CookMoVal-MyWorld

Trust Yourself Always - A Candidate Survival Guide

2007-10-08T17:07:00.000-07:00

Over the twenty years I have spent working with Local, Statewide and National campaigns, one thing has held true each election cycle: The Candidate must trust his/her inner self.

This is easier said then done. Most every campaign will have to endure uncertainty, exhaustion, resource pinches, second guessing, and fickle supporters. There will moments each day when you want to run away from it all. To be a winner a candidate must have an inner core that shines during the darkest of moments, provides mental refuge and instills the confidence to go forward. With this fortitude, there will be moments each day that make the process life affirming.

I have had the opportunity to work with great men and women across America. Win or lose, the strong candidate does not change. None of the tough questions can be answered without trusting in one's self. I am there to help with the tough questions. I am on speed dial. I am there on election day.

But no matter how much help I provide, the candidate must look into the mirror when the election is over, win or lose. It's a natural part of the process, assessing the self, the evolution of the self. Inevitably, the candidate who took advice from advisors and then molded it all into decisions that resonate from the soul will smile in the mirror. The candidate who deferred during the defining moments will see either an empty victory or ocean full of what-if's.

As an advisor, I long ago realized I am not the candidate. It is not my soul up for grabs. I get to walk away. A rookie advisor will exude energy on the outside, while filled with false beliefs and unrealistic notions on the inside. The veteran will remain calm on both the exterior and interior. The veteran knows that if the candidate remains true, the organization will remained focused and success is attainable.

If you plan to run for election, just as starting a business, you need to put together a team. Recruit champions. Develop a plan. Determine what capital and resources are required. Above all, take a look in the mirror and make sure you like what you see – and what you will see after the election. Then you can enjoy the ride.

Scott Radio http://www.scottradio.com is a Political Advertising Agency and Voice Works specializing in Radio. We represent National, State and local candidates or issue campaigns. Over twenty years experience. 2006-2008 Agency of record for U.S. Senate Campaign in Texas. We assist Independents, Republicans and Democrats. Scott Radio services include: Voice Work, Advertising Agency, Research, Publishing and Political Consulting.

The Threat of Media Bias and Our True American Heritage

2007-10-04T16:11:00.000-07:00

The media now is most definitely already involved in and cooperating with, AND PROMOTING the liberalistic, democratic political party. They have no business involving themselves in trying to oppress or suppress the freedom of religion. Our founding fathers expressly set up our constitution to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE...that really meant, they wanted NO GOVERNMENT involvement or oppression of the church, and the government was to never remove the right of the people of America to freely worship as they choose.

Refer to Wikipedia.com, for more information on this issue of media bias...their definition of the term is: (quote from Wikipedia.com)"The term "media bias" usually refers to a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article." Note that Wikipedia also refers to the "standards of journalism" which journalists in this country are required to abide by. It seems to me that many, many journalists now are allowing themselves to be swayed AWAY from those standards of journalism, by various political influences, and perhaps by pressure from their advertisers and promoters of their networks, who may be biased in their opinions as to which political party they support...and they may be putting undue pressure, according to Wikipedia, upon the journalists in America to report the news according to their preferences.

This is deplorable, in this author's opinion, and should be brought to the attention of the general public, if this type of "behind the scenes" influence and pressure is being made on our journalistic and media community, to promote one opinion over another, rather than to remain unbiased and objective in their reporting of today's issues.

The media in America has always consistently claimed to be set up to be "UNBIASED" and objective in their reporting...although it is now OBVIOUS to everyone which side of the political agenda they are on…the liberal, humanistic, socialistic agenda...which is also the same agenda that has as its goal to stop the freedom of religion, one of our founding fathers' primary constitutional rights they purposely included in our government's laws.

In summary, starting about 30 years ago, it seems the media in America has slowly but surely abandoned its unbiased, objective viewpoints.

Visit wallbuilders.com, for more information on our original American heritage, and the original intentions of our forefathers for this country...they built this nation on their trust in the Living God, Jesus Christ, and they always intended for the government (and the media) to stay OUT of the churches' ministry to the people of this country, and to other countries outside the USA.

WallBuilders.com also has copies available of the original documents and comments made by many of our founding fathers, as they struggled to establish our Constitution and founding principles. America needs to look again at the founding fathers' original intent for the freedoms established in the Constitution, and then observe all the various means being used by media, advertisers, and lobbyists in this nation, to deliberately change those original principles, and to almost, in effect, go as far as to change the Constitution itself.

There are many other resources available to readers who wish to study this sad change of our society. I recommend both WallBuilders.com, and The Presidential Prayer Team.org, in order to see actual original documents from the 1700's, written by such leaders as George Washington, our first president, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the others who signed that document.

Other resources are available (for example at your public library, or at the Library of Congress) to show the reader the extreme sacrifices our founding fathers made in order to establish our government, taking personal risks of danger against their families, their financial status, and even their very lives, to preserve and establish this great nation, and the freedoms we now have the privilege of using, as a result of their sacrifice.

The majority of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence ended up in financial ruin, after being attacked by their enemies, but they refused to give up on their steadfast, immovable intent to establish a free nation. This fact is documented in many historical journals, newspapers from that time, and other written proofs.

Another sad fact is, our public schools' curriculums today are not focused on teaching our students these historical truths about our founding fathers, and the sacrifices they made, resulting in the freedoms we enjoy today.

That is another subject we can discuss in another article: the sad state of our educational system in America, compared to our ranking in decades past. According to David Barton, historian at WallBuilders.com, over 700,000 American high school students who graduated last year from high school, were so illiterate, they could not even read their own diplomas, and America is now ranked 65th in the nation in SAT scores, (including the third world, poorest countries) when we consistently ranked as number one for decade after decade, until the mid 1960's, when the freedom of the exercise of religion and prayer in our schools was sadly removed from our public schools, in a devastating decision by the Supreme Court.

The illiteracy rate in our nation has steadily be declining since the 1960's. That Supreme Court decision alone has a DIRECT CORRELATION to the downward spiral of our students' SAT scores, since the 1960's. The ramifications of that one decision by the Supreme Court have been disastrous. The statistics regarding this subject of the downward spiral of our educational system in America can be viewed at WallBuilders.com.

Source(s):
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES
WallBuilders.com
ThePresidentialPrayerTeam.org
Wikipedia.com, search under "media bias"

Author: Deborah Snead copyright 9-2007

Visit this website for Family Oriented, Patriotic gift items for your home:

http://www.specialhomeproducts.com
Visit this blog site if you wish to make post comments on any articles by Ms. Snead:
http://www.deborahsnead.com

Deborah Snead is a professional musician, aspiring author, financier and Christian minister. She now is delving into Ecommerce with her new business: Special Home Products. An honors graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, with a Bachelors Degree in Music Education, she now resides in Texas.

AARP & Other Liberals Spearhead Charge For Clintoncare II

2007-09-25T14:38:00.000-07:00

As groups get bigger I swear their collective intelligence decreases. Nothing could be a truer example of this than one of the largest groups in America, the American Association of Retired Persons. Often affectionately known as the AARP I prefer to call them the Anti-American Retired Persons because I believe in truth in advertising.

Here you have a group that on one hand uses the power of capitalism. They flaunt the purchasing power of their vast membership to negotiate with companies all over the globe to get special discounts and incentives for their members in return for promoting these same companies to their members. But on the other hand they pimp anti-American ideas such as socialism and collectivism.

Case and point, the AARP has been running ads featuring cute, and dare I say naive, children who are reading from their given script and pleading with Americans to support candidates that promise universal health insurance coverage. They’re basically promoting Democrats and other liberals.

It’s no real big surprise. Their constituents are on two of the largest unconstitutional programs ever devised, namely Social Security and Medicare. You knew it could only be a matter of time before they decided that they needed to try and expand that base and their power.

So this push by the AARP just ahead of Hillary’s big announcement of her new and improved socialist plan for America shocks none.

Forget that she already tried to float this idea past American citizens in nineties and that it was soundly rejected. But hey, try, try again right?

So here comes Senatorette Clinton this week giving us Clintoncare Part Deux.

All you need to know about Hillary Clinton is that she said of her grand scheme, "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed”. The key words being “at this point”. You got to love the way they couch their plans and telegraph their future intentions don’t you?

At this point there is no punishment. How about tomorrow? Well, we’ll get back to you...

You just wait for those “future” plans Comrade Hillary slyly discusses. Because what is going to happen if Americans do not join? If even one person chooses that path then the whole claim of universal health insurance (not care mind you) falls apart and you can bet your bottom dollar that all sorts of punishments will be created to deal with those people who won’t fall in line.

Clinton did however slip up and let out what she though at least one punishment for not joining Hillarycare will be. She envisions a day when, “you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination”.

So join or you can’t work?

On a side note, and unfortunately for Hillary, her claim about vaccinations and public schools is not true. For example in Pennsylvania you do not have to be vaccinated to attend public school. So I am not sure where Hillary is getting her “facts” from. Perhaps she is just making things up again? She seems to do that quite often and has shown that she is certainly not above letting the “facts” get in the way of a good story.

I apologize to those of you who have decided not to vaccinate your children. For I am sure I’ve just given Comrade Clinton a new item to add to her list of “things to order the unwashed masses to do”. After all, mommy knows best!

Hillary Clinton also said of her rehashed socialist agenda that her plan, “expands personal choice and increases competition to get costs down.” You have to love how liberals claim that having no choice is actually a “choice”. Mandating that you must participate in this plan as in her own self-professed future vision, if you want to work is, is somehow a “choice”?

In further nanny state fashion, Senatorette Clinton thinks that she can wield the power of government to coerce people to act the way she desires them to. Most notably, she plans to use the tax code. She has said of her plan, “We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." And what if Americans disagree? Well, were back to the “at this point” clarification of there being no “punitive” measures. This is the same government that used the tax code for years to punish couples for getting married. Remember that.

The facts are, that beyond talking points Hillary Clinton still has given little details about her health insurance (not health care) for all plan. But that reality hasn’t stopped those who fawn over Marxist ideas from touting Senatorette Clinton as having “detailed” her plans. Break it all down and here is what it comes down to; government nebulously mandating how insurance companies and private industries operate and even how the citizenry must behave. And of course, it would be “paid for” in part by the left’s favorite past time; raising taxes. Don’t complain. Don’t you know that it’s their money?

What? You disagree? Be careful. The re-education camps await you.

If you are an insurance company and don’t want to insure pre-existing conditions because you are rightfully scared of people only buying insurance after they have been diagnosed with a disease only to drop it once they have been treated, taken tens of thousands of dollars in care and before they have paid enough in premiums to even cover the cost, oh well! Too bad. Government says otherwise, so you will comply if you want to be in the health insurance business.

Freedom to contract and freedom of association be damned. It’s just not the liberal way.

The truth they are trying to hide is that everyone in America has “health care” if they seek it out. What everyone does not have is “health insurance” to help defray the costs when they do. Nor should they. Insurance is a luxury. Not everyone has a 50’ yacht either and I doubt many would suggest government should provide such for the people that do not.

People like Clinton claim that we need universal coverage because the uninsured cost the rest of us in higher premiums and other costs. But who do you think is going to pay for those that would be covered under this plan but don’t have insurance now when the government runs it? The Tooth Fairy? Or will the money just come from the magical, mystical money tree Hillary has in her back yard? Heck no! The cost of the current “uninsured” will still be carried by the rest of us. It is just a shell game to try and hide that fact and grant more power to the government. Hence why she needs to raise taxes.

Clinton can’t even discuss her ideas without the obligatory double speak saying, “My Republican opponents will try to equate healthcare for all Americans with government-run healthcare.” Well, uh yeah Comrade Clinton because it is! If the government is mandating that all Americans have to have healthcare, creating laws regarding how the system works, dictating what you must do once in the program and enforcing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies do what government says they must in order to cover all Americans then it is “government-run healthcare” by default. When you pass a law it isn’t a “recommendation” or a “request”. It’s a law! Did you ever take a civics course that you actually passed? Because this is pretty basic stuff here!

But then again, this is from the frontrunner for the nomination of the party that claims that it is a “pro-choice” yet is forcing you to pay into a government retirement plan. And let’s not forget that the party she represents frequently gets endorsements from the Communist Party USA for their presidential candidates. Are those little red lights in your brain going off yet?

Clinton said of her plan, “I believe everyone – every man, woman and child – should have quality, affordable healthcare in America. I intend to be the president who will do that.” Well, that’s all well and good that you believe that. Now do you mind pointing to where in the Constitution you and your fellow travelers are granted the power by “We the People” to mandate how we manage our own choices with regards to healthcare? Are you going to point out to us, finally after all these years of waiting patiently, where you are given the power to dictate what price something should be and hence its “affordability”? Or are you just going to ignore that major problem with your plans like you always do?

Uh huh. Silence. That’s what I thought.

We already have Medicaid for the “poor” who supposedly can’t afford health insurance and Medicare for the elderly who are dubbed by the left as too stupid to save for their own needs after retirement and Congress wants to make families with an income of up to $80,000 eligible for SCHIP. How much more do we have to give?

Once again, please let myself and other Americans that still actually believe in liberty have real choice and chose to pass on this and chose not to contribute to the program. But then again, that “choice” isn’t one of the government approved “choices” now is it?

For the left, “choice” is simply a mandate from them. And you will abide by it “or else”. If not they will eventually get you with future punishments that don’t exist at this time while they stick the camel’s nose under the tent today.

"The sad reality is that the uninsured don't just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on the rest of us," Clinton said. And why is that? Is it because politicians and the courts let them impose these problems on us by allowing them to get out of paying their debts, bailing them out with tax payer dollars and maybe only at best paying a fraction of the cost to those that provide their services thus increasing costs to the rest of us? There once was a time in America when if you owed a debt you paid it you either paid it, rotted in jail or were ordered to work off you debts to those you owed them to.

But then again, hard work scares liberals. Responsibility is too much to ask them to promote. So those concepts are certainly not on the table. But government mandates? Heck, that’s the way they think they can create utopia!

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of the American Conservative Daily Blog and The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.

Why is Christian Rock Music So Popular? by Sam Wilkinson

2007-09-19T12:05:00.001-07:00

"Christian Rock", a title often ridiculed at by traditional rock artists, enthusiasts & critics alike is gaining popularity and stamping its place as a sort after genre for the young generation of head-banging, mosh-pitting gurus! Didn't Christian rock die a couple of years ago, you ask? Christian rock music is growing faster than ever before with Daily News of Christian Rock Music, new artists & albums streaming across the Internet and pumping the airways continuously every day. So where did this God Rock come from? I mean this is new right?

This type of rock music wasn't around 20 years ago, was it? Well I didn't think so until recently, the reality is Christian music or should I say Christian rock music has been around apparently from the dawn of creation! So why seeing it today all the time? Where were they hiding and what happened to the voice of eternal punishment for those participating in anything other than a church hymn or Sunday school choir? The chastity belt of modern Christian rock is alive and kicking. There are many religious organisations who oppose this form of music, I will talk more about this opposition later.

Most Christians are in favor of this "movement" feeling that Christian rock music is another way to reach people with the importance of the Christian faith. So why the controversy?, what is so different about secular rock music in comparison to Christian rock? Many have asked this question and instead of quoting Mr. Bob Dylan "the answer is blowing in the wind", I thought I would look into this more closely and check out the facts and see why there is so much "opposition" to the sounds of "thumping grace". After reviewing many rock & heavy metal music bands and performances and then compared them to their Christian counterparts, I did see differences but not many! The stage performance was very similar with the exception of secular heavy metal revealing more of a dark or satanic side at times in general there was little if any change in production or presentation from Christian rock to standard or Non-Christian music. The only real difference I could see was in the lyrical content, with Christian rock music singing words from the Bible and preaching family values.

So why was Christian rock music inward for so many years, seemingly hiding in the shadows from more conservative members of the Christian community? Well apparently they weren't hiding at all, it's just that I like many people didn't even know they were around back then! Good old fashioned Christian rock bands like Petra, Stryper, Bloodgood, Whitecross and Tourniquet have been rocking Christians and non Christians alike for generations.

The voice of rock abstinence is still screaming louder than ever in some Christian circles although seemingly falling on deaf ears of a Christian Rocker community that grows bigger every day. Who opposes this Christian liberation? Who else but other Christians! It seems some denominations of who have not advanced to modern day sounds are Bible bashing these Christian rock music head bangers with eternal consequences for their "lack of understanding". The most dramatic example I came across was the seventh day adventist (SDA) church who proclaim that Christian rock music is quote "Devil music". The SDA church preach that all rock music has the "beat of the devil" borrowed from primate heathen rituals, beating in time with the body's "natural rhythms". I found it hard to understand that anyone could think this way at first, but indeed it is true and the SDA church is serious about stamping out any and all rock music, or anything for that matter that has a drum beat!

About the Author

Sam J Wilkinson works as a volunteer webmaster of the Christian Rock Music Site ColdandUgly.net, which has up to date information about Christian music & artistis, aswell as other Christian culture news & events. http://coldandugly.net

You're In Bad Hands With Nanny State by J.J. Jackson

2007-09-15T15:31:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography that, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." And boy was he ever right on that. Because since the time he wrote those words we have seen what happens when governments dictate to the people how to "sow" and when to "reap". What's that? You want a list? Ok, how about any number of the currently floundering European style socialist states, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and the former Soviet Union for starters.

But despite all these examples, today talk of expanding government here in American into realms reserved by the people as their own to control dominates society. Whether it is whispers of socialized healthcare where citizens will be required to regiment their doctors visits based on what a lonely bureaucrat in Washington decides or questions about what the government will do to bail out people with poor credit, shoddy finances and living beyond their means after they take out loans they could not afford to pay back, there is a continuing push to expand the umbrella of the Nanny State over each and everyone of us. Yes, that push is to encompass even those of us that are able to function in a civilized society and interact with other people independent of this control. Because without us in that latter category being onboard, those that would benefit from such policies would not be able to have them.

We're the producers. We're the ones from which the money to fund such failed ideas flows. We are the new slave class.

Shocked that I would say that? Don't be. A slave is defined as "a person held in servitude as the chattel of another" (source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). In other words, a slave is someone who is bound to, and has the fruits of their labor, taken by another for their own betterment. And through the years since the founding of this country, I dare say that we have come full circle on the issue of slavery.

In the early days, plantation owners imported slaves from Africa and other places around the globe to work for them. Justifications for this were of course given. They ranged from the theory of the inferiority of particular races to appeals that because they were housed, fed, clothed and protected they were not really "slaves" at all but instead were being properly compensated for their work despite being held against their will. All were bogus and asinine. And all were concocted by men to serve their own interests.

Today we have new justifications for the enslavement of productive citizens which range from claims that the poor and downtrodden cannot better themselves without help (assuming they are ignoramuses) to the rich stole the money they have earned anyway on the backs of others which they have cheated. Regardless, all are still bogus and asinine.

Allowing one to reap the benefits of another's work is an abomination no matter the scale of other atrocities that come with such acts. You may obtain what others have through the grace of charity or the free exchange of goods and services but you cannot demand anything from others at the point of a gun. Those that are productive should never be enslaved to those that discover a way to exploit that productivity be they the rich or the poor.

One need only look at the federal budget to see this new form of slavery in effect with the amount of money that is spent on programs such as Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and on and on. All take wealth and income from those that are producing and give it to someone that either is not producing any wealth or income at all or not producing it at a rate they or a bureaucrat believes that they should be.

Each of these programs, and so many more, are funded by productive Americans under penalty of punishment should they not acquiesce. Try telling the government that you are going to refuse to allow your money to go for the enrichment of others and see what happens. The government does have the power to do nasty things to you and deprive you of your own liberty should you refuse them.

Color me a little confused because I was under the impression that after the 13th Amendment was ratified, slavery and involuntary servitude were outlawed in the United States except as a punishment for a crime. So what crime have I and millions of other Americans committed? Simply the crime of being productive and working harder than others?

How absolutely Stalin-esque. Heaven forbid that both myself and my wife work, that I hold down a second job running my own business and that such a work ethic should be seen as so unsavory as to merit the punishment of having my work, my wages and my productivity confiscated by government force to serve others.

Health insurance is not a right. If you get sick and require treatment but have no insurance and cannot find someone willing to treat you for free through charity you have to do what the rest of us do. You have to work hard to pay off that debt. Some of us pay it off in advance by purchasing insurance while others do not and chose to pay after the fact. If you are part of the later group, you should not receive any sort of special treatment under the laws of this nation and be able to coerce others to pay your way.

Being able to retire when you hit 65 years of age is not a right. If you are 70 years old and have not a penny to your name and have to work until you are 80 you are no different than those of us that get up every day and put on clothes and head off to work except perhaps that you may have lived longer. The fact that you have not put aside enough or been able produce enough wealth in your life to retire is not someone else's problem.

If you borrow more money than you are able to manage and payback who are you to demand that others compensate and forgive you for your bad choices and bail you out? You may ask. But you may not demand.

If you rebuild or buy a home in a flood plain or that is 12 feet below sea level after it has already been flooded once, twice or even three times please explain to me why your failure to understand the laws of nature is anyone else's problem but yours? It is not your right to demand the taxpayers buy you out or cover your cost to rebuild.

I know, it's cruel to say such things right? That's an easy canard to avoid the issue however.

When I lived in Philadelphia I did not buy a house that I could not afford. I lived in an apartment which also was not cheap. I did not purchase a car that I could not make payments on. My wife and I drove used cars that were from the previous decade. I did not go and get a big screen television in lieu of a hearty meal and I certainly did not demand that others pay for my health insurance because I believed it was too much for me to pay my for my own despite the huge chunk that it was taking from my paycheck.

Demanding the Nanny State provide us with insurances and the often touted "safety net" for every aspect of our lives only makes those that pay for it subservient to the whims of unkind masters in Washington telling us when to "reap" and "sow". We've seen how well the government spends money to know that such is probably not a good task to demand of them.

In Britain they are talking about denying health services under their socialized system to stem costs. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina we see the waste and corruption of portions of New Orleans which are still wrecks; a monument to the Great Society. We've seen the massive pork barrel spending of millions on bridges to nowhere.

How much more of money do we really want the government to spend? Of course if you are on the receiving end of that money you probably are shouting "MORE! MORE!" without a care for where it comes from or the burden it places upon others.

I personally would rather live my own life thank you. Perhaps you enjoy others dictating to you how to live. I do not. So is there a form I can sign to opt out of the Nanny State? Or are you going to hold a gun to my head and force me to join because you know without me and millions of others like me you won't have your precious benefits?

Can you at least send me a thank you card after you take hold of my productivity? How about flowers? Anything to show your appreciation would do. But most favorable of all would be to leave me out of your grand plans.

About the Author

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts

Earmark Reform Is Needed

2007-09-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Today, business has included individual members sharing out favors in appropriations, and further bills through earmarks. The Americans should have a right to know more than who funded special interest legislation. One needs earmark reform that puts an end to particular interest earmarking, and offers solutions to stop the practice of earmark abuse.

It does not mean that earmarks are essentially bad. Some serve significant public intentions. But, they should be in the open so that all can see, and evaluate. Their use should be considerably limited.

Earlier, earmark reform was individually passed by the Senate and the House. However, they left the conclusion for conference committee. Surprisingly, after the last session finished, the bill was worked out confidentially. It was quite unexpected.

It seems that Congress has obtained God-like supremacy. They move healthcare centers hundreds of miles for billing purposes. For instance, a healthcare center in Kingston was moved to 80 miles from its present location in NY City. Hospitals face very high costs there. Similarly, in rural Green Bay, a hospital was moved 200 miles somewhere in urban Chicago.

What is required is a basic improvement of the budget, and expenditure process in Washington. Until that is ensued and we get the control over spending, Congress will continue to stake bigger claims on other people’s hard-earned money.

It is the time when candidates who are in presidential race should come up with something to tackle earmark reform. You should, therefore, go through the poll results to know which candidate is actually keen at solving this issue.

Congressional Careerism and War

2007-09-06T14:04:00.000-07:00

Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnell, and Lamar Alexander, all of whom are Republican senators up for re-election next year, have decided to part ways with the president on Iraq. McConnell, in his home state of Kentucky recently said, "The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it. That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant."

The response to McConnell, the ranking Republican in the Senate, is that when it comes to conducting wars, public opinion is, in fact, largely irrelevant.

This isn't to say that what "the public" thinks doesn't have consequences. We can spook our representatives into de-funding the war if we want, as we did in Vietnam, just when things seemed to be looking promising. Back then, our information sources were essentially limited to Walter Cronkite, who declared the war lost. And so, by choice, it was. Today Cronkite couldn't get away with summarily declaring an end to our military presence in Iraq. There are too many other sources of information to render one man's opinion impenetrable. The trouble is that more Americans believe that Iraq is unwinnable--not because of a monolithic press, but precisely because when it comes to war, there is too much transparency. War is ugly, and the more we see, the less palatable the idea of continuing to fight becomes.

Embedding members of the press seemed like a good idea at the time: the object, those unfamiliar with press tactics thought, was to show our soldiers' hard work and compassion. And indeed, we have heard anecdotes from anti-war liberals on occasion about the soldier who saved an Iraqi child at the risk of his own life.

Pacifists, recalling the shame of their obloquy toward soldiers returning from Vietnam, have learned the lesson not to trash the troops. Their strategy is to minimize the necessity of the mission and of our progress. And so Nancy Pelosi's crowd maintains, with a straight face, that we owe it to our troops to remove them from the irrelevant, unending chaos in Iraq.

The authoritative last word that they point to is the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Republican James Baker who, as secretary of state, said that the first war against Saddam was simply about "jobs." Baker, whose greatest accomplishment in the last decade was to defend President Bush against Al Gore, the opponent who wouldn't go away, has never been a fan of pre-emption.

Whatever Baker's mindset, though, the conclusions of the ISG deserve proper examination. "Iran should stem the flood of arms and training to Iraq," the report concludes. "Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flood of funding, insurgents and terrorist in and out of Iraq." And al Qaeda, to show its remorse, should hold a bake sale to aid families of fallen Iraqi innocents.

President Bush's most maddening trait has been that he is too busy fighting the war to properly and regularly explain it. Propaganda plays a big part in any war, and the word from Bush's opponents, which include anti-war Democrats and pro-re-election Republicans is that we are losing. Senators McConnell, Alexander and Domenici probably know this isn't the case. But they see stagnantly low public approval numbers with regard to Iraq.

It's anybody's guess, of course, whether those numbers will stay low through next November; that, though, isn't the point. How has it come to calculating our next move based on poling data?

The answer is that wearing out one's welcome in Washington causes all sorts of trouble, mostly on the domestic front, in the form of pork barrel spending. But it shouldn't be lost on us that congressional careerism can cloud one's judgment about how to behave while we're at war.

About the Author
Will Anderson
clmoss1981@yahoo.com
More Details about congressional public opinion here.

Will Anderson is a talk show host in Huntsville, AL. His conservative valeus, quick wit and uncanny grasp of the issues have made Will the most listened to local host on WVNN since Sean Hannity.

The Conservative Movement - Suggested Organizations and Websites

2007-09-04T16:51:00.000-07:00

Decided that you want to become more active in the conservative movement? Well, here are some suggested web sites you may find helpful:

1. aBetterEarth.Org

aBetterEarth.org is a special project of the Institute for Humane Studies, a non-profit educational organization. Affiliated with George Mason University, IHS educates and supports college students and recent graduates interested in the classical liberal tradition of individual liberty, voluntarism, and peace.

The project is funded by individuals and foundations who share a positive vision of the world. While many evironmental groups advocate solutions that may have unintended -- or intended -- consequences, aBetterEarth.Org believes in three overriding concepts: local control and property rights; actions have unintended and harmful consequences; and the fact that the earth is a dynamic place.

The IHS staff members believe that "people often behave as good stewards of the environment when they control the resources at hand." They also believe "government policy, because it is so far reaching, can have some of most dramatic unintended consequences, leaving the biggest footprint on the environment."

2. Accuracy in Academia

Accuracy in Academia, a nonprofit research group based in Washington, D. C., wants schools to return to their traditional mission-the quest for truth. To promote this goal, AIA documents and publicizes political bias in education in Campus Report, its monthly newsletter.

CR articles focus on: the use of classroom and/or university resources to indoctrinate students; discrimination against students, faculty or administrators based on political or academic beliefs; and campus violations of free speech.

Accuracy in Academia posts more frequent updates on all of these stories and issues on its companion web site.

Celebrated author and columnist Thomas Sowell said, "If sanity ever returns to the academic world, part of the credit will go to a small newspaper called Campus Report, which has exposed innumerable incidents of brainwashing replacing education on college campuses, storm trooper tactics being accepted and rewarded by 'responsible' college administrators, and academic and behavioral double standards being applied to the group to which one belongs, rather than one's own behavior or performance."

3. Accuracy in Media

The granddaddy of media watchdogs, Accuracy in Media is credited with exposing American news media bias to the world.. It's also one of the most widely quoted organizations in the country.

Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.

AIM's website offers visitors an abundance of resources including up-to-the-minute press releases regarding incidents of media bias, inaccuracy or a journalist's hidden agenda. There are also columns written by AIM staff and guest columnists, special reports and briefings. Internet visitors can also signup for e-mail alerts and reports from AIM.

4. Acton Institute

The Board of Director and staff at the Acton Institute believe that their primary mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.

Acton organizes seminars aimed at educating religious leaders of all denominations, business executives, entrepreneurs, university professors, and academic researchers in economics principles, and in the connection that can exist between virtue and economic thinking.

The institute's website contains editorials, research studies, public policy statements and information on their seminars and conferences. Their conferences are held primarily in the United States, but they also conduct some conferences in Europe and Latin America.

Acton also publishes a journal called Religion & Liberty that engages the intellectual reader on issues in the areas of religion, politics, economics, literature, and culture. They also publish the Journal of Morality and Markets, that is an academic journal dedicated to examining ideas in the unique interdisciplinary niche that brings together economics, theology, and philosophy.

5. AgapePress

AgapePress gives readers the real lowdown on political and cultural issue of concern to Christians with stories you won't read in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, or your local newspapers. The news content available from AgapePress focuses on issues that have moral, social, and political implications, and is written from a Christian worldview -- something you won't find in the secular news media.

Besides up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news stories, AgapePress has a team of respected columnists that includes Jane Jimenez, Dr. Matt Friedman, Joe Murray, and Brad Locke as well as guest commentary by some of the nation's top conservative commentators.

"They attempt to shine the light of the gospel on such highly volatile topics as pornography, the homosexual agenda, education, the pro-life debate, and the influence of the entertainment industry, to name just a few," said Rev. Mark H. Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.

For the best news and commentary from a Christian perspective, visit: http://www.agapepress.org

6. The Alliance Defense Fund

The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. The ADF was founded in 1994 by 35 ministries for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering Christian allies, recognizing that together, they can accomplish far more than any single ministry can alone.

One of the ADF's guiding principles is that they are committed to anticipating and meeting the legal needs of those dedicated to preserving religious liberty. In civil litigation cases, the ADF provides some of the nation's top trial lawyers and First Amendment experts to work pro bono on cases that have an impact of Christians' liberties.

The ADF believes it is a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.

7. The American Conservative Union

Founded in 1964, the American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization.

Besides their monitoring of US Senators and House members, the ACU's most significant efforts include fighting to keep OSHA off the backs of small businesses; opposing the Panama Canal giveaway; challenging the SALT treaties; supporting aid to freedom fighters in communist countries; promoting the confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court; advocating near-term deployment of strategic defenses; and battling against higher taxes and wasteful government spending.

In 1994, when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton attempted to shove Socialize Medicine down the throats of Americans, through its Citizens against Rationing Health coalition, sponsorship of national town meetings, and Health Care Truth Tour, ACU spearheaded the conservative response to the Clintons' health-care proposals, which eventually stopped "Hillary Care" in its tracks.

They have arguably one of the best conservative websites on the internet. Visitors may check on their senator's or House representative's record, read the latest commentary by noted columnists, read their award-winning publication Conservative Battleline, or discover how to become an active part the conservative movement.

The Louse That Roared

2007-08-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

After watching the interview by Chris Wallace of former president Clinton the thing that struck me most was not his self-righteous anger but that people are still buying his act. Those on the left of the political spectrum here in the U.S. are indeed fools. If they are not fools then they are traitors. Either way they should be kept from high office. By high office I mean they should not ascend higher than say, plan review in a local building department. That is as long as they're not structural plans.

By Clinton's own admission he tried and failed to capture or kill bin Laden. If only bin Laden were an obscure Christian sect living in Texas (Waco) or a small child from Cuba (Elian Gonzales) maybe then the full weight of the Federal Government could have been brought to bear on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

No, all bin Laden did was orchestrate a few terrorist attacks against U.S. Troops: the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers and launch simultaneous attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. These offenses were not serious enough to warrant Clinton getting creative with the law (as he is wont to do) and get rounds downrange to kill bin Laden.

I needn't get into the first attack on the World Trade Center. I won't even bring up the fact that September 11 was planned years in advance of its execution, nor will I mention Able Danger or Jamie Gorelick's memo putting up a wall between our intelligence agencies or the incident in Somalia now known as "Black Hawk Down" in which we lost 19 Army Rangers. Following this debacle the military was forced to withdraw by the new president.

As Commander in Chief he was sorely lacking. As soon as he took office Clinton implemented his homosexual advocacy program known as "don't ask don't tell." What possible good came from that is a mystery to me. Before you start whining about discrimination I will remind you that it is an honor to serve in the U.S. Military not a right.

One of Clinton's motives for this could have been his open contempt of the armed services and those that serve therein. Incidentally, Clinton was good enough to put that in writing to a colonel on a draft board during the Vietnam War. While pleading his case to stay out of the military Clinton wrote, "so many fine people find themselves loathing the military". Perhaps he was repaying a debt to far left campaign contributors. Either way it seems a strange way to start your tenure as Commander in Chief. Compounded with the fact that Clinton did not win the popular vote and was elected with a very slim majority of electoral votes he certainly made no attempt to govern from the center. Nor did he win the popular vote in his second term. Do the words, " No clear mandate" ring a bell?

Very credible rumors abound of Hillary Clinton berating Marines and demanding they not wear their uniforms in her presence. She is not fit to carry their water let alone have them serve her. The fact that she is a senator from New York does not escape me. It does astound me however. A very timely pardon of some Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill may have played a role in Hillary's election. The Clinton model for handling terrorists leaves much to be desired.

With very credible allegations of rape (notice it is plural) and Clinton’s horrendous treatment of and taste in women you see where the title “The Louse That Roared" comes from.

If only Clinton could have worked up that much rage over the Chinese stealing nuclear secrets (or was that buying nuclear secrets?) my children could be safe from Chinese nuclear missiles for another 20 years or so. Clinton signed many a waiver for Loral Space to sell very sensitive guidance systems to the Chinese. This technology moved Chinas I.C.B.M. program from 30 years behind ours to as close as 3.

Save your bluster Bill. Hillary will not win. Feigned outrage may work to jinn up some more cash but the folks that were going to donate to you and yours would do it without the sideshow.

This article and many other can be found at http://www.strikebackusa.com

Dan Doherty is the creator, editor and author of http://www.strikebackusa.com He is a former Recon Marine. Dan served as a squad leader in an infantry company in the first gulf war. After rotating back to the U.S. and recieving an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps Dan attended UMass Boston. At UMass he studied political science, psychology, international relations and philosophy as an undergrad. Dan is a journeyman Ironworker out of Local 7 Boston. He is also a lieutenant on a metropolitan Boston fire department. He is also a hazardous materials technician. In the year 2000 Dan was awarded the Medal Of Valor by Governor Cellucci for saving the lives of three people in a fatal fire. This award was given in conjunction with the Firefighter of the Year Award.

My Son The Soldier

2007-08-28T19:10:00.000-07:00

Since he was 3 years old our oldest son Jeremy wearing his authentic mini military fatiques has talked about becoming a soldier. Fueled by the stories of experiences of a great grandfather, both grandfathers and an uncle he has looked forward with eager anticipation to the day and the place where he would wear the uniform of the United States Army. Through a recommendation from his uncle and encouragement from all, he enrolled in Norwich University in Vermont as a Norwich Cadet. As a freshman cadet in college he was also lured by the Vermont National Guard. He asked advice from his two grandfathers, the uncle and his mother and I and was told by all that he should wait and focus on his studies. In our minds we knew he would become a soldier, but in our hearts we hoped it would be after any chance of being deployed to Iraq . Well, after taking in all the sage advice he promptly ignored it and immediately joined the Green Mountain Guard.

The Army and the Army National Guard have a wide variety of “products" marketed as career paths that involves college tuition incentives. They also make sure the father of soldiers get some great t-shirts and coffee mugs. Our son chose a college first type program that allows him to stay in college and go to Basic Training at Fort Benning in Georgia . He must maintain a certain grade point average, and he officially becomes an enlisted soldier. He reminds us constantly that his great grandfather joined the Army as an enlisted man and eventually retired as a Colonel after earning a law degree.

That brings us to this week in June 2007. Our oldest son is currently at basic training. When we visited Fort Benning ’s Infantry Museum when Jeremy was a elementary aged boy, he refused to enter several rooms because of a child’s fear of mannequins. Now he is in the very infantry that is honored by the museum. He has written us 4 letters which when totaled with all the other letters he has ever written to us over the years totals.....4. He makes everything he does in the military sound like he is at a summer camp. He runs, exercises, practices with weapons, studies military tactics, and eats very quickly in a very regimented and managed day. He wrote us to say he is having a great time learning all he can about the military and has met some excellent people. His positive and optimistic focus is contagious. Duty, honor, and the camaraderie with those that train and sweat beside you is sometimes lost as we grow older and more callous to the world.

I find myself following the daily news reports from Iraq and Afghanistan more closely. I choke back waves of emotion when made aware of a young man or woman killed, imagining the loss that we would feel is our son, my son, became one of the casualties. Many of these young men and women were as optimistic and excited as Jeremy and yet life was taken too early to show its full potential. I shake my head in dismay when reading of protestors standing in the path of funeral processions who are trying to bury those who have died in the conflict. I am not against the right to protest, but there are venues that should be off limits. For some reason many have decided that protests and the right to speak ones mind can circumvent good taste and respect for others. As one Christian to others that call themselves such at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas who protest at funerals of our soldiers because they feel the war dead are God’s punishment for homosexuality, your misguided idiocy needs to be reevaluated with prayer, and replacement of your current earth bound spiritual leadership. I am not sure which Bible you are using but you are apparently reading it upside down and backwards.

Jeremy will graduate from his training in late August and return as a sophomore to his cadet life and military aspirations. It is a life that can be less than appealing if one is easily troubled by the words of those that attack what soldiers work to protect. Right now the hope is that his confidence will not waver or become disheartened by the verbal abuse by those that have sharp criticisms directed toward the men and women that serve. Military health care problems, reports of defective and ineffective equipment, poor decisions by those in command, and verbal attacks on the leadership of our military are all things that surely weigh on the minds of our soldiers. For now, I, as the father of a soldier will maintain my love of country and buoyancy of belief upon the shoulders of my son the soldier.

Dear Terrorists

2007-08-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

Here you go again, doing even more bizzare acts using terrorist doctors to attempt to kill as many people as they can. Brilliant job! Who would ever think that doctors who have dedicated themselves to healing would purposely destroy human life in the most vile manner. And at least one is a neurologist who understands brain trauma from explosions. You have nurtured and sponsored these madmen to violate everything medical care stands for. Congratulations. You get the Sicko award of the year.

As we go into the July 4th Celebration in the US, we cannot help but think of our forefathers who sacrificed so much so that we could be free and under a democracy. I have been to Boston on the 4th and walked the Freedom Trail , listening to patriotic speeches and remembering what brave people did who came before me. The were tough birds who were willing to fight for what they knew to be right. They knew that sometimes words were not sufficient and standing up for freedom means mixing it up and taking some casualties.

Now, you terrorists, AKA doctors are one of the biggest threats the world has ever had to confront. You put no value on human life and without a second thought would sacrifice your children and your families to further your cause. You kill people. That's your goal. And the more the merrier. Maiming, disfiguring, torturing, these are your specialties. You are probably the experts who behead captives you grab because you certainly have the necessary skills. What bravery you show. But could it be that you are true cowards in every sense of the word? You do not wish to fight one on one because you know you would be whipped senseless. No, you are sneaking around , skulking behind face coverings, mumbling obscenities about the non Muslims whom you see as prospering while you wallow around with no constructive action on your part. We call people like you losers, failures, those who cannot compete, those who cannot win. You are weak, conspiring together like children to somehow overthrow the popular group.

American is the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are the exact opposite of you. We are willing to work for a living and make things happen. We create businesses instead of grousing about a lack of opportunities. We make lemonade out of lemons. We are not cry babies who have to whimper about how we are not respected by our leaders. We have a democratic process to elect our leaders. If you are unhappy with the way things are in your country, do something about it there. We don't want your dirty laundry and we are tired of your arrogant attitude. Get real. Until you work at creating a place in your own world, we don't want you in ours. Get out before we blow you out.

So here's our message to you. Either wake up , straighten up, and fly right or we are going to be on you and crush you like maggots. The sleeping giant is not only awake but starting to feel a need to become aggressive and harsh. It's about time that we have a free for all and let the strongest win. That means you will be eliminated off the face of the earth and you will not be missed.

So terrorist doctor hypocrites, you had better start looking behind you because you are going to be hearing foosteps. It's only a matter of time before you take that extra step, make that outrageous attack which kills too many innocents, and do yourselves in. You've proven that you are willing to slaughter whoever is not of your faith and not of your belief. You are stone cold killers and need to be put down. There is no redemption for you. You have crossed the line. The only good place for you right now is in a grave.

So Happy Jihad, dear terrorists. We will be seeing you soon.

Keywords: england bombings, doctor terrorists, muslim doctor terrorists, muslim violence, muslim extremism

About the Author
sharon schurman
123forgiveness@gmail.com
More Details about Extremist muslims, your time is coming here.

Sharon Schurman is a retired licensed clinical counselor whose site offers inspirational , informative articles..

Ward Churchill Fired based on Churchill's Own Interpretation of the 9th Amendment

2007-08-25T11:34:00.000-07:00

Ward Churchill was fired recently by the University of Colorado governing board. In 2005, Churchill said the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center were “Little Eichmanns,” referring to Adolf Eichmann who helped carry out the Holocaust.

While the First Amendment prevents Churchill from being fired for those baseless comments, a subsequent investigation led to evidence that he fabricated or falsified his research and plagiarized the work of others.

In 2006, a university committee found Churchill guilty of academic misconduct, including plagiarism. This did not surprise me at all after I heard him give a speech where he lambasted the crowd for being ignorant about the 9th Amendment. With arrogant ignorant condescension, he said that the 9th Amendment supersedes the 1st Amendment preventing people from celebrating Columbus Day. Essentially, he said he had a right not to be offended. This was the first time in the history of the world that, that argument was made.

It is totally ridiculous. The 9th Amendment is the last vestige between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. It states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It certainly does not have the meaning that Churchill spouted.

James Madison and the Federalists argued that there was no need for the Bill of Rights. Madison asserted that Article I of the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to take away citizens' inalienable rights without due process. Moreover, Madison worried that adding a Bill of Rights would lead to people believing that those are the only rights afforded to citizens by the government. In Latin, this is called expressio unius. This was a pretty compelling argument.

Nevertheless, the Anti-Federalists still wanted to list the most important government limitations. They wanted the most important government restrictions so clear that nobody could be misled to support an expansion of government power.

Consequently, Amendments 1-8 were created, and the 9th Amendment was the compromise Amendment. It is just an "ink blotter," as Robert Bork has been known to say. It simply addresses the fact that the Bill of Rights is not exclusive. But, to suggest, as Ward Churchill does, that the 9th Amendment gives him a right not to be offended by people celebrating Christopher Columbus is ludicrous.

Well, his own interpretation seemed to bite him this time. I have no doubt he would not have been investigated had he not made those comments about 9/11, thereby offending millions of people. So thank you Ward Churchill for bringing our attention to the 9th Amendment.

Devil's Advocate
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

Liberals, Handguns and the Boogie Man

2007-08-23T13:38:00.000-07:00

Have you ever teased your child (or someone else's child) about the "Boogie Man"? Growing up -- I was subjected to my fair share of harmless teasing. Thinking about the famed "Boogie Man" today brings a smile to my face -- but when I was a child and easily influenced -- the Boogie Man wasn't a character to take lightly.

Have you ever wondered why liberals are constantly pushing for more gun control -- trying to convince ordinary people that the Boogie Man is alive and well and his real name is "Handgun"? Of course, those of us with an ounce of common sense know there is no such thing as the Boogie Man and we're too smart to be influenced (much like a child) into believing the lies of the liberal gun control agenda.

What puzzles me is why liberals continue this effort -- essentially trying to influence intelligent adults into believing in the Boogie Man. One possible reason is that liberal leaders don't believe ordinary people are very intelligent. Think about it -- would you try to influence an adult to believe in the Boogie Man? Of course not -- it would be silly. Another possibility is that liberals themselves actually do believe in the Boogie Man. Although I don't want to believe this -- it seems most likely -- given the liberal stance on many other common sense issues.

Regardless, they (liberals) never seem to learn their lesson -- people with common sense aren't going to be influenced into believing in the liberal Boogie Man (Handguns). As such, when you hear rumblings of gun control from liberal leaders -- make certain you speak up -- and tell the politicians you refuse to believe the liberal lies. Otherwise, a very real Boogie Man could come to life and his name might be "More Gun Control". That truly does SCARE me.

E Lawrence Welch

How Big Government Will Fall

2007-08-22T15:27:00.000-07:00

One has to admire the liberal capacity to whistle past the graveyard. Rather than face the fact government is out of funds to pay for new programs, progressives are now forced to deny there even is any such problem as big government.

Bill Clinton once said the era of big government was over but the thinker he gave credit as inspiration for his “New Democratic” thinking, E.J. Dionne, now claims that big and small government are simply “catchphrases” that “explain remarkably little about what politicians do or what voters want.” He then cites Republican spending on Iraq, farm programs and health care as examples of “conservatives” favoring big government. On the other side, Michigan’s Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is presented as a liberal facing a tough budget fight who wants to “put that old stuff aside” about big government and all just agree only on whatever spending is really needed.

In other words, it is not about big or small government for liberals or conservatives but how to spend what the taxpayers will pay. Translation: we should just give the progressive experts the money they want and let them make the decisions for us. It is the same-old, same-old that we should all be reasonable and become good progressive. But things have changed. Taxpayers will no longer give more. Dionne in particular has been a consistent advocate for a national health care system for all Americans. But he recognizes that people are probably not willing to pay the large costs and suffer the restrictions on medical availability this would require without some offsets and changes elsewhere.

This dilemma is excruciating as progressives near power. Now that Democrats are in charge of Congress, they have proposed a large expansion of the children’s health program (by calling people “children” up to 25 years of age and defining “low income” up to 400% of the poverty level). But to win Congress, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi had also promised to “end irresponsible budget policies” and “restore pay-as-you-go budget discipline.” So they propose to pay for the increase by cutting the popular Medicare Advantage program and increasing an insurance tax by $375 million the first year. Granholm too proposes to save money to pay for her new programs in health and education by shortening sentences for less dangerous criminals and turning some crimes into misdemeanors so she can cut prison expenses.

The problem is these modest offsets to the new spending probably will not cover its long term costs and certainly will do nothing about the looming entitlement crisis. Over the next few years at the national level, spending will explode and fewer taxpayers will be available to support it. High-cost, low tax-paying seniors will surge from 12 to 20 percent of the population and the productive young will decline. If nothing is done, by 2030 Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will consume 75 percent of the national government’s real budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, eating up the whole national government--with people less willing and able to pay the bills.

It is amazing how tough budgets make progressives deal with reality. Explaining Granholm’s relative pragmatism, Dionne notes that at the state and local levels unlike the national, “the relationship between the taxes citizens must pay and the government programs that voters want is more explicit.” But this fact that states and localities are more tied to concrete budgets is precisely why small government conservatives--and incidentally America’s Founders—prefer the smaller government of states over a big and remote national government that can borrow and inflate the money supply without anyone understanding the “relationship,” allowing it to be ignored.

It is not as if Dionne really does not understand this—after all he recognizes the states are limited and the national government basically is unrestrained—but he suffers the perpetual progressive dilemma: recognizing the difficulty of paying for the bills but constantly seeking more and more government programs to resolve more and more concerns. Indeed, after Bill Clinton was elected president, Dionne warned that if progressives did not undertake reforms in Medicare, Social Security and the other entitlements these programs would absorb the national government so that progressives would have no new money to spend to solve the nation’s problems. President Clinton even considered entitlement reform early in his administration, calling it an obligation to the memory of Franklyn Roosevelt. But events soon intruded and the promise went unfulfilled.

No political party has elected a president of the same party whose unpopularity has been as high as George W. Bush’s today. So President Hillary Clinton just might get the opportunity to fulfill the obligation, if not for Franklin for Eleanor. Once in power, the entitlement facts will demand her attention. Notice the unprecedented recent reference by the Comptroller General of the U.S., David Walker, to the “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government. With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiraling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.”

Walker advised the candidates for president: “They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably.” I bet Hillary will listen. Notice how reasonable and responsible she has become as she approaches power. Her major “big idea” is a national public service academy. Politically, it is clever. It sounds progressive to train all those good bureaucratic experts to solve all of the nation’s problems. Actually, there already is a Federal Executive Institute—and it did not prevent the Katrina fowl-up—and no one trusts the experts anymore, anyway so it is silly policy. But it sounds like she is doing something—and it costs nothing! Smart.

Facing the very dilemma Dionne predicted back in the 1990s, President Hillary will be forced to try and cut entitlements to allow her and her progressives friends to implement their other expensive dreams. However, to solve the problem with additional taxes, it would require a 30 to 50 percent increase—impossible politically or economically. So she will have no choice. By then the squeeze will be too apparent to ignore. She—or some other future progressive--will have to shed other domestic programs in order save enough funds to make the bargain.

That is how big government will end. Solving the enormous entitlement crisis will force many current national programs to states, communities and the private sector. That is not the liberal plan but the inevitable result. Sure the remaining entitlements will still be large as will national and homeland security but many of the other responsibilities arrogated to the national level by Mr. Roosevelt will be forced back where they belong to smaller governments, paradoxically accomplished by a progressive Democrat, and in the not too distant future.

Do You Really Think Your Voting Will Make a Difference?

2007-08-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

It has gotten so that many people cannot even look or listen to these candidates any longer. Well people who have read my articles know I have written enough on this topic to fill volumes. In my opinion we are well past the point that anyone will change the direction this nation is going. You see even if one candidate wanted to do the things most average Americans want done, it will never get done. In my article http://searchwarp.com/swa28874.htm I spelled out why none of this will ever happen.

If we investigate since that was written we will see the candidates voting records and that nothing has changed nor will it. Oh sure the democrats took control of the Senate and they talk a good show for all those who really know nothing about them, their ideology and their goals but the fact is whoever is elected will continue down the same path reagrdless of party.

It's like the car salesman who says come on in we can work the deal and when you get there they switch you from A to Z all the while smiling and telling you they can work with you. You know the types. Then they get mad at you when you walk after wasting hours because after all that you are back to where you started in the first place, nowhere.

It has now become in my opinion like voting in a Socialist or Communist country. Do they vote, they sure do. But who are the candidates? You got it those who have the same social ideology; economic status and they are part of all the right social, political and business organizations that hold power and sway. Do you really have a choice? You sure do in people but don't think your going to get something else in the way of real change. Sure they have an election and profess how tight the race is between A and B but just what does it matter? As an example, if you voted in an election in the Stalin or Hitler era and picked one of the candidates who supproted either types you still backed a loser.

Well you think that is not so? I really have no response because that position is exactly why it doesn’t matter. Sorry no one person can change anything. The same types run for office and they all hold the same goal even while they profess a different approach and tell you they are different.

The only thing that will make a real difference is when we place people of average means and solid character into a position to run and support them with time, talent and treasure. Don’t rely on any third party because in my opinion they don’t know what to do. They should be building alternatives but they come up with the same tired bunch as all the rest.

We must continue to voice our opinions as frequently as we can in every manner we can. We must use our wallet as a tool. We should pay more for American goods when and if we can find something truly made in America.

I’ll give you and example. We went shopping for a new sofa. Every store that had one in the price range we were looking in however they were all made in China. A cheap fiber material with poor padding and cushions. We got ours reupholstered by an American company for the same money we would have spent in a store and our sofa could not be touched today in any store for less then three thousand dollars. It was manufactured to last 30 years ago and the man said it would last another 30 and it looked great and showroom new. They just are not built that way any longer. It is called craftmanship.

Another example, I went shopping for tires. I found the foreign tires were cheaper. Yet, they placed Americans out of work. So I looked for the tires that were “manufactured" here. Did I pay more, yes? But I kept American money here in America and American jobs.

The same at retail stores that show nothing but Chinese or Asian goods. I don’t need a new computer mine works fine and it is eight years old and when it dies it will go and no more. It burns electricity, costs me money to operate and is an expense item. I don’t need any new technical or any other toy made over seas.Why is the question? Now the truth is we have no electronic, TV or computer industry any longer. Clothing is another lost American product. It is all in the slave mills of Asia like shoes. No one cares about humanity when there is pure profit involved.

So my good friends it will continue in every way shape or form. The wars, the exploitation, the lies, the cover ups, the misdirection and you name it because the same people do, are, have and will run the country, business and the world and we are the sheep, the assets and the fodder. It is as simple as that.

When I vote, it will be selectively for local and state and maybe national office if and that is a big if, I can find one that is for America, average people and the family man. I certainly do not mean to vote by what they say or how they look but by their record and few to none if any are what I require. They can wave all the flags and praise the Lord all they want. I’ll leave that type of voting to the masses.

Robert T. Melaccio Sr. 2007 Copyright ©2007 Robert Melaccio

Why the Country Will Remain Center Right!

2007-08-20T15:04:00.000-07:00

There is a lot going on in an off election year. We have seen the election cycle increase more rapidly than ever before to the point the very first primary will take place possibly just after Thanksgiving. Heck the first Republican straw poll in Iowa just took place this past week with former governor Mitt Romney coming out on top depsite top tier candidates Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain as well as supposed candidate Fred Thompson not in the field. The reason my article states why the country will remain center right is for many reasons. With the past election this last November which saw Democrats win back congress for the first time in 12 years, and win back the Senate via a razor thin majority many believe the tide has shifted to center left. Democrats were elected because in many so called swing states went back to the Democrats, but not due to an agenda of big government, increased welfare, higher taxes, big spending, abortions on demand, open borders, and doves on terror. Democrats won because many so called "Moderate, Blue-Dog's" a term used to define Democrats who adpot certain conservative values such as less government, low taxes, pro-life and a middle on security issues as immigration would be an example. Republicans deserved to lose in 2006 because of the compassionate conservatism, failure to pass reform on immigration, and a failing plan in Iraq.

The American people wanted to see Democrats in Congress, and Senate to work with Republicans for funding the troops, but also have a clear plan to win in Iraq. Remember leading up to the elections almost every Democrat running for office promised not to try and cut off funds for our troops, not to raise taxes, or increase spending all of which so far they have lied to us on. Fast forward to this September where General Petraeus will report back to Congress on how the surge is working, and so far all indicators are it is working enough to the point we may even have to reduce troops in places such as Al-Anbar Provience. Democrats, and even some Republicans have decided we should pull out all together, which would be a total disaster. Now let's get to taxes for the past few months Democrats in power have promised to raise taxes on hege funds, those in top tier in earnings, and doubling the capital gains tax all to which President Bush is holding the line. Spending let's get to that, Bush has given Democrats a budget outline of about $5 billion, well Democrats want to raise about 25% higher than the President's outline not to mention a massive cigarette tax that would cost many lower/middle class residents million upon millions which is the supposed Democrat base.

This Congress, and Senate's approval ratings are some of the worst in history hovering around 15-20% clearly the best they have done so far is to pass a long overdue minimum wage hike, passing of naming congressional offices, barely passing a law protecting those who see something, and report to our police otherwise known as the "John Doe" law, and fail to secure our borders, pull teeth to pass wiretap laws protecting our country which also denies terrorists rights to our courts which than would use it against us, also most important with our heroic troops.

For Republicans to win the white house next year, and win back the chambers of congress they must play partianship to a tee something Senate Minority leader McConnell, and House Minority leader Bohener are doing, but at the same time talk to the American people that Democrat leadership will raise taxes, deny our troops funding, not secure our borders, hike spending, and deny the commander in chief the tools he needs to protect this great country such as wiretaps, and the long term re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

For Democrats to win the white house, and keep their chambers of control they must work with Republicans in a way as President Clinton did to balance the budget, the NAFTA free trade agreement, welfare reform, capital gains cuts, and the line item veto. Clearly Mr.Clinton had to work with Republican leadership which enacted him to sign these measures, but it was for the good of the country. Most importantly the American people need our current President to start using the bully pulpit more as our great Presidents did before him such as Regan, JFK, and FDR. Yes he may not be the best communicator, but this is the only chance we have to keep the surge in place, the tax cuts passed in 01, 03, finally building the fence Mr.Bush signed in October, keep the wiretaps in place, a hard line with Iran, if this all happens we will be better off.

If you go idea against idea with both parties, it is clear if Republicans preach their platform effectively with the American people regardless of a biased news, and television media the greatest country good gave man will remain center right!

The Weeping Of The Earth For Her Children: A Planetary Prayer For Light

2007-08-19T13:47:00.000-07:00

"Four years after the US-led invasion, the ICRC says the conflict is inflicting immense suffering, and calls for greater protection of civilians…Women found it "simply unbearable" to confront their children with the (dead bodies) morning after morning as they tried to take them to school… The Red Cross says every aspect of life in Iraq is getting worse - a trip to the market has become a matter of life and death."

Iraqis Face 'Immense' Suffering
BBC World News Online – April 11, 2007

here can be no victory in Iraq when the price of it is the suffering and death of countless thousands of human beings who are the 'collateral damage' of that victory. There can be no security, when the hearts of many more explode with grief, rage, despair, and helplessness, accompanied by a desire to do whatever is necessary to rid the country of the 'oppressor'.

All that is holy cries out at the disregard for individual human life by all sides engaged in this conflict so that precious life becomes merely an expenditure that is the price of war, if it is added up at all. The heart cries out for more responsibility to be taken – for the place of purity and sanctity within the human heart to prevail against the forces of darkness that inflame and justify so many deaths, so much carnage, so much loss.

If it were possible to hear her voice, we would hear the earth herself crying out in protest, crying out at the slaughter of innocents - at the flimsy justification of the destruction of one group by another, at the action of Cain against Abel. For the earth carries our pain, just as we carry it. She carries the energies of destruction that we inflict upon each other, trying all the while to cleanse them from her heart. We would hear the earth cry out and the heavens as well, for these are not actions taken as a result of Divine ordination. These are actions taken from the place of darkness that resides within the human breast that can look away from the bodies lying in the streets, from the refugees fleeing their homes, from the children who suddenly and often in the presence of spilt blood, become orphans. Except in the very largest sense in which everything, including darkness, exists within God, these are actions and a path of destruction that are being initiated from the darkness as it gains hold of human consciousness, that can only be eliminated and brought to an end by the advent of greater light.

Let us pray for that light to arrive quickly so that not another soul dies at the hands of an unseen explosive device in the road or at the hands of what looked like another shopper who blew herself up in a crowded market.

Let us pray for the light to arrive so that the fuel that gives rise to hatred and paranoia, to the need to destroy in order to 'protect', dries up – this fuel that the forces of darkness are so good at replenishing.

Let us pray that what we witness today shall have no place in tomorrow, and that the heart-wrenching drama of human catastrophe will finally come to an end, everywhere.

And in all of our prayers, let us bear in mind that what we do, think, say, has an effect upon what happens at a distance. For we are each part of a vast network of light and life, and what we turn our attention to, what we give energy to, ripples out to benefit or to detract from the whole.

We make a difference to the sorrow of others by holding it as our own. We make a difference to the balance of light and darkness by holding light and love within our hearts and acting from this foundation.

When we refuse to turn away from either the sorrow or the light, but remain steadfast in our trust and our hope, we help to bring forward the light that will redeem the darkness and bring peace to the earth.

By: Julie Redstone

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

For other writings by Julie Redstone see Pathways of Light. For a spiritual perspective on world events see the Light Omega Newsletter and the lightomega.org/worldwatch/index.html">Worldwatch section of the Light Omega website.

Democratic Budget - PAYGO EQUALS PAYMORE!!

2007-08-17T14:41:00.000-07:00

The Democrats promised to balance the budget by 2012. They said they will do this by finding "$900 billion in additional revenues."

Translation-TAX INCREASES!!

They would let the recent tax cuts expire in 2010. This means among other things bringing back the marriage penalty tax and cutting the child tax credit in half.

Democrats want you to believe that they intend to slow the growth in spending. They are using their usual deception with the term PAYGO. No matter how glib their wording, the reality is that PAYGO will become PAYMORE.

Little would be done to curb welfare and other entitlements which are soaring. The average family would see a tax increase of $2641 per year.

A family of four earning $50,000 would see taxes go up 132 percent. A single parent with two children earning $30,000 would see taxes raised 67 percent, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, if the president's tax relief is not made permanent.

Some Democrats blame it on the war. Total defense spending takes 4% of GDP. Defense spending as a percent of GDP is a tick away from its lowest point in 50 years.

Democrats are simply being Democrats. They're trying to get their hands on every penny they can to redistribute, mostly to non-producers.

To implement PAYGO, tax cuts must be offset by tax increases elsewhere or with cuts in entitlement spending, which would be helpful if those cuts applied to all entitlements.

Instead, Democrats stayed away from entitlements already in place, which have huge future costs.

Since the 2001-2003 tax cuts, revenues have soared and continue to do so. With revenues pouring in to the Treasury, no legitimate argument can be made for tax increases.

How about the economy? March 2007 produced another sizable jump in new jobs as did worker gains. When workers gain as they have for the last two years, the job market usually remains tight, signaling more good news ahead.

PAYGO may sound good, but it has the potential for much harm.

Hopefully Americans will tell congress to put a healthy economy and job creation ahead of partisan politics.

Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com

The Political History Of George W. Bush

2007-08-16T13:06:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush has had one of the most controversial presidencies in recent years. His presidency has no doubt been a tough one with the 9-11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq plaguing the nation.

Bush, son of president George H.W. Bush and U.S. senator Prescott Bush, was born into politics. He attended Yale and graduated with a degree in history. After a short stint in the Texas Air National Guard, he attended Harvard to obtain an MBA.

He dabbled in business for a while, owning an oil and gas business, before attempting politics for the first time in 1977. He ran for Congress in western Texas, but was defeated by his opponent.

Texan Governor

It wasn’t until 1993 that Bush attempted to run for office again. He went head to head with Democrat Ann Richards, one of the most successful governors in Texas history. Although his opponent was popular, he had a strong team of advisors who created an unbeatable platform for his campaign. He performed well in the debates, and won the election with 52% of the votes.

As governor, Bush spearheaded efforts to increase education funding and offer support for religious organizations. He also reformed the justice system in Texas. In 1998, Bush won re-election with 69% of the vote. He continued his policies based on strong Republican values, and in 1999 announced that he would run for President.

The 2000 Election

Bush relied on his previous campaign managers, Karen Hughes, John Allbaugh and Karl Rove, in his bid for the presidency. After beating out U.S. Senator John McCain for the Republican ticket, Bush and Vice President Al Gore faced off for the White House.

The election took place on November 7, 2000 and was not resolved until December of that year. After a lot of controversy over the state of Florida’s electoral votes, Bush was declared the winner with 271 electoral votes. However, he lost the popular election by over 500,000 votes.

The Presidency

Bush’s first term was marked by tragedy with the terrorist attacks on September 11th. He successfully pulled the nation together at a time of crisis. His “compassionate conservative” approach appealed to many people and his approval rating soared. His policies focused on eradicating terrorism worldwide and increasing national security, to the detriment of domestic programs.

In March 2002, Bush declared war in Iraq after months of attempted negotiations with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Less than a month later, U.S. Troops successfully overtook the capital of Baghdad. However, military presence in Iraq continues as troops try to keep peace between the citizens and insurgents.

In 2004, Bush was re-elected to the presidency, despite growing concern over the Iraqi occupation. Growing public disapproval and continued increases in the national debt, mostly fueled by military expenses, have marked his second term. Whether you are supportive or critical of George W. Bush, there is no denying his impact on the course of the nation’s history.

By: Joshua Spaulding

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

For more Quality Military and Politics Articles visit Josh Spaulding's new Article Directory at everyonesarticles.com/

Solving the Iraqi Quagmire

2007-08-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

There are few problems more complex than Iraq at the moment. Stripping away all the clutter and we have two options. Stay or Go. Staying is not an option. The high cost of the war and the growing opposition of the people and politicians to remaining in Iraq means that the coalition of the willing will have to find a way to exit Iraq.

However before an exit can be achieved, there is still the very real possibility that a victory of sorts can be claimed. Irregardless of what you believe was the purpose of the war (the search for Weapons of mass destruction, to remove Saddam, to stabilise oil supply for America etc), Iraq has now become the focus and the battleground for western values versus Islamic Extremism. On one side we have those who are trying to setup and form an Iraqi Government with Western values and on the other we have Al Qaeda / Islamic extremists determined to induce an Islamic Government with Sharia Law.

The stakes for both sides couldn't be higher. A clear victory for one or the other will give credence to their policies. For America, a win will increase their power vis a vis rogue nations. For the Islamic Extremists, a win will spur on their activities in other arena's.

So now that we know we are leaving Iraq, how do we leave without handing the victory to Al Qaeda? A victory for America can only be claimed if three conditions are met:

1. A free Iraq - in the sense that the Government is representative of the people, and work for ALL the people.

2. Democratic - That the government has been elected by the people.

3. Stability - The government, and hence Iraq, is stable and relatively secure.

Only then can it be claimed that Extremism, in whatever guise has been defeated.

It is clear that the very act of remaining in Iraq breeches the first two conditions. So how do we achieve these aims and at the same time withdraw from Iraq? How do we pull out, and not hand a ready made power vacuum for Al Qaeda / extremists to launch a power struggle within Iraq, leading to possibly the most brutal civil war?

Again, by simplifying the matter we have two options:

1. A sudden withdrawal of Troops.

A sudden withdrawal of troops at this stage will leave the Iraqi government and armed forces helpless against extremists. Iraq would be plunged into civil war. To have a complete withdrawal, without leaving a structure behind for the defence of civilians, would in my opinion be a crime far worse than the actual invasion of Iraq.

2. A phased / planned withdrawal of troops.

Is the only real option left on the table. To achieve a planned withdrawal we have a further two options: Make the withdrawal public to the civilian population, or keep the date a military secret.

A public date (could be different dates for each province) is more beneficial for all concerned. First of all, a public date will confirm the withdrawal of troops for an area. This will have the immediate effect of any 'freedom fighters' (those Iraqis that genuinely believe their country is going to be occupied forever. These are not Islamic Extremists) ceasing attacks on what they see as occupying troops.

Secondly a public date allows the Iraqi Government to concentrate its attention on a given province. A surge of troops in an area has proven effective in quelling Extremist violence. Consider for a moment the Iraqi Elections - they were relatively peaceful. Also consider the recent surge of US troops and the results - the US deaths in Iraq has hit an 8 month low.

Thirdly a given date will focus the minds of the Iraqi politicians. What is most blocking progress at the moment is in-fighting between various factions. The Kurds, Shiite's, Sunni's are all engaged in a political power struggle. A firm date for withdrawal may just provide the impetus for the resolution of arguments. Even the pullout of troops from one area (the others can follow months later) will provide a powerful example to the rest of the country of what is coming their way.

Should civil war threaten the pull out region, US troops can always be sent back in. Irregardless, Iraqi's will understand that the troops are not there to stay.

Having a two pronged approach of a troop surge, then a withdrawal may be just the key to exiting Iraq successfully. The pressure placed on Iraqi politicians from a planned withdrawal may just be the impetus that is required.

So the only real option is to implement a phased, public withdrawal of troops from Iraq. By ensuring that each area is relatively stable politically and militarily it is possible that an Iraq that ticks each of the three conditions above will emerge.

Critical Mass of Power and Money

2007-08-14T15:33:00.000-07:00

Critical mass: The smallest amount of fissionable material that morphs nuclear reactors from hulks of useless metal and pipes into the most potent source of power harnessed by man. The same principal applies to FREEDOM CHAMPIONS who support the next President of These United States, Dr. Ron Paul and/or the Libertarian Party.

Below the critical mass level – we only have hopes and dreams. At or above critical mass, we have power. Loads and loads of power.

Prior to Dr. Ron Paul running for President, there was no reactor for harnessing all of us Freedom Champions into a laser-like focused group for propelling one candidate to victory. Now that we have the dream candidate in Dr. Ron Paul, we will serve our united interests by keeping our business dealings “in the family” of Freedom Champions.

For example, much of the merchandise we buy for promoting Dr. Ron Paul (RP) – the next President of These United States – comes from other Libertarians or RP supporters. They often donate a substantial part of their sales to the campaign or simply promote RP to others with the profits. Either way the cause of Freedom – limited government, right to defend ourselves and bear arms, freedom of speech, etc., wins. Better still, those who do business together and trade together become more powerful by association. We can call on our combined resources of either money, connections, or labor for moving forward the cause of freedom or often, keeping the wolves of government at bay.

Part of the reason Ed and Elaine Brown (an heroic couple standing up to the I.R.S.) are still breathing today in my opinion, and not full of bullet holes, is because of the united forces for freedom rallied by the groups bounded by Alex Jones and others. Hundreds of action oriented Freedom Champions made the trek to support Ed and Elaine Brown while the black helicopters tried to intimidate them. The helicopters left when they saw the huge support from the brave ones standing by the Browns. That is a prime example of the power of unity in purpose at work in a concrete way.

As online entrepreneurs, we work within the free market for creating our ideal lives with the income, influence, and lifestyle we desire. The less of a free market there is because of regulations, taxes, licenses, government spying, internet oversight, etc., the more obstacles between our dreams and reality we have to leap. Sometimes these obstacles - internet taxes and regulation come to mind - can kill our businesses and dreams instantly. Forming a power base of like minded, pro-free market, pro-business, creative, informative, and active people is a critical task for survival. Beyond marketing, it is path clearing.

Join a group of pro-free market activists, and become part of the Critical Mass that starts the explosion of freedom and prosperity.

Mark D. Solomon is a commodities trader, Freedom Champion, engineer, motorcyclist, martial artist, and partner in M2Moto, LL.C. owner of http://www.libertarianyellowpages.com and http://www.thinkLIBERTARIAN.com and http://www.freedomassets.com

An Immigration Plan - From An Ordinary Citizen

2007-08-13T13:58:00.000-07:00

On October 26th, 2006, Congress passed a bill authorizing the extension of a fence that would
cover 854 miles along the borders of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

The Department of Homeland Security has admitted to having built just 13 miles, so far. Representative Duncan Hunter (Ca), sponsor of the bill, said, on a July 4th telecast, that President Bush was unaware that so little of the fence had been built.

Let's all shout loud and clear to our representatives, letting them know we want action and quick.

In the meantime, one citizen's proposal:

1. Build the 854 mile fence to be completed no later than April 1, 2008 which allows nine months from the time the immigration bill was defeated. Continue all other measures of border security.

2. Require illegal aliens to register and receive a fool proof, tamper proof biometric card.

3. Require illegal aliens and their employer, each, to pay $10 a week, permanently, to pay for the costs of the fence, related security costs, the additional workers needed for processing, for the illegal status of the worker and for other inevitable costs. The $10 weekly fee (penalty) would be in addition to all other taxes.

4. Enact serious penalties for employers who knowingly violate new and existing requirements.

5. If the illegal alien has a crime free record, grant a temporary status that allows him only to continue working, with no determination as to citizenship.

6. No welfare of any kind could be received by non-citizens, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, (EITC) which is not in any way earned. The EITC by any other name is a welfare program.

7. Require that each country's quota be reduced annually by the exact number of those caught entering illegally. So if 200 citizens from a given country were caught, that country's quota would be reduced the following year by 200. This would encourage countries to enforce, rather than encourage, breaking the law.

8. Appoint a presidential commission of American citizens only from all walks of life, excluding congress, to make recommendations on citizenship, that will reflect what is best for the future of America, not reflect the wishes and special interest scheming, of a few elite Senators. Give the commission precisely one year to report its findings.

9. I would like to be on that immigration commission.

By: Michael McNesby

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Mexico The 51st State? No Way Jose!

2007-08-11T12:50:00.000-07:00

My friends think that what I do is easy. They think that writing about events and offering reasoned commentary is something that anyone can do. And believe me, they try. Little do they realize that what I do, again offering reasoned commentary, is actually harder than it looks!

Yes, I know that there are many political hacks on the left out there that think what I write about is absolute gibberish and that my commentary is not at all reasoned but hey its their prerogative to be wrong. After all, if they were right I wouldn’t have the nice little revenue stream generated talking about their psychobabble that I have.

So I was approached by a friend of mine who said to me “I want to write an article for your site that is going to solve the immigration problem!”

My interest was piqued. But I was wary since right off the bat he framed the argument incorrectly calling it an “immigration problem” and not an “illegal immigration problem”. After all, I know how to solve the “illegal” immigration problem. Simply enforce the border and deport the criminals caught coming here illegally.

“Do tell,” I prompted knowing full well that the “plan” that he was about to divulge was bound to be more complicated than necessary.

“It’s simple,” he said, “we need to make Mexico the 51st St…”

I didn’t even let him get the word “State” out before I stopped him. I’ve already heard this argument and it is a terrible one. But the two of us had a discussion that made him realize that what I do is not as easy as simply saying the first thing that comes into my mind and calling it a good idea.

The plan was that if we made Mexico the 51st State then we could accomplish several things. First, take control of Mexico and “modernize” the country. Secondly, and most “brilliantly” eliminate the U.S. Mexico border all together thus removing the need to secure it. Third, reduce the size of the United States southern border to about 200 miles because it would now border Guatemala instead. Fourth, give the United States more domestic oil since we already get so much from Mexico as it is.

Walla! That was the plan!

Certainly much more complicated than say, enforcing the border and deporting the illegals! In case you could not tell that was meant sarcastically.

I say one thing to this plan. No way Jose!

First of all Mexico would never go for it. There is far too much political power that would be given up by Mexican politicians.

Second of all there is far too much corruption in Mexico. You think Chicago on Election Day is corrupt? Ha! Check out Mexican politics!

Third, I know this sounds like a good idea to people that have visited the resort towns in Mexico but if you have gone off the beaten path and ever seen the real poverty that is rampant in Mexico you would think twice about it. Even giving the socialists here in America and their Democratic dupes that many automatic new additions to the welfare roles would be insane! Talk about ending any chance we have about turning our sinking ship around.

And who will pay for all those new mouths that need the social spending that has become entwined in our society? You, me and every other American with a good job that’s who.

Fourthly, do you really think the environmental wackos here in the States would let us keep drilling for oil in our new State? You’ve got to be dreaming! We have a hard enough time drilling in Alaska!

And lastly yeah, Mexico is poor but Guatemala is even poorer. The last thing we need is to put a country worse than Mexico on our southern border. Trading one problem for another doesn’t make you any headway.

After explaining this to my now awestruck friend who had just been hit with several sledgehammers to his plan that he hadn’t even considered he agreed that my original plan was much better, simpler and effective. And he also agreed that what I do is certainly not something that any average Joe like him could do.

So it’s a good thing that I am here and it’s a darn good thing I am up to the task.

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free (http://www.thelandofthefree.net) and American Conservative Daily (http://www.americanconservativedaily.com). He is also the owner of American Infidel T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/americaneagle04).

Is Ward Churchill Too Dumb To Teach Our Kids? by J.J. Jackson

2007-08-10T12:51:00.000-07:00

This week Ward Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado. The university apparently decided that they should finally look into the man that they have allowed to run rampant around their campus and found that this was a man who stole the work of others (plagiarized), concocted events which he later passed off as "history", and committed other dubious acts of while within the world of academia.

Aside from what you think of his off the wall theories about how those that died in the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, were nothing more than "little Eichmans", there is a more important question that needs to be asked. That question is, is Ward Churchill too stupid to being teaching our children?

It's one thing to have ideas. It's one thing to postulate and form thoughts. But it is another to just be so disjointed from reality that you turn reality on its head. As an example of this, Ward Churchill's attorney (who is also probably too stupid to be practicing law as well) rushed to the microphones after the verdict by the and decried the firing as a violation of Mr. Churchill's "first amendment" rights. He ignored his client's actions, some of which are actual crimes, and scurried off to the courts to file suit.

Now I know that as a college professor Ward Churchill is probably not very rooted in reality and he has apparently found good company in his lawyer. It takes a person truly so far out in left field that they are sitting in the last row of bleachers to even come up with such a cockamamie idea. It's not like the first amendment is that hard to understand after all and I wonder if Mr. Churchill and his lawyer have been consulting Noam Chomsky on how to twist words.

Seriously, if one cannot understand the first amendment should they be anywhere near the minds of our children, teaching them and being paid for it?

The first amendment says, with regards to the freedom of speech, that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The Constitution further prohibits the states from doing this as well through the 14th amendment which says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Ok, so since the "freedom of speech" is a privilege granted in the Constitution that means the states cannot a law infringing on it either.

The University of Colorado is certainly an arm of the state. It is state funded. So the question must be asked; did the university infringed on Mr. Churchill's "free speech" rights by firing him?

Hmm. Well it doesn't appear that they are preventing him from speaking. I do not see anything in their firing that "abridges" his "freedom of speech". Mr. Churchill can still speak. He hasn't been whisked away to a gulag. He just will no longer be allowed to "speak" on the taxpayer's dime.

Teachers are supposed to be mentors. They are supposed to impart wisdom. They are supposed to know more than their students. But it appears that Ward Churchill cannot even read. Now, considering the sorry state of our public education system in America these days, the fact that he seems to not have even a second grade knowledge of the English language might actually mean that he is more educated than many of his students.

The first amendment does not say that the government must pay you for your opinion. It does not say that it must supply you with a job in order to impart that opinion to others. It does not even say that they must provide you with a platform at the expense of other taxpayers to tell people what your opinion is. All it says is that the government cannot prevent you from speaking you opinion. So if you are not smart enough to understand this how is it that you are smart enough to be influencing young skulls full of oatmeal?

And while we are on the subject of "rights" wouldn't Ward Churchill's argument, which basically boils down to that that the state must provide him with a platform from which to speak, violate the right of the people to associate freely? If the people in charge of the University decide that they don't want Ward Churchill around, at what is supposed to be an institute of higher learning, shouldn't they be allowed that right? Or is it Mr. Churchill's contention that rights exist only for him and not others?

Beyond the farce that someone has trampled on Mr. Churchill's "free speech" rights, we still have to remember that just because you are "free" to speak your mind does not mean you are "free" from the consequences of your actions. There are long standing examples of this. Even the Constitution makes a notable exception to "free speech" when it says that the government can punish you for what you say if it provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy. It's called "treason". Look it up. Sure you can say it. But you might not like the results.

And then there are the legal exceptions based on long standing precedent and libertarian values that if what you say does real and measurable harm you can also be held accountable by the law. Oh, you can still say them, but you might not like the consequences. Examples of this are slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and lying under oath in a court of law.

The important thing to remember is that your "right" to your "freedom of speech" doesn't give you the right to be free from the repercussions of what you say. If people want to shun you and not pay you because they find your opinions repugnant then that is their right as well.

And if you believe otherwise I fully expect that you will begin to immediately petitioning the government to provide me with a federally funded position and stipend to help spread the words I write and would love to speak before many more people. About a million dollars should do it I think. Please put the check in the mail tomorrow.

About the Author

Blaring Double Standards In The Cultural Diversity Movement

2007-08-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

In Massachusetts a judge recently said that a parent’s authority concerning their children ends at the doors of the public school. This was the answer given to parents who were at arms over the teaching of the gay lifestyle to their children in the public school. They were told that they had the option to send their children to private schools or homeschool them if they could not abide the rule.

In Philadelphia a man witnessing about his faith in Christ received death threats and was told his adherence to the idea of marriage being between only one man and one woman is perverted. Using the P word when referring to homosexuals can raise the ire of any number of gay activists or groups not to mention that in some states may lead to a law suit. What happened to “whatever is good for the goose…?”

Muslim children are never forced to pledge allegiance to the flag, pray Christian prayers or attend Christian meetings. Children of American born Christian parents are now being forced to attend rallies that deny the teachings of their parents and their church. This is the old double standard with a whole new twist.

In San Diego parents are being fought by the school and the city officials because they do not want their children to take part in the gay pride parade. The parade promises to produce a spectacle of sexual debauchery for all the kids to see as it has consistently now for several years.

The treatment of parents and concerned citizens is equivalent to telling them they have no rights to uphold the original perception of the school as it was first presented. This presentation had to do with education, academic pursuits and character building. Cultural diversity being the new kid on the block seems to be re-writing the rules even as it seeks an umbrella of protection from the halls of American jurisprudence.

Turning a culture upside down in the name of tolerance is by any other name intolerance and a whopping double standard.

Just after the byline an article by Wendy Cloyd 2-16-2007 on the CitizenLink website starts with “Gay-activist group Soulforce is organizing protests of Christian colleges because of their codes that forbid sexual immorality.” Is there a fight to protect immorality in the U.S.?

With former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former President Jimmy Carter now claiming that the Iraq war has taken away America’s ability to stand for what is moral and friendly, one can only wonder if either of them knows about Soulforce.

Even as the “Philadelphia Eleven” from the ministries of Repent America are being heavily penalized for their attempts to evangelize at abortion clinics and gay rallies Soulforce plans to double its efforts to evangelize for the gay life. Their efforts include two busses, each loaded with protestors bound for each coast of the U.S. to visit and protest at some 32 Christian colleges and Universities. Some schools are planning to meet with them and do what might be considered “counter evangelism.”

It remains to be seen if any of their band of gay life promoters will be arrested or charged with any civil rights violations. Although gays have not been targeted to any degree for name calling, death threats and creating fear they have certainly been doing the same for some time now. The double standard may start to get noticed as the more militant factions of the gay rights activists’ face off with various cultural and Christian groups in this country.

Besides the double standards that are practiced and espoused there is also a plethora of behavioral non sequiturs that the gay community seems unable to defend. A case in point comes from the “City That Care Forget.”

In New Orleans even some of residents of the French Quarter’s rousing party district have taken exception to the yearly celebrations of the gay community’s event called “Southern Decadence.” Some people seem to think that while gays are trying to present their lifestyle as normal and culturally acceptable that to associate it with decadence is obviously contradictory. The celebration has aspects that cannot be seen as anything other than decadent thus producing yet another double standard that is starting to get noticed.

Getting it all morally mixed up is not new in our civilization but sadly when things get this mangled up it usually spells the end of a culture or nation not its advancement.

Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? Malachi 2:17

By: Rev. Michael Bresciani

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Rev Bresciani is a Christian author and columnist. His articles on many important subjects are now read in every corner of the globe. For a list of subjects and news from around the world visit www.americanprophet.org

“environmental” Group Supports And Encourages Generation Of Toxic Waste

2007-08-08T05:37:00.000-07:00

While this seems like an incredibly odd statement, it is very true and I state plainly it to make a point. There is an anti mining website ["nodirtygold.org"] that was created by a left leaning group of folks which people sometimes ask about. According to them, there is no acceptable gold mining, without exception – all newly mined gold is termed “dirty gold”. Responsible companies, irresponsible, no distinction is made – all are deemed evil and the baby is cast out with the bathwater. They have little expertise or knowledge in the environmental field, and even less concerning the mining industry, and without evidence they claim that somehow all mining destroys the land or is a horrible threat to someone. You can note from their website that there is virtually no documentation for any of their allegations - its because 99% of the allegations are simply baseless. So what do they accomplish? Not a darn thing except fund raising!

The organization is totally hypocritical as the people who run the website drive around in their cars made of newly mined "dirty" iron, zinc, copper, etc. You know they all live in houses plumbed with "dirty" copper pipe, their houses are also wired with copper, they drive cars wired with copper, use computers and cell phones wired with copper, etc. "Dirty" platinum and palladium reduces the smog emissions of the "dirty" gasoline they burn to run their dirty cars. They use the very "dirty" gold and silver they condemn in the contacts of all their electronic devices. Not just their phones and TVs, but the very computers they use to create their website to bash the mining industry contains that same "dirty" gold they are condemning, and telling you not to use! They love their nice luxurious electrically enhanced lives, and so are hypocrites to the extreme. “No Dirty Gold” is not the only one of these scammers. There are others like “Great Basin Mine Watch”, a phony organization located right here in my hometown of Reno. All of these anti-mining organizations use the very products they condemn. It's like a bunch of crack addicts holding a protest against crack makers, when they are the ones who buy the product and keep the makers in business. Just more examples of "better than you" types of groups that do for themselves exactly what they preach that you shouldn't do!

The big “thing” which is promoted at “no dirty gold” is the use of recycled gold. They imply that since recycled gold is already out of the ground, it is therefore somehow more environmentally friendly. Most recycled gold is recovered from computers and other electronics parts. The lie they don’t tell you is that the process of recycling gold involves the use of strong acids (creating hazardous wastes) and incineration of plastic electronic components (creating serious air pollution emissions and even more toxic waste). Environmentally speaking, recycled gold is probably WORSE than newly mined gold as far as pollution created per ounce of gold. So in the end they really are encouraging and supporting the generation of increased amounts of toxic waste. Is there any validity to their claim that recycled gold is somehow environmentally better than newly mined gold? Of course not! But they have to keep up the lie so the money continues flowing into their coffers.

One of nodirtygold's chief targets is Couer 'Alene Mines. I have spent time at a Couer mine here in Nevada – and know it to be a clean operation. Yet this is one of the companies repeatedly attacked by “no dirty gold” on their web site. The Couer mine I have visited is their silver and gold mine at Rochester in Nevada. That mine is highly regulated and very clean. I have been there in person to see it. The folks in the nearby town are glad to have them in their county - for many years it has been the county's largest business and their taxes pay a considerable portion of the county budget. The environmental impacts from that mine beyond their property boundary are near zero. So don't let an extremist website full of baloney, that offers few if any facts to support their allegations convince you somehow that all newly mined gold and silver are somehow "dirty". The facts just don’t support the charge.

The truth is that mining companies are subject to thousands upon thousands of laws limiting their effects on the environment. These companies must obtain and hold dozens of permits governing the impacts their operations. Here in the US, they must pay the government in advance for the cost for the reclamation for any land disturbed by their operations. They must pay for their own reclamation before they even turn their first shovel full of dirt. Mining is one of the most heavily regulated businesses out there. Yes, a century ago, miners made some serious environmental impacts. However this is not 1877, and things have changed. We have the EPA, BLM, MSHA and many other Federal, State and local government agencies to constantly regulate and minimize the impacts of their operations.

Another important point about all these groups who oppose all mining in the US is that their efforts are actually increasing pollution in small developing nations populated mostly by minorities. The gold, copper and other resources have to come from somewhere, so it gets mined in Bolivia, or Namibia or someplace like that. These countries are poorly prepared to regulate the mines there and as a result, more pollution is created than per pound of metal mined than there would be if it were just mined here. Think about it – there is actually more pollution created on a worldwide basis than if those resources were mined simply here and used here because of our strong environmental laws. Supporting mining in the USA actually reduces worldwide pollution. The "not in my backyard" perspective promoted by these groups is actually a very selfish and self-centered one.

So don’t buy the baloney, don’t fall for the lie, don’t drink the Kool-Aid! If you want to give some money to make the world a better place, find the local homeless shelter in your community. Most of these operations make highly efficient use of donated money to help those who are down and out. Any money donated to “no dirty gold” is wasted and accomplishes nothing of significance.

By: Reno Chris

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

More information about the truth of this story can be viewed at: nevada-outback-gems.com/Reference_pages/Dirty_gold/Dirty_Gold.htm Chris is an independent investor and his market comments can be viewed at: nevada-outback-gems.com/gold_invest/Investing_Gold.htm Chris Ralph's information page on prospecting for gold can be viewed at: nevada-outback-gems.com/prospect/chris_prospect.htm

Anti-american Immigration Reform

2007-08-07T14:54:00.000-07:00

Assume you are in an American family trying to make ends meet from month to month. You are a typical two-income family with two school age children. You have a mortgage, car payments, insurance, moderate credit card debt and the normal monthly expenses that all families have (i.e., food, telephone, cloths, utilities, etc.). You’re on a fixed budget. You dutifully tithe 10% of your net income to your church and try to give a little extra to other charities each year. You can only afford to go on a family vacation every 2-3 years if you save up and only if nothing unexpected happens that takes away your vacation savings. Saving up for your children’s college education is out of the question. You simply don’t earn enough to do that but wish that you could. You worry about it. You are in every way an average “middle class” American family.

With this in mind presume that a complete stranger shows up at your door. He was never invited to your home and in fact broke the law by trespassing on your property. He is a Spanish speaker with very limited command of the English language. His wife and child speak no English at all. He tells you that he is poor. Because you have more wealth then he does, never mind the fact that you worked hard all your life to accumulate something, he insists (not asks) that you share your limited assets with him and his family. He informs you that he’ll have to demand even more later on when his extended family arrives from Mexico.

This foreign stranger may have a criminal record and may even be dangerous. He could even be a terrorist, a drug pusher, or a member of a violent gang. He imposes on you to help accommodate him and his family for far less then you pay monthly on your own mortgage. Neither he nor his family cares a lick about your property or its appearance. They make no effort to take care of your home or your other belongings. They help themselves to everything that you have and sometimes steal from you. They make no effort to assimilate with your family and instead maintain a “duel culture” in your home. They also insist on speaking Spanish in your home and demand that you print instructions for everything in your home in Spanish. They expect you to embrace their culture and tradition even as they ignore yours. They love what you and your country have to offer but their loyalties remain with Mexico. They feel no patriotism, loyalty, or generosity to your country at all. They even hoist the Mexican flag above “Old Glory” on your family flag pole.

This foreign stranger demands that you also help pay for any of his and his family’s health care needs and to educate his child, in Spanish, for as long as it takes his child to learn English (never mind that bilingual education is more expensive). If his child has special education needs you, of course, will be expected to pay more to cover this because, after all, he is poor. This stranger never says thank you and instead wants more of everything that you have. He has even attempted to undermine you with your boss by offering to do your job for much less pay and no fringe benefits. If your boss is greedy and accepts his offer you will lose your home and your way of life.

Strange as it may seem, your own government supports this foreign stranger instead of you. So does your church. You are of the Catholic faith and your priest and bishop who always accept your generous tithing still call on you to surrender even more of your assets to this stranger. They lay a terrible guilt trip on you if you don’t. Your own government, your church, and liberal “do gooders” who always want to spend your money on someone else have no reservations about calling you bigoted, immoral, and uncharitable if you fail to fall in line and happily agree to put you family in such financial harm that you can no longer maintain your “middle class” status. They insist that you still must do all and give all that this stranger asks for. Never mind that he broke the law to get here, doesn’t deserve to be here, and could care less about you and your family. You are told that this is your “morale obligation” as a Christian and as an American to do this as an act of charity and good will. Never mind that his own Mexican government doesn’t care about him, refuses to help him, and encouraged him to sneak across the border so that he could instead share his wealth, and yours, with them.

To add insult to injury this stranger implies that you actually owe him whatever he demands because centuries ago he had ancestors, that that he never knew or met, who were pushed off land in the area you now live in as a result of a war that they lost. He also informs you that a greedy American businessman has hired him, his brother, and a couple of his friends to work for him at low wages and with no fringe benefits. He says he is obligated to send a quarter of his earnings back to Mexico to help his poor extended family there, at least until they are able to sneak across the border and join him in your house. So, he says this is why you must help him with all his additional living expenses because his greedy American boss refuses to pay him a livable wage.

Would you, as an act of charity, agree to all his demands? If so, at least you would be voluntarily giving away your own assets. How would you feel if your own government involuntary forced you to do this? Would you be enraged? If they called you greedy and uncharitable because you disagreed, even though you have always been a charitable person, would you be angry? Would you be disappointed when you point out that charity is only charity if it is voluntary, not involuntary, but they ignore your appeal? How would you feel? What would you do?

The aforementioned analogy is precisely what is happening with illegal immigration in our country right now. It has been going on for decades and it is bankrupting the American middle class. It is a travesty! It is also dangerous. It must be stopped or America will collapse as a nation. We must close our borders to illegal immigration completely and rigidly enforced our immigration laws. Only allow immigrants to entry our country “legally” and under our terms. Amnesty or any semblance of it for illegal aliens must never be allowed. Our national security and the hopes of the American middle class depend on this.

It is an affront to justice itself to allow millions of illegal aliens who disrespected our borders and violated our laws to continue to bleed our treasury dry for medical, educational, welfare, and other social services. It is wrong to allow them to remain here and be given unearned and undeserved citizenship while denying the same to millions of others who played by the rules and never made it to our shores. It is very wrong to continue to allow greedy American businesses to exploit both the illegal alien poor and the American middle class who must supplement their pauper wages and finance the fringe benefits that these awful employers refuse to pay. The men and woman who run such businesses are selfish, greedy, unchristian, unpatriotic, and anti-American.

We risk our very nation if the Bush, McCain, Kennedy "Immigration Reform Bill" ever becomes law. The United States of America may never recover from this immigration reform bill if it is passed.

No amnesty! Secure our borders now!

By: Ed Coet

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Author Biographical Sketch: Ed Coet is a retired US Army officer, a professional educator, and a widely published freelance writer and poet. Ed has had numerous articles published on a variety of topics. Ed’s short stories, David’s Angel, Big Bertha, and Simon and Papa John were published in the popular Ezine Bewildering Stories and in Author’s Den.com. Big Bertha was also published in the Scribal Tales magazine. Ed Coet’s poems have been published in Purple Dream Ezine, Solder Works magazine, Children, Churches & Daddies magazine, Scars publication, Steller Showcase Journal, Both Sides Now Journal, Because We Write magazine, Cynic magazine, Lost Beat Poetry Journal, Fullosia Press, Blue Fog Poetry Journal, Author’s Den Ezine, Raven Publishing, Inc., and Muscadine Lines, A Southern Journal. Visit with Ed Coet at “The Coet Blog” at thecoet.blogspot.com/.

The Great Legacy Of The U.s. Coast Guard

2007-08-06T23:26:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Coast Guard was officially started in 1915, although it had existed before in two parts. One of those parts was the United States Revenue Cutter Service, which has been around since 1790. The other part was the United States Life-Saving Service. In 1915, Congress realized that the entire thing would be much more efficient if they were to combine their resources, and work together for the safety of the U.S. coasts.

Since then, the Coast Guard has accumulated multiple other organizations and bureaus, and been transferred through the government several times. Now it is officially a part of the Department of Homeland Security, which was made official in 2003. Prior to that, it was part of the Department of Transportation. During times of war, the Coast Guard’s resources and manpower can be transferred to the Navy.

The Coast Guard has played a large role in defending the United States during wars. During the Civil War, a Coast Guard ship fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. In the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American war, the Coast Guard was heavily involved in combat and defense. In World War II, the entire Coast Guard was put to work under the command of the navy. They even landed troops in various regions of the world, and participated in the infamous D-Day.

Nowadays, the Coast Guard has roughly 40,000 men and women working. There are 8,000 on reserve who are ready to be called in at any time, and quite a few civilian employees as well who handle the paperwork of the Coast Guard. Most of the time they focus on stopping sea-going problems, including smuggling and ships in distress. It is a great organization that does a lot to keep our nation safe, and hopefully you are now better informed about it.

By: AJ Adams

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Get a Kabar US Coast Guard Fighting Knife by Ka-bar Knives from our outdoor sports store.

Whatever Happened To Free Choice

2007-08-05T13:02:00.000-07:00

I was floored the other day when I heard about the lawsuit brought against Kentucky Fried Chicken for the use of transfats. It was just another nail in the coffin this country is putting itself into.

Where it is going to end. Kentucky Fried Chicken has been around a long as I have been.

Whatabout the concept of “fried chicken” is not understandable. That it is going to be high in fats and calories is a given. You know what, if you don’t want to eat transfats, then don’t eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Kentucky Fried chicken has been making chicken this way for years and they have the right to make it as they see fit and someone else should not have the ability to dictate how they should make their chicken. After all, it’s their business, not the consumers. If the consumers stop eating there then Kentucky Fried chicken, I am sure, will be making changes.

Same goes if you don’t like the language on the show, don’t watch it. The radio station, don’t listen to it. The movie, don’t go to it, the book, don’t read it.

By involving lawyers and other government agencies we are abdicating all of our choices.

Everyday I see more and more of the rights, values, and privileges being controlled by some agency or individual other than myself. We used to be a country where we could say and be whatever we wanted, we could be INDIVIDUALS. Not anymore, the squeaky wheel is the one who is winning. No longer does the majority rule, but the minority. We are letting the minority determine the policy of not only our country buthow we live our lives, raise our children, work our jobs and basically deal with every day life matters. In fact, we don’t even deal with life matters any longer, we have abdicated that
responsibility to anyone we can, we look for others to blame for our shortcomings rather than looking to ourselves.

I think back to my grandfather and father who both fought in wars for our country and if those same wars occurred today, I shudder to think who would be running our country.

There are many of us living today who are looking at the country, the government, the school systems, and the people around us and wondering where it all went so wrong. I know I do and I also have a good idea where, but that is for another article.

After all, I still have some free choices and not telling where I think the problem started is one of them.

What about the rest of you, don’t you want your right to choose back?

DeFiore Enterprises, 2007

By: Chuck and Sue

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Where Yesterdays Live - We are helping to preserve the past and use it to both educate and entertain you through our special interest DVDs. These DVDs cover the gamut from historical, technical, cultural, entertainment and more. Whether you are an educator, student, parent, hobbyist or just someone with a love of the past, you will find what you want in our ever expanding collection. www.whereyesterdayslive.com

Liberal Bias in Colleges by John Eberhard

2007-07-29T20:13:00.000-07:00

In my last article, I described the overwhelming liberal bias that is seen today in the mainstream news media, meaning the major newspapers and the TV news. Luckily, there is also a booming conservative presence in talk radio, on the Internet, on cable TV (Fox News), and in the bookstores, to help balance things out. But if you only read the newspapers and watch TV news, like many people do, you're really only going to get one side of many important issues today.

In this article I'm going to talk about another danger and area of potential propaganda, namely the liberal bias in our colleges and universities, specifically in the faculties.

I have four kids, the oldest 14. So college concerns loom for me in the not too distant future. Paying for it, of course, plus the quality and character of what we're going to get for our money.

One would hope that in sending your kids to college, that they would be exposed to a variety of knowledge and ideas, that they would gain valuable skills that would serve them well in the job marketplace and in the workplace, that they would be taught how to think, and that they would be taught leadership skills.

In studies having to do with things like government, economics, sociology, and history, one would hope for a balance. After all, we do have a two-party system of government in America today, and the differences between the two parties couldn't possibly be more distinct and evident than they are today.

As I reported in one of my earlier articles, a recent Gallup poll showed that 40% of Americans today consider themselves conservatives, 40% consider themselves as moderates, and 20% consider themselves liberals. Of course the moderates in the middle can tend to swing either way on a variety of issues.

Now let's take a look at the percentage of liberalism and conservatism in the faculties on college campuses. A 2002 survey by pollster Frank Luntz of Ivy League professors found that only 3% are Republicans while 57% are Democrats. 84% voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election versus 9% for George Bush.

6% of these Ivy League profs said they were "somewhat conservative", while 30% said they were "somewhat liberal" and 34% said they were "liberal". That's 64% liberal or somewhat liberal versus 6% somewhat conservative (note that none said they were "conservative"). That's a 10 to 1 margin.

In May of 2003, 67% of Americans favored a tax cut, while a whopping 80% of Ivy League professors in the 2002 survey disagreed with any tax cuts.

11% of Americans agree that the federal government owes blacks some sort of reparations for the harms caused by slavery. 40% of Ivy Leaguer profs think so.

In October 03, 70% of Americans agreed that the government should spend more money on a defense system against nuclear missiles. Only 14% of Ivy Professors agreed. 74% disagreed.

21% of Ivy Professors believe that the media is liberal biased, versus 45% of the American public in a recent Gallup poll.

Given the choice of the editorial page of the New York Times (perhaps the most liberal newspaper in America) versus the Wall Street Journal (perhaps the most conservative), 72% of Ivy Professors said they agree more with the editorial page of the Times and 5% said they agree with the Journal.

That's a pretty stacked deck on the side of liberal thought in Ivy League colleges. Other studies in recent years have shown a similar, overwhelming liberal bias in college faculties, and discrimination and denial of tenure to conservative professors.

Sites like Accuracy in Academia (http://www.academia.org), Campus Report Online (http://www.campusreportonline.net), the Collegiate Network (http://www.collegiatenetwork.org), and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org), are attempting to catalog this abuse and working to improve education at all levels by bringing about greater balance.

What Causes the Liberal Bias in Colleges?

So this odd situation begs the question - what brings about this strange imbalance in our nation's colleges? Good question.

There is one fascinating theory on what makes certain individuals drawn to liberal/socialistic/communistic thought (they are all just different points in the same spectrum), which is advanced by Allan Levite in a booked entitled Guilt, Blame, and Politics. This is a very interesting book although rather difficult to read and full of rather advanced terminology.

The basic premise of the book is that there is a thing called "political guilt," which is brought about in cases where a person perceives a big difference between his station in life and that of the bottom financial rung of society, i.e. the poor. This political guilt is deepened by situations in which the person does not have to work for a living, where his work is easy, or where he is particularly well paid. This guilt can also be brought about where one sees himself as being separate from the working class by factors other than economics, such as education level or by making a living using his mind rather than by his hands.

Levite doesn't say this, but I'll add that this situation would also be worsened in any of the sectors of society that are "failed", i.e. where they aren't fulfilling the functions effectively that they are supposed to be fulfilling, such as psychiatry and psychology, much of government, and an education system that routinely finds students with lower IQs the longer they stay in school.

Levite states "Academics, especially in the less worldly areas such as art, literature, and the social sciences, may also be affected by their own remoteness from the mundane environment of production and commerce, as well as by the greater extent to which their erudition separates and shelters them from the rest of the world."

"Scholars in the humanities and the social sciences are even further removed from the workaday world than are other academics, and are therefore more likely to favor social leveling."

"College students and graduates can be expected to differ in their exposure to guilt according to the extent to which their major field appears to make a needed contribution to productivity. For this reason, such practical credentials as accounting and engineering degrees will usually provide much more protection from guilt than will degrees in art, music, literature, political science, psychology, journalism, law, history, or philosophy."

Levite also quotes a 1975 survey of university professors and students by Everett Ladd and Seymour Lipset, which found that while 46% of faculties as a whole were rated liberal in the late 1960s, 64% of the social science professors were rated liberal. This compared with 23% of business professors, 24% of engineering professors, and 14% of agriculture professors. At that time 20% of the US public was rated liberal (the same as today). So the liberalism of social science professors outnumbered the general population by three to one.

So essentially what Levite is talking about is exchange. If a person feels like he is working hard and exchanging his work for the money he gets, he won't tend to feel guilty.

But if he grew up in a rich family, is living off an inheritance, is working a cushy job or a job where he gets paid extremely well, or even is working in a field where he doesn't get his hands dirty, or where the field itself is of less tangible benefit to society, he may feel that there is something unfair about the difference between himself and others.

Per Levite, this person who experiences political guilt will favor methods of redistribution of wealth (welfare, socialistic programs), even if he doesn't go so far as to give up his own.

I think Levite makes a rather compelling case. Even if you don't agree with it, it certainly is thought provoking.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So I think the above information makes it pretty clear that the tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If we're looking for a balance, we're not going to find it. And college age kids, per Levite, are more susceptible to this political guilt because most have not been exposed to much hard work.

When only one point of view is expressed and others are suppressed, we have a potential propaganda situation. And as I mentioned in my last article, that raises the possibility of being manipulated, particularly if you don't know what's happening.

So what do we do with our kids? Well, first of all, if your child wants to pursue a profession that requires a college degree, certainly a major part of your responsibility has to be thoroughly researching the schools being considered.

Secondly, it is important to educate your kids on the differences between conservative and liberal, what issues each side supports, and what those issues mean. That way, they'll be able to spot any bias, see through it, and even fight it.

About the Author

John Eberhard is President of http://www.CommonSenseGovernment.co, as well as a writer, political analyst and marketing consultant living in the Los Angeles area. He can be reached at: http://www.commonsensegovernment.com/contactus.html

Don't Confuse Me With The Facts by David G. Hallstrom, Sr

2007-07-26T14:02:00.000-07:00

These days, speaking with most Democrats is like being "Alice, In Wonderland". Most of them seem to be going under the old saying "Don't Confuse Me With The Facts", it seems that many of their statements are based on emotions instead of reality. I used to enjoy discussing politics, especially with people that disagreed with me (I felt that I might learn something new or different.). I still do, but lately I have found that, while I still enjoy discussing politics with Independents and Republicans, I no longer enjoy discussing politics with most Democrats. They almost all say the same things and they sound as if they are reading from a script.

Numerous Democrats that I have spoken with have stated, to paraphrase, "I don't like Bush (They never say President Bush), he's a thief and a liar and he is owned by the oil companies. He only cares about the rich. Nothing he says or does can be any good. Additionally, he is not smart enough to be President.". The words they actually use are much worse, I just don't wish to repeat them here.

The first thing that they all say is "Bush and his cronies stole the presidency from Vice-President Gore (They say President or Vice-President when speaking about President Clinton or Vice-President Gore.) in 2000.". They say "Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.". They say "Bush has ruined our economy". They say "Bush was too slow in handling the Katrina disaster because he is prejudiced against blacks." They say, "Bush has turned the world against us.". Some are now even saying, "Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it so he would have an excuse for invading Iraq.". When I ask them how they know these things they quote David Letterman, Jay Leno, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and numerous other far left politicians, celebrities and newscasters.

I attempt to discover all sides of the issues so I watch NBC News, Fox News and CNN, I read the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes and other magazines and newspapers. When I ask my Democrat acquaintances if they watch Fox News, they all say "No, it's too right wing.". When I ask if they read the Wall Street Journal, Most say "No, it's too biased.", and even the ones that do admit to reading the Journal say, "I only read the financial pages.". When I ask if they read or watch any conservative media at all, they say "No, all that you find in the conservative media are lies and cover ups.".

When I try to counter some of their anti Bush statements with facts, they usually become upset and say "I don't want to hear your facts, they are all lies spread by 'big business' and 'right wing religious groups', and even if they are true, I don't care.". "I don't like Bush and that's all that matters.". When I ask them for proof of their allegations against President Bush, they usually either quote someone on the far left or say "Everyone knows it's true.". If I push them further they get upset and refuse to discuss the matter further. I have found that if you just listen to them and don't disagree with them, they can talk forever about how bad President Bush and the Republican Party are. However, if you disagree with any part of anything they say, they will usually end the conversation immediately by changing the subject.

I don't necessarily agree with, or even care for, everything that President Bush says or does, but the strident clamoring of the Democrats is forcing me to, more and more, side with him and the Republican Party. I am a Republican, but used to consider myself an Independent and voted my conscience rather than for a political party. Now, the blatant partisanship and lack of reason displayed by the Democratic Party has forced me to become an ardent Republican. The Republican Party, at least, still embraces some liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party appears to be trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree with the far left.

About the Author

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle

Democratic Budget - PAYGO EQUALS PAYMORE!!

2007-07-24T12:23:00.000-07:00