civilized warfare. They fake injury or surrender to bring our fighting men in and ambush them. It is a bloody, dirty war, where the enemy can blend into the civilian populace and have no regard for the civilians they use for cover and concealment.

The war in Iraq is nothing new. Vietnam was not new. The first great modern guerilla war was the Second Boer War (1899-1902). The Dutch descended Boer initiated the war because they thought (correctly) the British were usurping their sovereignty to obtain the diamond and gold mines found in the Boer nations of Transvaal and Orange-Free State. After the British reversed early setbacks they won the conventional war. But the Boer commandos (their militia, citizen army) went into the veld on horseback and continued the war using unconventional tactics. They would take uniforms of fallen British soldiers and use them in their hit and run attacks.

Lord Kitchner, commander of British forces in South Africa, developed units and tactics that fought as the Boers fought. One of these units was the Bushveld carabineers. The movie 'Breaker Morant' is a courtroom drama based on the true story of three men from this unit. Three Australians were put on trial for killing Boer prisoners and a German missionary. Britain at the time was under media pressure, nationally and internationally, to bring the war to a conclusion. With the news of killing a missionary as well as prisoners there was a cry for justice. The German government was naturally concerned (not just for there expatriate, but the Boer were a natural ally). Now, pressure was being felt to show British Altruism, so a court-martial was convened and three men paid the price with their reputations and (for two) their lives.

Now, a young Marine maybe sacrificed on the altar of altruism to show the moral superiority of the West to our enemy. His reputation, quality of life, maybe his physical life will be hoisted on the petard of the perception of justice and television ratings. Will the court-martial that may be convened be a kangaroo court? Will this young man's love of country be his demise? Time will tell.

***I do recommend the book 'The Boer War' by Thomas Pakenham and the movie 'Breaker Morant'. The book reads like fiction with its narrative that was augmented graciously with interviews from actual veterans of the conflict. On the movie if you like 'Law & Order', you will enjoy 'Breaker Morant' Both show how we do repeat history. Not in its exact form, but some lessons seemed to always need to be re-learned.***

The Value of Morals

2004-11-12T11:01:00.000-05:00

You shall have no other gods before me
-Exodus 20:3

As the liberal-wing (the only wing) of the Democratic Party whines...er...debates about how they lost the moral values vote almost 60 million Americans understand that it is not the moral values, but the value of morals. Too many of our 'blue state' compatriots just don't understand that true liberty is fine balance between morality and freedom.

Most modern liberals want a society of no consequences for themselves. They want freedom in its purest form. "What do you mean abortion is wrong? Where do you get the right to shove your morals on me? What do you mean homosexuality is a sin? That's hate speech! What do you mean Arafat is a terrorist? He's a freedom fighter! What do you mean its a crime to vandalize to North Carolina Republican Headquarters? You're cramping free speech!" The thing is that when we, as individuals, define morality, when laws do not matter, when words can be defined and redefined in the courts, the purest form of freedom is achieved - anarchy.

Since nature and nature's law prefers order and abhors choas our modern liberal friends sense the choas that their relative moralism is causing and begin to apply their morals to the rest of society while exempting themselves. From hate speech/crimes to gun control to application of the criminal code to peaceful protestor (that protest their favorite issues) to 'gay' marriage they impose their morality on others thorugh unelected judges while they complain when conservatives impose their morality through the legislative or ballot process. They rail against tyranny, all the while attempt to entrench a tyranny that they control.

What is at the core of this topsy-turvy thought process? It can be followed to the last great spiritual awakening in the United States during the 1960s. Unlike other spiritual revivals in the U.S. this one did not have God at the center of it. The god at the center of this renewal was self. Self is supreme over all, including God. Self is god. Thus the great secular religion was born (in its American form).

Where our Founding Fathers innately knew that life, liberty, and the ownership of property were rights given by God, modern liberal philosophy is that rights are granted by the individual in some areas and by the government in the vast majority of others. You have the right to your property until a large corperation (that gives generously to liberal political causes - namely the Democratic Party) wants your property. If you are unwilling to sell it to them, they use the power of the government via imminent domain to take your property from you. You have the right to you firearms, if you are on an approved list that they can use later to take them away. You have the right to free speech, until it offends a 'minority' class that needs liberals' special protection. You can peacefully protest as long as it does not interfer with a woman's right to post-conception birth control.

The problem with modern liberals is not whether they believe in an almighty God or not. The problem is who they worship. It is generally the idol of flesh and blood they face in the mirror every morning.

The Dutch and their Muslim Neighbors

2004-11-10T09:57:00.000-05:00

The Netherlands is known for its tolerance and free expression. American Pilgrim ancestory has its roots in the Netherlands. Puritans fled England to Holland, where the Dutch were the European's crucible of free speech and expression. It was from Holland that the Mayflower set sail to North America.

Now, the Dutch are facing a crisis that threatens their freedoms. It's name is radical Islam. Its mode of corresion, terror. A Muslim and a Dutch-born Moroccan brutally murdered film producer, Theo van Gogh (a distant relation of Vincent). Van Gogh was shot while riding his bike in Amsterdam. As he lied bleeding, pleading for mercy, his assailant slit his throat - nearly decapitating him. Then a 5-page protest letter was "pinned" to his chest with a large knife plunged into his chest. The letter included a list of Dutch citizens and politicians to be murdered, as well as a promise "hair-raising screams will be squeezed from the lungs of non-believers."

Dutch multiculturalism has come home to roost. Because these Muslim immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate into the great Dutch society, there is a significant minority that has been fed intellectual garbage by their clerics. They're taught to throw homosexuals off tall buildings - head first. They're taught to spit on a mural of an angel ascending to heaven with the reminder "Thou shalt not kill." They're taught to murder a filmmaker that tells the story of a woman's conversion from Islam, because of the mistreatment she and other women are subject to in Muslim households.

Now, native Dutch are demanding action, radical action - immediately! The Moroccan vice-mayor of Amsterdam has call for people with dual citizenship to assimilate by accepting the Dutch practice of free speech or have their Dutch citizenship revoked (yes, he is Muslim and he is on the hit list). The government is looking at closing radical mosques. Terrorist financing operations are being invesigated and shut down. Money is being allocated to fund their war on terrorism.

But it looks like a crusade/jihad is in its infancy on the streets of Holland. Churches, mosques, and religious schools are being fire bombed. Muslims and native Dutch are attacking one another. If the Dutch authorities are not careful, this can spin out of control.

What about us in the United States? There are those of us that are looking are our Arab and Muslim neighbors more suspiciously. We are worried, because we do not see any Muslim-Americans that has the gravitas of the Moroccan-Dutch vice-mayor of Amsterdam. If there are any moderate Muslims, you had better find your voice, or you will be lumped in with your radical brethern.

And to those radical brethern looking to do harm to those who speak out against your poisonous ideals, I will warn you - beware! Unlike the passive Europeans, Americans do own fire arms (notably in the 'red states'). If you want to use Americans or your moderate brethern as target practice, we will shoot back.

Book Review: Carnage and Culture

2004-11-09T08:33:00.000-05:00

If anyone has a passion for history (especially military history), Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) is a must read. His book, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (©2001), is a thought provoking read, particularly in the current conflict against a non-Western power of radical Islam.

The author looks at nine battles; three from antiquity, one from the middle-ages, two from the renaissance, one from the Victorian area, and two in the twentieth-century. The Western cultures VDH discusses are Hellenic (before and during the reign of Alexander the Great), Ancient Roman, Medieval Franks, Conquistador Spanish, Renaissance Southern Europe, Victorian British, and Twentieth-Century American. The non-Western cultures include Ancient Persia, Carthage, the Moors, the Ottomans, the Zulu, Japan, and North Vietnam. Carthage is a peculiar one that surprises most people. As a Greek colony it has Western foundation. But at the time of the Punic Wars (Cannae) were they Greek with North African influence or North African with Greek influence? I'll leave that for you to decide.

The premise of this book is that because of Western notions of liberty, politics, and philosophies (religious and secular), they have a marked advantage in warfare against cultures of vast disparaging notions to that of the West. He begins with Salami and the motivations the Greek city-states had in the desire to maintain their freedom, compared to the Persians whose military men were their by force to build a greater empire for Xeres.

In the battle of Gaugamela, VDH describes the instilled discipline of Greek hoplites that stand against the Persians so that the shock of the cavalry can be used for greatest affect. His also describes the use of a culture of liberty by a tyrant to achieve victory for the tyranny. As a matter of fact VDH compares Alexander to Hitler and how they took people of a great thought and culture and made them a killing machine unrivaled in their times.

The two chapters that had my interest were the battle of Tenochtitlan where the vastly outnumber Spanish defeated the Aztecs, and the battle of Midway where the inferior American forces won a decisive victory over the Japanese. It was interesting to see how the religion of the non-Western cultures dictated how they fought.

With the Aztecs, they did not want to annihilate the Spanish, but capture them to sacrifice to their gods. And their weapons were made as such to capture instead of kill. The Japanese and their reverence of the Emperor as a god brought a mentality to battle that gave them courage, but also clouded judgment. They sacrifice all for their Emperor, including their lives heedlessly, where as the Spanish and the Americans did not look to war as a religious endeavor, but as an amoral fight of political (and in the Spanish case physical) survival.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, this book is a good read. The battles are described with crisp clarity that puts you there. His conclusions are just a concise, but wants you to explore further into the questions that he asks (the specifics of the battles and the overall questions of the book). It is definitely a thinkers book.

21st Century Brown Shi(r)ts

2004-11-08T07:21:00.000-05:00

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/110704_NW_gopvandlism.html

(Above is a link to the Raleigh ABC affiliate to the news story)

The North Carolina Republican Party Headquarters in Raleigh was vandalized. Vulgar graffiti and anarchist symbols were spray painted. A double-headed effigy (the head of Bush and Kerry) was burned, and a poor incendiary was detonated to try and cause a larger fire.

These are the tactics of tyrants, reminiscent of Ernst Rohm's Strumalbteilung (SA-Stormtroopers a.k.a. Brown Shirts). In the years before Nazi ascendance in 1933 the SA would beat (and murder) members of opposing political parties (especially communists), torch local headquarters and homes of local opposition leaders, turn peaceful protest against them into riots. These 1930s thugs took pleasure and power in bullying.

Fast forward to Raleigh, NC, USA, year: 2004. We see the fruit of the political seeds that were sewn in the 1960s. As the American education fails to teach the basics of history we repeat the mistakes of great European/Western Civilizations of the past.

We need to lock these delinquents up in a cell with film showing the rise, fall, and consequences of the tyrants of the past. Make sure that films and picture of the concentration camps, mass graves, and killing fields are shown. Maybe they will learn their lesson. Most likely not.

The three G's

2004-11-05T10:19:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean said that the south needed to stop basing elections on God, guns, and gays. Well, it was the Democrats that actually made this election a referendum on the three G's.

On God, it was evangelical Christians that gave Dubya the clear majority. In 2000 it was estimated that 4 million Christians stayed home. November 2nd they came out in droves. With activist judges trying to remove all aspects of America's Christian heritage from the public square evangelical Christians said they had enough of repudiation and went to the polls to repudiate the liberal Democrats.

On guns, The NRA proved to be an asset at the grass-roots as well as the nation level. As our military, intelligence, and law-enforcement agencies try to keep the bad guys out or to catch them here before they do harm, individual citizens want to be able to protect themselves from terrorists and home-grown criminals. As the school in Belsan, Russia showed, police can only do so much. What is preventing terrorists from entering a school, shopping mall, or other public place here and effecting a massacre in middle America? Nothing, but a vigilant, law-abiding, armed population can limit the affect of any attack.

On gays, Massachusetts' highest court usurped legislative power and forced the representatives of Massachusetts to recognize 'gay marriage', without debate in the public square among the people. People in all 11 states where the issue was on the ballot let their courts know where the people fall on this issue. They want marriage to be between one man and one woman.

This election was not about the economy, stupid. It was about God, guns, and gays.

There is a particulate

2004-11-03T13:22:00.000-05:00

I will give Senator Kerry credit. He did have enough honor to do what is best for his party and country.

Congratulations, Senator.

Shameless Grab for Power

2004-11-03T07:23:00.000-05:00

The Democrats of the modern area are showing their true colors. All they care about is the acquisition and retention of power. Their mentality is that of tyrannical socialists that errily reminds people of the facsist, Nazis, and Communists of 1930s Europe.

They cannot achieve their agenda by the ballot box or by the legislative process. They use the courts to legislate laws to their liking. If they do not control the Presidency, they cannot stack the courts to usurp the will of the people as dictated by the ballot or their legislators.

If Senator Kerry had even a particulate of honor and integrity, for the good of his country and party, he would concede graciously. With the current battlions of lawyers commanded to make another mockery of our political process who have already filed lawsuits, this looks unlikely.

All I can say is go ahead. The current Democrat leaderships' power grab will further isolate them from independent and moderate voters.

"I voted for Health Care."

2004-11-02T13:20:00.000-05:00

I was at my favorite place for lunch where MSNBC was on the television. I saw a man from Arizona (an 'undecided') said he voted for Kerry because of the need for education and health care.

The thing is these issues are moot when your enemies are trying to undermind your liberty and security. The domestic issues of 'gay' marriage, universal health care, abortion, Social Security reform, etc. pale in comparison to the threat of Islamofascism.

These people want us to believe, live, and behave as they do. Homosexuality and adultry deserve stoning to death. Only Muslim men deserve economic and political power. They prefer a world of the Middle Ages - the last time they had true power.

So, did you vote "Peace through Strength" or "Peace through Surrender"?