Hillary "Che" Clinton has proven once and for all that socialism is alive and well in the democrats party.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

Say good-bye to freedom, individual liberty and the notion of a truly democratic society.  The Nanny state is on it's way - soon we will be the People's Republic of North America.

Socialists like Comrade Clinton truly believe that government is the solution to every problem and she is willing to force you to abide by her proscriptions for the way you should live your life.

Viva La Revolucuion! - or die.

If she wins, I believe we will have a constitutional duty to reinstate democracy in America!

So let's just avoid that route altogether and elect a real leader who will turn this country back towards liberty!

There are three separate and distinct issues at play in the current discussion on immigration reform.

1.  The Criminal / Justice Issue:  There are 12-20 million individuals in the US who broke our laws to be here.  This behavior cannot be rewarded.  It must be punished.  Chertoff says we are punishing them in this new legislation.  What a joke!

To punish this at the level of the current proposed legislation would be akin to "bringing bank robbers out of the darkness of criminality" and requiring them only to do 10 hours of community service for a complete pardon while allowing them to keep the money they stole. 

What is the appropriate level of punishment?  Two parts - first to re-establish the normal state of things that their crime disrupted, and then a penalty for their actions.  For the bank robber, part one would be to return the stolen money and then part two would be an appropriate term of incarceration.  For illegal aliens, part one would be deportation (the return to pre-crime status) and then part two would being put at the very end of the immigration line.

This has NOTHING to do with immigration reform, it is a rule of law issue.  Immigration reform is needed, but you do not start with legalizing criminal behavior!  That would be the same as bailing out the failed S&L's with funds stolen from personal bank accounts.

2.  The National Security Issue:  Our borders need to be sealed. 

This is not based on a anti-latino mentality or a xenophobic reaction.  This is just common sense.  In order to prevent the next round of terrorist attacks, we need to make sure that EVERYONE entering our nation does so through a legal port of entry where their identity and purpose can be identified. 

The Republican base is angry over this because it violates common sense.  We do not have any of the 700 mile fence completed yet per Chertoff himself!  A fence that was made law and fully funded - and there is not one mile of fence up yet!  But we are supposed to believe that this new legislation will make sure that our borders are secure?  Give me  a break!

Do what you are supposed to already be doing , Mr. Chertoff, then talk to us about doing something else.  

The Border issue is not an immigration issue and to confuse the two only shows the level of imbecility our politicians possess!  Immigration happens at legal ports of entry according to a set process, not in the middle of the night across an open border in violation of our national sovereignty and security!!

3.  Immigration Reform Issue:  Allowing people to become citizens

Conservatives are pro-immigration.  As someone has said, we are all immigrants!  I personally am an Irish-Syrian descendant and a third generation American.  My grandparents were very fortunate to be allowed to come to the US.  My grandfather served in the Army to learn English and was very proud of his adopted homeland.   We want people to come to the US and to become full citizens.  That is where we differ from Democrats.

The current legislation makes a complete mockery of what it means to be American.  The idea of a guest worker program is the antithesis of everything America stands for!   This idea allows business to import a new slave class to benefit their bottom line!!  The only difference is that we get to send them back home at the end of their term!  No wonder the democrats (who defended slavery in the south, instituted Jim Crow Laws, and prevented civil rights for 70 years) love this idea!!

Do we need more workers in America?  Then reform the immigration system so that those who want to get here - and there are millions - can get here legally and quickly with all of the rights and privileges of being American. 

To Democrats there is nothing special about being American and this bill illustrates that!

If the White House and Republican politicians continue to support this legislation, 2006 won't be the only election cycle that they lose.  They are ignoring the will of the people and that will destroy our party.

I though that Bush's domestic agenda was just an aberration, but it turns out that on domestic issues he is as bad as Clinton!  The Republican party needs real conservative leadership!

The following is an AP story from today:

“Filmmaker Michael Moore has asked the Bush administration to call off an investigation of his trip to Cuba to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers for a segment in his upcoming health-care expose, "Sicko."

Moore, who made the hit documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" assailing President Bush's handling of Sept. 11, said in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday that the White House may have opened the investigation for political reasons.

"For five and a half years, the Bush administration has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community," Moore said in the letter, which he posted on the liberal Web site Daily Kos. "These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care.

"I understand why the Bush administration is coming after me - I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide."

The health-care industry Moore skewers in "Sicko" was a major contributor to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and to Republican candidates over the last four years, Moore wrote.

"I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions - President Bush - would want to harass, intimidate and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience," Moore wrote.”

This following story is from the NYTimes on July 12, 2006:

“Separate analyses by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance, and by The New York Times show that Senator Clinton has received $854,462 from the health care industry in 2005-6, a larger amount than any candidate except Senator Santorum, with $977,354. Other industries have opened their wallets to Senator Clinton, a formidable fund-raiser. But none warred with her as the health care industry did.

Contributions to Senator Clinton over the last 18 months include more than $431,000 from doctors and other health care professionals and more than $142,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics since 1990 the health industry has contributed $264 million to Democratic candidates and $389 million to Republican candidates.  In the 2006 election, Kerry received $7 million from the health industry while Bush received $10 million.  It is clear to any rationale observer that the industry overall favors Republican candidates (most likely due to their lower taxes, pro-business stance).  But clearly, there is no clear cut favoritism between Bush and the health industry as Moore would have us believe.  Indeed, Moore would have us believe that the industry has purchased “control” of Bush.  If this were even plausible, then they have also purchased “control” of every candidate who has received money from them – making presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton the “heir apparent” of this health industry presidential control.  Yeah, don’t think Moore was trying to prove that Hillary is kowtowing to special interests . . . . . .

5 minutes of research and I was able to show that the healthcare industry distributes campaign contributions across partisan lines.  Moore is still as much of as idiot as he ever was and facts will never affect his views.  So I have proved him wrong again, but then again, proving Michael Moore wrong based on facts is as simple as breathing . . . .

Why Are the Defeat-o-crats Anti-War?

 The military genius, Carl von Clausewitz, in his classic text On War, stated; “If you want to overcome your enemy you must match your effort against his power of resistance.”  He then goes on to define the enemy’s power of resistance as “the product of two inseparable factors, the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will.”

 The Global War on Terror (GWOT) pits America against an enemy who has repeatedly proven that, while his means may vary in size and affect, his strength of will at present is much stronger than our own.  When your enemy views his death as inevitable and even desired, your ability to defeat him by classic means of force attrition (kill a large percentage of his army and you win) disappears.  The Islamic terrorists, regardless of their affiliation with bin Laden, have proven that they will fight and kill Americans to the very last man.

 So to prevent more deaths in the American civilian population, we must defeat the Islamic terrorist in two ways.  One, we must limit or completely eliminate his various means of attacking within the US or attacking US interests/citizens abroad.  Secondly, we must complete eliminate each and every cell, terrorist, training camp or recruiting center we can as far from our borders as possible.

 President Bush has outlined a unique foreign and domestic policy that attempts to achieve each of these goals.   Through various legislative acts, intelligence initiatives and military attacks, he has worked very hard to protect America and her interests while at the same time taking the fight abroad to achieve the second goal while simultaneously enhancing the first.  His stated policy has moved America from a reactionary footing (established by Clinton) to a preemptive one.  In other words, he wants to hit them before they hit us again.  That is our stated national policy in relation to international Islamic terrorism. 

It has also been our long-standing national policy to promote and protect democracy around the globe

 Now, we come to the present.  Supposedly the Defeat-o-crats are “pro-soldier” while “anti-war” (whatever that means - isn't that like supporting the police while being anti-law enforcement?) and they believe the War in Iraq is lost, or at best, not worth fighting.  Von Clausewitz correctly identified war as an extension of national policy, not as an aberration or unnatural phenomenon that occurs entirely on its own.

He states; "the political object - the original motive for the war - will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires."

 So why are we fighting in Iraq?  We are fighting in Iraq as an extension of our stated national policy on combating Islamic Terrorism and to promote democracy in the Middle East.

 Now if the Defeat-o-crats are anti-war, then they are anti-national policy.  It cannot be any simpler than that.  If they are against our stated national policy, then they are against protecting our borders.  They are against preventing another 9-11.  They are against defeating the terrorists outside of our borders.  They are completely against the pre-emptive GWOT, period!

How would they fight the GWOT?  They have demonstrated that in the past, and are calling for the same now  – entirely as a law enforcement and dialogue building exercise.  Telling us that we need to “understand the terrorists” and then they try to give these jihadist murderers the same moral footing as Mother Teresa. We have seen how successful that approach was – it resulted in 9-11! 

But why would they want to do this?  Because they do not value American democracy – that is the only answer possible.  Look at every solution proposed by a democrat for the last 50 years.  It consists of the same two points – raise taxes and give the federal government more power!

They see the GWOT as merely a means to achieve their long-standing political goals – socialistic control over the American people!  They would rather acheive this goal than to protect the innocent lives of ordinary Americans like you and I.

If they truly valued democracy – they would realize that the war in Iraq is a war for democracy and worth fighting for – but since they do not value democracy, it does not matter to them what will happen to the Iraqi people after American troops are withdrawn.  They prefer totalitarian regimes, that is why they did not want America to win in Viet-Nam and why they oppose victory in Iraq as well.

Why are the Defeat-o-crats anti-war?  Because they are not Pro-America!!  They are pro-socialism!!

Everyone says that they support the troops - here is a way you can actually support them and their families during this difficult time.

 http://www.afrtrust.com/

Yes, you read that title right.  The Defeato-crats are a bunch of racist bigots!

Here is the proof:

We have been in the Iraq War now for 4 years and have lost 3,200 American lives.  Harry Reid believes this war is lost.  Defeato-crats are all comparing this to previous conflicts and are calling it a quagmire.

There are two notable conflicts in American History that bear a direct resemblence to our present conflict in Iraq.

In the first, the conflict lasted 8 years and cost the lives of 25,000 Americans and wounded or disabled another 25,000.  The second conflict lasted 4 years and cost the lives of 620,000 Americans and an untold number of wounded and disabled.  No, these were not WW2 and Vietnam. 

These were the American Revolution and the War between the States.

Let's focus on the American Revolution.  As previously stated the conflict lasted 8 years and cost 25,000 American lives.  It was not for another 4 years after that until we had a working government and our great Constitution.

A total of 12 years and 25,000 lives to establish a democracy!  But it was not done yet.  Within a matter of decades, we were fighting for our freedoms again.  In the War of 1812, another 7,000 Americans gave their lives in a 2 year conflict to maintain our freedom.

But not everyone had liberty in our nation.  The Republican party was formed to address just that particular issue.  Before long and with a myriad of additional fuels, the fire of war once again swept across America.  This war lasted 4 years and cost the lives of 620,000 Americans.

Lincoln said it best in his Gettysburg Address:  " . . . . our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.  Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

When WW1 and WW2 brought further dangers to the preservation of our freedom and our democracy, Americans once again answered Liberty's plea and willingly sacrificed their lives, but now it was not for their freedom alone, but for the freedom of those who were not even American.

It is our proud legacy, that America has always stood for freedom and fought against any odds to protect it, not only for ourselves but for all people willing to accept our aid and to fight alongside of us.

As a Republican, I am proud to be a member of the party that abolished slavery, and glad that I am not a member of the Defeato-crats.  Please remember that it was the democrat party that opposed the abolition of slavery, it was the democrat party that opposed giving Americans of African origin the right to vote, it was the democrat party that instituted the Jim Crow laws and held civil rights back for 70 years following the War between the states!   But the defeato-crats have a longer heritage than that.  Were Reid, Clinton and Pelois alive in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 - they would have been Tories and considered traitors to America's new democracy.

But back to my point, the Defeato-crats are rascist bigots.  Their freedoms are worth a minimum of  14 years of conflict, 4 years of politial unrest, a true civil war and the lives of nearly 700,000 Americans! 

So far, we have sacrificed 4 years of conflict and 3,200 American lives for the brave Iraqi people and they have already had free elections, established a democratic form of government, and are rebuilding a culture devastated by decades of political repression and war.

But to the defeato-crats, the freedom of the Iraqi people are simply not worth that sacrifice.  To the defeato-crats, although American history if overflowing with the blood of patriots - they are not willing to aid the Iraqi quest for democracy beyond a certain point, and they believe we have passed it.

So it is very clear, they considered the Iraqi people of lesser value than themselves.  The freedom of Iraq is of little consequence to them, because they do not value the people of Iraq - that is the very definition of a racist bigot!

Let's simplify this down to our struggle for independence and the Iraq struggle for independence in the defeato-crat view:

8 years of conflict + 25,000 American lives + 4 years of political strife  = American Democracy

4 years of conflict + 3,200 American lives = too big a sacrifice for Iraqi Democracy

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all those who believe as they do are nothing but a bunch of racist bigots!! 

I believe, as do our brave men and women in uniform, that the Iraqi people deserve every possible effort on our part to help them acheive what we already have purchased for ourselves with the blood of American pariots from every generation.  The Defeato-crats do not!

Edwards has refused to participate in a debate co-sponsored by the FoxNews channel and the Colorado Democrat Party.   His campaign is accusing Fox of having a conservative bias.  I am constantly impressed at the low level of intelligence that the liberals believe Americans possess.  I'm Insulted!!

In reality all he  and his campaign have done is to very clearly illustrate what the majority of America knew all along.  The main stream media has a definite liberal bias and anything that departs from that normative state is now considered "pro-conservative", even if it falls very very far short of actually being even remotely related to being truly conservative.

Since he does not fill "safe" participating in a "biased" debate setting (now remember just the Dems and Fox are involved, as far as I know Coulter has absolutely no association with the debate), he only illustrates what a mental coward he is.

If his position on the issues is worth believing in, worth standing up for and worth you giving your priceless vote to him for, then wouldn't it be worth publicly defending in ANY forum?

Apparently not, so we are left with one of two conclusions regarding Edwards and one conclusion about the MSM.

First Edwards.  He is either a mental coward (my belief) or an insincere candidate who does not believe in the positions he espouses publicly.  He only states them so that people will vote for him.  I am going with mental coward, since Hillary already has the "I'll say (promise) whatever you want me say (promise) as long as you vote for me" category pretty well monopolized.  So he is the King of the Sound-bite!!  The great defender of the 20-second quip of the day!  He gallantly parades before his followers, while no enemies are sight before retreating back to the well defended walls of his 28,000 square foot castle . . .

Secondly, the MSM, they obviously are biased.  My proof?  besides the very very obvious?  Just more obviousness, because the liberal's mental cowards (Edwards) flock to them as do the "hollow" candidates (Clinton) and their willingly-deluded followers. . . .

I have a great reason for anyone to vote against Hillary.  It is time to leave the Bush and Clinton "royalty" behind.  American does not need a dynastic succession of family members for president.

If Hillary is elected president we will have to endure not just 4 years of horrendous liberal leadership, but it would mean that we have had a Bush or Clinton in office as president for 24 years.

Too long!!

It is time for true fresh leadership in the White House (and no disparagment meant to GW or his father), Even the Democrats should be demanding something different than 4 more years of Bill/Hillary chicanery in the White house.

Just my opinion . . . .

and I looked and behold a pale horse, and he that sat upon it was called Death and Hades followed after him . . . Revelations 6:8

When scientists in America created the first nuclear devices, there was a genuine concern about letting the nuclear genie out of the lamp.  Would we be able to keep this technology from causing the end of the human race?  Our response was to severely limit the release of any nuclear technolgy.

Then the Soviets developed their own nuclear capability, and the Cold War started.

The long dark threat of the Cold War seemed to constantly point to the possibility that our world would dissolve in heat and radiation caused by a MAD launch from both the Soviet Union and America.  But then the USSR collapsed under economic and political pressure brought on by a strong military buildup in the US.  The immenent threat of MAD seemed to dissipate into the possibility of RDD's (dirty bombs) and the threat of a single nuclear device attack from non-state players.  Seemingly the awful specter of thousands of nuclear warheads raining down from the sky had been eliminated.

Today, with the detonation in North Korea, that awful possibility took a bold step forward.

With a confirmed nuclear capability in North Korea, the new multi-state nuclear arms race has begun.

All states, regardless of their form of government, must now confront the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea. With the realization that they are unprepared to answer a nuclear threat from either of these nations, democratic states will have to make the choice to remain without nuclear capability or to arm themselves in a miniature version of the Cold War nuclear arms race.

With the rapid proliferation of nucelar weapons that would follow, the possibility of unrestrained use of nuclear weapons grows exponentially.  The short list of nuclear states has so far been able to limit the capability of other nations to develop nuclear weapons - not from a desire to retain power, but to prevent the wholesale destruction of mankind.

With hot heads and easy access to the nuclear option, the potential for a true nuclear nightmare has began.  the rider of the pale horse has begun to stir . . . . .

May God grant us all the wisdom to turn from this dangerous path.

 
Throughout the scriptures, whenever an angel appeared to mankind, they always had to start their message from God by saying . . ."Be not afraid".  After all, an angel appearing out of nowhere would scare just about anyone!

Well, I would like to give a message to conservatives all across this great nation.

BE NOT ASHAMED!!

Stop apologizing for your beliefs and standards!!  Stop backing down from expressing your opinions and convictions!!  Stop surrendering the moral highground to people who have no morals at all!!

Don't be ashamed to be conservative!!

The founding fathers, those brave men (and women) who fought and sacrificed for our freedoms were . . .conservatives!!  That's right - shock of the millenium here folks.  They were trying to preserve their rights as English citizens under law.  When they could not get a redress for grievances from the King, they chose to seperate themselves from tyranny and form "a more perfect union" so that all could have freedom.  Everyone who reads this should take the time to read the Declaration of Independence again, and remember why freedom is so precious to Americans.

Our nation was founded in conservativism, has perserved by conservatism and is prosperous because of conservatism!!

Even the Civil Rights movement does not belong to the democrats and liberals!

In fact, it was the democrats who stopped the civil rights movement for 70 years while they were in power.  It was democrats who instituted the hated Jim Crow laws.  It was democrats who opposed freeing the slaves! 

It was the Republican party who ended slavery, elected the first African American representatives to Congress and fought for the freedom and equality of all people and races.

For those who are students of history, I recommend that you read the Pelopennesian War, by Donald Kagan, and then remember the difference between those who supported democracy and those who supported oligarchism.  Liberals are oligarchs in a democratic society - they believe only the elite should rule while the masses just shut up, pay their taxes and behave themselves (political correctness does have a purpose).

Today's liberals and democrats seek power, not for the betterment of America, but because it is power.  Throughout the 1700's and 1800's, they loved having a voting base that only they could represent, a voting class that was not educated, had no voice and was not part of mainstream America - slaves!! - and they fought very hard to maintain that control and they still do today!!

They love the fact that our public schools don't educate. They love the fact that they have created a generation dependent on the government handouts that they so readily give away (after raising taxes to do so), and they will do everything they can to control that uneducated, impoverished African-American voting base.

But, horror of horrors, African Americans are becoming more affluent, better educated and abandoning their democratic masters!!  So now where will they find an uneducated, impoverished, "seperated from American society" group pf laborers who will do their bidding?  Why, there are already millions of them here! 

Why do the democrats love amnesty for illegal aliens?  You already know the answer to that one.  Why do they love bi-lingual education?  You already know the answer to that one too.

Why do conservatives insist on a single language, controlled immigration and real education?  Because we want everyone to succeed and to be free to determine their own way.  Free to express for themselves, free to vote as they see fit, free to truly be American.

SO STOP BEING ASHAMED OF BEING A CONSERVATIVE!!!!

Be Proud of the Red White and Blue, because, America - I'm proud of you!!!!!

All of the Republicans in Congress should resign and be replaced with Democrats because of Foley's actions.

It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous concept, but it is apparently the only one that will please the Democrats - I wonder why that is . . . . . . If this same standard where held to the Democrats . . .but wait, I digress towards logic.

The reality is that the man responsible for this situation has resigned.  What actions should be taken to prosecute/punish him remains to be determined.  Should Foley be punished for his despicable actions - most emphatically, YES!

Should Hastert resign?  Let's take a momet to ask . . . Why?   Did he intentionally hide the actions of Foley?  No.  Did he take the appropriate action based what information that he knew at that time to be true and complete?  Yes- and furthermore what in his past would give anyone reason to question his veracity about this issue?

That is what this "resignation" issue centers on.  Is Hastert a man of integrity or not?  Does he have a history of lying about matters of grave importance?

Not to my knowledge!

So why should we punish an honest man who had nothing to do with the actions of a guilty man?  What exactly are the facts?

Hastert was made aware of e-mails Foley exchanged in 2005, but it was determined that while they were "over friendly," they did not include overtly sexual references. Foley was instructed to stop making contact with the pages and he said he would.

The Media also learned about the same e-mails the House Republicans learned of last year. But they deemed them too innocuous to merit coverage, including one media outlet that decided the e-mails were nothing more than "friendly chit-chat."

It was not until last week that someone provided ABC News with copies of the instant messages Foley had exchanged with another teenage page in 2003. Those messages did contain sexual references unlike the e-mails that Hastert, the media and others knew about.

Hastert issued a statement on Monday that declared: ‘The instant messages, reportedly between Congressman Foley and a former page sent in 2003, are vile and repulsive to me, and to my colleagues. No one in the Republican leadership, not [Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who chairs a board of House members overseeing the page program], saw those messages until last Friday when ABC News released them to the public (emphasis added). When they were released, Congressman Foley resigned. And I'm glad he did; if he had not, I would have demanded his expulsion from the House of Representatives.”

Should Hastert resign?  Not in my opinion

What do you think, America?

I have never seen a group of people more out-of-tune with themselves than liberals.

If the current scandal involving Foley had involved a liberal democrat, it would never get the kind of play in the mainstream media that this has received.  In fact, NAMBLA and other organizations would be trying to use it as a recruitment tool, showing respect for alternate lifestyles, proof of conservative bigotry, etc.

Like all things involving our current liberal friends, they cry foul whenever a conservative does something they are trying to make acceptable to the mainstream - what nonsense.

And now they are trying to turn this into another witch-hunt to try to discredit people they can't beat in an election - what nonsense.

Was Foley's actions wrong?  Yes!  Should he be punished?  Yes!

Is this a sign of a lack of concern for children on the part of conservatives?  What nonsense!!

The liberal judges are the ones letting convicted rapists off with "counseling".

Well, America - which side do you agree with?