Not anti-immigration-Not a xenophobe

I am anti pool of cheap labor and future Democratic voter pool. For me the US borders are the responsibility of US law enforcement agents to keep them secure. USCIS immigration agents are supposed to do their work in US embassies that are located in foreign countries. I do not have a problem with increasing the workforce of the USCIS personnel so that they can do a better job of managing legal immigration, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the US borders getting secured. The US needs a leader like Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt today. Too many politicians today will choose money over the well being of US citizens. We already have laws in place to secure the borders. We need to enforce them. We need additional laws to end the institution of some businesses to go out and get cheap illegal alien laborers. We need political parties to stop projecting an underclass culture of victims from whom they garner votes. Every US citizen is responsible for his own 'pursuit of happiness.' The government cannot solve all of your problems.

Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.

With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.

Abraham Lincoln

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.""Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
Third Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1903

"There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing."
Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903

Teddy Roosevelt

It is not about this Bill in Congress or that Bill. The problem for the United States right now is that we desperately need a leader.

What Happened to the Party of Lincoln?

Today we live in a country where some enjoy a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Some people here just feel like they need to have these poor foreigners doing this work that no American worker wants to do. Some people justify this practice by arguing that bringing these poor foreigners is an act of kindness. They will be taken care of here better than any place else. If we really think about it this is not the first time some folks in this country were enjoying a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Today the poor foreigners come from Mexico to pick tomatoes, pack meat, or clean livestock pens. Years ago the poor foreigners came from West Africa to pick cotton, cut sugar cane, or harvest tobacco.

I let Google be my friend, and I found an interesting little item that described the history of the Republican Party. An excerpt:

The Republican Party evolved during the 1850's when the issue of slavery forced divisions within the existing Whig and Democratic Republican parties. Faced with political turmoil, a new party -- dedicated to states rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life -- began making history.

Alan Earl Bovay, one of the founders of the Republican Party, believed that a new party should be formed to represent the interests of the North and the abolitionists. He decided to call that party "Republican" because it was a simple, yet significant word synonymous with equality. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson had earlier chosen "Republican" to refer to his party, which gave the name respect borne of historical significance.

The first stirrings of the Republican Party came in February, 1854, when Whig Party defectors met privately in Crawfordsville, Iowa, to call for the creation of a new political party. The first public meeting was held one month later at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, when Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas Nebraska Act.

A second meeting was held in a one story schoolhouse in Ripon on March 20, 1854. Fifty-four citizens, including three women, dissolved their local committees and chose five men to serve as the committee of the new party: Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas, and Jacob Woodruff. Said Mr. Bovay: "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. We came out Republicans and...were the first Republicans in the Union."

In July of the same year, when the meeting hall was too small, the "Anti- Nebraska Convention" met in a grove of oak trees in Jackson, Michigan, to write a national platform and concentrate its efforts to counter the Democrats plan to extend slavery to new territories joining the Union. The new party adopted a platform, nominated candidates for state offices, and produced two anti-slavery resolutions, one of which stated, "Resolved...in view of the necessity of battling against the schemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the Earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will cooperate and be known as Republicans."

In 1856, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Freemont!" was the slogan of the Republican Party. At its first national convention in Philadelphia, the party nominated John C. Freemont for president (Abraham Lincoln was proposed for vice-president, but Senator William L. Dayton won the nomination). Although the party lost the election to the Democrats, it captured a third of the total vote, boosting its optimism for the 1860 elections.

"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world: They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes . . . it is the same tyrannical principle."

“Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.”
Abraham Lincoln

Now I am certain that some wiseguy is going to tell me that I am all wet because illegal cheap labor is performed by poor foreigners who were not forced to enter this country like those poor foreigners from West Africa. The difference between then and now is not a change of heart. It is a change of strategy. The strategy then was to control poor foreigners through a brutal forceful master with a whip. The strategy now is to offer candy in the form of offering a paying job. Once they accept this deal, and come here they are told they have no rights, and they must toe the line and make no trouble. I hate this marriage of convenience between some rich guy who wants a pool of cheap labor and Democrats who want a pool of new voters. Abe, what happened to your party? I miss you. A LOT.

I am giving Sam a second look

I have decided since the 2^nd debate at South Carolina to give Sam Brownback a second look. I have not reached a decision about who I am going to support yet. My impression of Sam Brownback has been that he is just a “single issue” pro-life candidate. After the debate in South Carolina I decided to dig a little deeper into the background of Sam Brownback.

Sam is one of four candidates who have been interviewed and graded by Club for Growth. Reading their white paper I have learned this about Sam from Club for Growth President Pat Toomey:

"Over his year and a half in the House of Representatives and his ten years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brownback has proven himself to be, on balance, a strong defender of limited government and pro-growth policies," said the Club's President, Pat Toomey. "On taxes, Social Security reform, school choice, and tort reform, Senator Brownback has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to fighting for American taxpayers. His record on trade, political speech, and government regulation of business is generally pro-freedom, with a few exceptions."

Sam Brownback on free speech

"Groups that seek to advertise a point of view should not, and I believe constitutionally can not, be limited from their participation in the political system. If provisions to hinder constitutionally protected free speech issue advocacy are added to the bill, I will vote against the final bill" (10/12/99).”

Senator Brownback was also one of seven Republican senators to sign a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist in 2006 that threatened a filibuster against the House-passed bill to impose draconian speech restriction on certain nonprofit advocacy groups (Letter, 06/09/06). The letter played an important role in the demise of the House bill. In our interview with him, Senator Brownback continued to emphasize his support for free speech.

Compare Sam to John McCain wrt free speech

Over the ten-plus years since Senator McCain first introduced campaign finance reform legislation, he has pursued his trampling of the First Amendment with a vengeance. On a April 28, 2006 taping of The Don Imus Show, McCain cavalierly admitted as much: "He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform . . . I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."

Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.

Compare Sam to Rudy Giuliani wrt free speech

From a speech Mayor Giuliani gave:

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [Interruption by someone in the audience.] “You have free speech so I can be heard.”

Sam Brownback quotes from 2^nd debate:

9:09PM First question for Brownback, about his initial response to the troop surge. "I think we've got to pull together over here to win over there.... it's difficult for democracy for one party to be for a war and another party to be against a war." Smacks around Harry Reid for saying that we've lost.

9:24PM Brownback is asked about gasoline prices. Ethanol from Kansas (or Iowa) - drilling more at home - supports drilling in ANWR. More conservation here. Technology and increasing supply here.

9:49PM Brownback is asked about "difficult decisions" w/r/t abortion - How would you explain to a rape victim why her trauma should be compounded... "The basic question remains - is the child in the womb? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, is it entitled to respect?... Abortion is a procedure, we're talking about a life... ending a life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that takes place?"

10:20PM Brownback is asked whether he would go to the United Nations for authorization - Brownback says "No." "Is your primary concern U.S. lives, or how you're going to be perceived in the world. And my standard is, U.S. lives."

Maybe Sam will do something I don’t like, but right now I am willing to give Sam a second look.

Sickos that support Mikey

<-Leslie Burger



Ellen Bernstein ->












<-Judith Krug



from the Chicago Sun-Times

Michael Moore has always been controversial, but now he has the feds on his case.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker is being investigated by the Treasury Department for taking approximately 10 sick 9/11 Ground Zero rescue workers to Cuba to film a segment in his upcoming ''Sicko'' documentary -- expected to be a scathing indictment of the American health care system.

''Sicko'' is scheduled to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival May 19 and open June 29 in the United States.

Prior to the release of Mikey's latest propaganda film we have the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival going on this Mother's Day weekend. This festival includes a film about Cuba that is in the same style and manner as a Michael Moore film. It is titled 'Salud! What puts Cuba on the map in the quest for global health at the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival. A blogger name Fausta attended this weekend, and here are excerpts of her report.

Leslie Burger, head of the Princeton Public Library and the American Library Association, opened by saying that she'd rather be working at her garden ( we had very good weather) than be at the PHRFF - which was organized and sponsored by the PPL - but she was there because she knew this was a controversial subject. She then introduced Ellen Bernstein, of IFCO/Pastors for Peace., who urged us to keep an open mind for what we were about to watch.

After sitting for 1 1/2 hrs of this there was a question-and-answer session with Ms Bernstein, who stated that she's travelled to Cuba "over fifty times", and urged us all to keep an open mind, again.

The most memorable member of the audience was Luis Abreu, a former political prisoner in Cuba, who spoke of how he had been sent to prison for trying to have the freedom to show films like this in Cuba. Mr. Abreu is executive director of the Commitee to Aid Human Rights Activists (CAHRA), and asked Ms Bernstein if she had met other Cuban doctors, like Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Ms Bernstein said she had heard of them.

A gentleman in the rear of the room pressured Ms Bernstein to answer whether she believed that Cuba was a democracy, something she apparently had stated in the past. She first avoided the question by saying, "In a democracy we all wait our chance to speak"; he then waited and the second time he pressed for a reply, she said that Cuba has had elections, and that we must study the situation with an open mind because it's not as bad as we think.

As a third-party observer I found it very insulting of Ms Bernstein to tell an audience where she knew there was at least one former Cuban political prisoner "to study the situation with an open mind". Obviously someone who spent over a decade in a concentration camp has had plenty of time to ponder the situation.

Of course, exiled Cubans in the audience (I'd say half the audience) were offended. One gentleman demanded that the film festival be called "the right to healthcare film festival" since Cuba and human rights have nothing in common.

I heard that a journalist, Nat Hentoff, turned down an award from the American Library Association. If you read one of his recent articles, then you'll understand why. Nat has a problem with the ALA refusing to protest against the treatment of librarians in Cuba. Here is an excerpt from Nat:

"The American Library Association — the largest organization of librarians in the world — continually declares that it fights for everyone’s “Freedom to Read!” and its Library Bill of Rights requires its members to “challenge censorship.” Yet the leadership of the ALA — not the rank and file — insistently refuses to call for the immediate release of the independent librarians in Cuba — designated as “prisoners of conscience” by Amnesty International. They are serving very long prison terms because they do believe in the freedom to read — especially in a dictatorship.

Among the many organizations demanding that Fidel Castro and his successors release these courageous Cubans — who have opened their homes and libraries to offer books censored in the Cuban state libraries — are such groups as the library associations of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. All these librarians, finally freed from Communism, agree with their colleagues in the Polish Library Association, who say in their declaration, “The actions of the Cuban authorities relate to the worst traditions of repressing the freedom of thought and expression.”

However, the top officials of the American Library Association — as well as the majority of its Governing Council — speak derisively of these “so-called librarians” in Castro’s gulags.

It’s true that these prisoners, many brutalized and in failing health, in their cells, don’t have master’s degrees in Library Science; but as poet-novelist-educator Andrei Codrescu told last year’s ALA Midwinter Conference: “These people have been imprisoned for BEING librarians!” Why dismiss them “as ‘so-called librarians’ when clearly there is no one (in that dictatorship) to certify them.”

A key ALA official, Judith Krug, heads its office of Intellectual Freedom. In my many years of reporting on the ALA’s sterling record of protecting American librarians from censorship, I often quoted her in admiration. But now, she said at an ALA meeting about supporters of the caged librarians, “I’ve dug in my heels ... I refuse to be governed by people with an agenda.” The Cuba issue, she continued, “wouldn’t die,” though she’d like to “drown it.”

The agenda, Ms. Krug, is freedom. “Every burned book,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, “illuminates the world.” But ALA’s leadership refuses to bring light to the cages of these Cuban prisoners of conscience. The ALA’s membership booklet proclaims “the public’s right (everywhere) to explore in their libraries many points of view on all questions and issues facing them.

An issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders’ shameful exception of the Cuban people’s freedom to read."

Leslie Burger, Ellen Bernstein, and Judith Krug are lefties that should not be called liberals. In fact calling them liberals is an insult to liberals. I remember liberals from the '60's. These were people who believed in liberty and freedom. They erred in believing that socialism and communism would bring the utopia they were looking for. The only ones left that come to mind are Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, and David Horowitz. Most of the lefties have morphed into this moral relativism and political correctness blather that blinds them from finding any fault in any leader or movement that HATES America. The buzzwords of people like this include 'keep an open mind', 'so-called librarians', and 'people with an agenda'. They keep their heads stuck deep in the sands like ostriches when they are challenged to stand up for freedom and liberty. These are the 'sickos' that support Mikey.

Cuba-Mitt doesn't get it...Fred does.

At this Tuesday night Republican debate I hope Mitt is asked a question about Cuba. Mitt went to Miami to give a speech to some Cuban-Americans, and he quoted a line Fidel uses in his speeches. This was a huge mistake by Mitt. He has tried to blame the media for taking things out of context, and say that he speaks Spanish poorly. These excuses are not helping. He needs to convince the Cuban-Americans that he understands the myths about Castro, and understands how nothing created by Castro should be embraced including a slogan.

Fred Thompson does get it. Val Prieto of Babalu Blog definitely hopes that Fred runs in2008. He has an article that Fred Thompson recently wrote concerning the myth of Castro's 'Health Care'. Fred writes about a new Michael Moore on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

"The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition.

If Moore wants a subject for a real documentary, I would suggest looking into the life of Cuban painter and award-winning documentarian Nicolás Guillén Landrián. He was denied the right to practice his art for using the Beatles' song, "The Fool on the Hill," as background music behind footage of Castro climbing a mountain. Later, he was given plenty of free Cuban health care when he was confined for years in a "mental institution" and given devastating, repeated electroshock "treatments."

There are many other artists and activists who have enjoyed similar treatment. I suspect we'll see movies with sympathetic portrayals of terrorists held in Guantanamo before we ever hear about the torture of true Cuban heroes. Even Andy Garcia's brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, "The Lost City," was given the Hollywood silent treatment. My bet, though, is that we'll hear lots about how Michael Moore showed that Cuba's socialized medicine is better than ours.

So go ahead and start working on the Oscar speech, Michael."

Val Prieto understands how Fidel's running of Cuba should be talked about, and he appreciates that Fred Thompson gets it too. I agree with Val.

A new symbol for the Democratic Party

I was born during the Truman presidency, and I have seen both Republican and Democratic administrations at the White House. The current Democratic Party symbol of the donkey just simply does not match the spirit of today's party. The donkey is a beast of burden, and a reliable support for getting work done. This stubborn spirit was seen best in the words of President John F. Kennedy:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "

That kind of spirit is not around nowadays in the Democratic Party. They don't care about liberty. They only care about getting power by getting elected. They put their finger to the wind, closely watch the polling numbers, and choose their actions accordingly.

Victor Davis Hanson writes an article describing this behavior. An excerpt:

"When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.

But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.

So why not come clean about their changes of heart?

Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.

Bob Novak has written another article as an example of this behavior with respect to support of a friend of the United States in the 'war on drugs'. An excerpt:

"Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.

In the wake of Uribe's visit, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.

Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man."

Another example of today's Democratic party departure from that clarion call to 'assure the survival and the success of liberty' is an article by Daniel Pipes titled 'A million moderated Muslims on the march' . He reports good news of protest marches in Turkey and Pakistan by moderate Muslims. The Democratic party of Clinton do not want to hear this stuff. They think that the existence of moderate Muslims is a myth. The Clinton administration went out of its way to bring Islamist extremists into power in the Balkans. The Iranians are Bill Clinton's 'guys'.

Really though, the idea of this new symbol came to me from reading an article by Mohammed Fadhil of the 'Iraq the Model' website. Maybe somebody can explain to me the errors in my thinking. Until then I believe the new symbol best represents today's Democratic Party.

A Culture That Demands Special Treatment

The United States of America is a young country in comparison to other parts of the world. In the 200 plus years many have come from many different places in the world to the USA. They come here for new opportunities to live long and prosper. The United States is a melting pot because the children of these new arrivals do not continue to follow their parents' ways. Rather, the children adapted to the fashions, manners, and attitudes of American ways. It is called assimilation. There is a new wind blowing that is troubling, and its name is multicultural diversity. The children and society at large is not allowed to be proud of an American Way. Now, it is politically correct to not question any other culture in the world. Political correctness means that your culture is no better than another person's culture. This political correctness in my opinion is BS. We do not need to be ashamed of our American culture. The children of immigrants should not be forced to be exactly like their parents. This is the United States of America.

Over at Townhall.com, Mary Graber has an excellent article about her American experience as the daughter of Slovenians.

O'Reilly had a segment of his show about public funding for an Arabic school in New York City. As a former teacher he was aware of students with English not their primary language, but he was unaware of an entire public school being constructed for any other ethnic group in New York City. I let google be my friend, and I found another similar school in Bridgeview, Illinois.
I don' think the Illinois school is publicly funded.

Coast Guard drops ban on religious headgear in photos ID

A town council is a small Michigan village was persuaded to change their 'noise laws' to accommodate area mosques to broadcast over loudspeakers tape recordings of the Islamic call to daily prayers.

A New Orleans cabbie assaulted his fare for getting in his taxi with a dog. CAIR replied by pointing out that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer" and left it to the scholars of Islam to decide whether a guide dog should be allowed in a cab. The judge, after researching Islamic attitudes and finding no support for the driver's claims, called his behavior "a total disgrace."

A group of law enforcement officers go to a convention in Delaware, and a speaker at the convention urges them to indulge Muslim misbehavior.

A lady in Florida pursues a legal court battle to wear a veil in her Driver's License photo ID.

This Sunday's election in France gives me hope for France. I just worry more now about what will happen in the United States.

Fred Thompson KNOWS US History

Recently I wrote a blog here at RedState that asked one simple little question. Who is the first foreign government to declare war on the United States of America, and why did they do it? I got some wrong answers until Raven posted the answer I was looking for. Now, Tuesday, May 8th, Fred Thompson has provided the very best answer to this simple question. Many questions still surround Fred Thompson, but for me today he answered one important question.
Does Fred Thompson know US history? Yes, he does know US history quite well. I recommend
checking out the article on the Townhall.com web site.

I'm shocked. 60 minutes runs Good News story

I'm shocked I tell ya shocked. I click over to see what 60 Minutes is running, and they have this story about a former Mujahideen jihadist, Nasir Abas. This dude from Indonesia. Excerpts from this story:

(CBS) It's not often you get a chance to talk to someone who was a key player inside a terrorist organization for twenty years, but 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon did just that when he interviewed Nasir Abas, one of the most valuable members of a terrorist group ever to change sides and work for the authorities. Abas is from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. And he was a top commander in Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda's franchise operation in Southeast Asia.

Like so many terrorists around the world, he learned his trade in Afghanistan. Hundreds of militants from Southeast Asia traveled there in the 1980's to defend Islam against the Soviet occupiers. They trained as Mujahideen in a rugged camp, which Abas calls a military academy.

Abas graduated with honors in artillery and ended up giving weapons training to scores of young men from Southeast Asia.

Nasir Abas had become a very serious player in the movement. He established a military camp for Jemaah Islamiyah, where he trained hundreds of young believers to become fighters. He was promoted to be one of the four regional commanders.

But then in 2000, well before his arrest, something happened which would make Abas question everything he believed in: a fatwa, a religious edict, was issued by Osama bin Laden.

"It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," Simon quotes bin Laden.

Abas and his fellow commanders were ordered to read the fatwa to their men and make sure they carried it out. The others obeyed, but Abas refused. It was his moment of truth. He firmly believed that jihad was to be fought only on the battlefield in defense of Islam; he had always been taught that the killing of civilians had nothing to do with holy war and that it was forbidden.

The fatwa justified killing non-Muslim civilians everywhere.

Abas stopped participating in the violent activities of Jemaah Islamiyah and started withdrawing from the organization that had been his life. He has provided a wealth of information, helping the Indonesian authorities unravel the inner workings Jemaah Islamiyah.

According to Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group, who has been tracking Jemaah Islamiyah for the last ten years, Nasir Abas has been a huge resource.

Asked how valuable Abas has been to police, Jones said, "I think he's been invaluable. I think he understands the network of jihadists in Indonesia in a way that nobody who's outside that network could possibly ever hope to understand."

The man who lived his life in the shadows, as an insider in a secret organization, will now tell you that what’s most important is to bring things into the light of day, and that the most important weapon is education.

"Yes. We need to educate people. We need to give more explanation. Yeah, about what was is right, what is wrong," Abas says.

"And this is what you're trying to do?" Simon asks.

Says Abas, "Yeah. This is what I’m saying, that this is my new jihad."

The only problem with the way CBS presented this story has to do with what they chose to emphasize. CBS just had to make the emphasis of the story about how Indonesia captures terrorists and holds trials in public to convict them instead of holding them indefinitely like the US does at Gitmo. Sorry CBS that is not the important part of this story.

The good news is this dude used REASON in his thought processes. Just because Osama says something doesn't mean you have to believe it. It is good news to me when a person from the world's most populous Muslim nation can refuse to follow a command from a Muslim leader. The conventional wisdom is that Islam is such a top-down structurally based system that nobody can question what the leaders say. This guy is an example of somebody who did question a command, and refused to follow it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another example of somebody who is brought up in this Islamist way of life, and then turns away later on. Although Hirsi Ali turned away to a larger extent than this dude I think they are similar. Abas and Hirsi Ali both believe education is the most important weapon.

Never Again. Clinton should not occupy WH

On March 25, 1997, President Alija Izetbegovic (at microphone) of Bosnia and Herzegovina receives the International Democracy Award at a ceremony at the United Nations. Allen Weinstein (left) President and CEO of the Center for Democracy made the presentation; centre background is Ambassador Bill Richardson, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations.

The Republican candidates’ event at the Reagan Library was painful for me to watch because of the dumb questions that they were asked. One of the dumbest questions was ‘Should Bill Clinton occupy the White House again?’ But it got me to thinking about looking back again to the time when Clinton occupied the White House. I wanted to look back at those years from a foreign entanglements POV instead of intern/bimbo-eruption POV. I let Google be my friend, and I learned a little about Clinton and foreign policy.

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home? Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in an interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

During Clinton’s Presidency the US fought wars against Serbians. The wars resulted in the establishment of a new country, Bosnia, and the creation of a new UN area of Serbia, Kosovo. I have heard some that think we should do to Iraq what we did in the Balkans. What we did in Bosnia is we threw out a Serbian ruthless butcher, Milosovich. We backed an Islamic fundamentalist strong man, Alija Izetbegovic. Here is an excerpt from one a book he wrote:

"... the Islamic movement may, or rather should, begin by seizing power as soon as it possesses a good measure of moral and numerical strength, allowing it not only to overthrow the non-Islamic power, but also to establish the new Islamic power."

Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the Bosnian Muslim faction backed by the US and NATO during Bosnia’s civil war. And the book he wrote, and from which all the lines quoted above were taken, is entitled "Islamic Declaration". (This is sometimes translated, "Islamic Manifesto").

Upon his death what the US State Dept. said about the man:

"President Izetbegovic's personal courage helped the Bosnian people endure one of Europe's greatest tragedies since World War II. His determined leadership was instrumental in Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country."

What Iranian Foreign Ministry said about the man:

"…the late president's serious attempts to defend the identity and territorial integrity of his homeland as well as the unity among the residents and various ethnic races of the country."

The State Department's reference to "Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country" has one problem: Bosnia was never a country. It was an administrative unit within the internationally recognized state of Yugoslavia. Rather than protecting the multiethnic state of Yugoslavia, Izetbegovic’s fundamentalists fought to secede with the aim of creating an Islamist republic on this piece of Yugoslav territory. This was opposed by virtually all the Serbs and probably most Muslims. But it was backed by the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Islamist states.

Despite the hype in the Western media, Izetbegovic was not fighting to affirm (let alone reaffirm!) some supposed Bosnian nationhood. Rather, he called for:
"…the implementation of Islam in all fields of individuals' personal lives, in family and in society, by renewal of the Islamic religious thought and creating a uniform Muslim community from Morocco to Indonesia. ..."

In other words, the Islamist takeover of Bosnia was intended as a step towards the creation of a unified Muslim world-state. Quite the opposite of preserving the nonexistent 'Bosnian nation'! And yet the fiction of a Bosnian nation, threatened by supposed Serb secessionists (the Serbs were in fact the people who didn't want to secede from Yugoslavia) was sold to ordinary people in the West.


Professor Cees Wiebes, a senior lecturer in the Department of International Relations at Amsterdam University, caused a storm with his book Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995.

One of the most sensational sections of the book - and the bit which grabbed the headlines ('temporarily' says Wiebes) when it first came out in 2002 - details the role of the Clinton administration in giving the 'green light' to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims. Wiebes catalogues how, from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia. He describes how Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. And all of this took place under the watchful eye of a Clintonian policy of 'no instruction' - that is, that US officials should do nothing to prevent such movements into Bosnia; that, in fact, they should covertly give them the 'green light'.

Yet this is also the bit of the book that seems to have won Wiebes few friends. He says that some of his findings and conclusions, especially on the arming of the Bosnian Muslims, have been ignored. 'If you do not have a black and white picture of the Bosnian war, then something is apparently wrong with you', he says. 'I found there was much sympathy for the Bosnian Muslims, especially among journalists; and sometimes I think there is an inclination to silence things that do not fit with their view of the war.'

I am not an apologists for Milosevich and his cronies, and I’m glad he’s dead and his followers aren’t continuing the mass murders they started. I just think a more moderate solution was available than the backing an islamist to fill in the power vacuum the Milosovich departure created. This solution that Clinton used is akin today to the US backing al Sadr to fill the power vacuum the Saddam departure created in Iraq.

Back to Clinton and the country that he feels most ideologically at home with Iran…But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?

There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

Perhaps another one of his kind of guys is Omar M. Ahmad.

Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of CAIR speaking before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet hall in Fremont, California on July 4, 1998.

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

When I look now at the efforts by the Democratic Congress to end the war after learning how Clinton operated, then I am more resolved than ever that a Clinton should not occupy the White House again.

Never again.

A single question pop quiz

Let me first say that I believe this is not just a trivial pursuit of history. I think the answer to this question is important for one to understand why the United States finds itself now on the road it is on. So without further ado the pop quiz is:

Who is the first foreign government to declare war on the United States of America, and why did they do it?

I will provide the answer in reply to this post. I will first wait and see if anybody wants to take a shot at the answer.

Islamic terrorists started attacking US in the ‘70’s

Some people think the attacks by Al Qaida in NYC, D.C., and Shanksville, PA are the start of this war. Some people think the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and the attack off the Yemen coast on the USS Cole during the Clinton presidency are the start of this war. Some people think the attack on a marine barracks in Beirut during the Reagan presidency is the start of this war. I think the war started in the late ‘70’s. Christopher Hitchens wrote an article recently about this. There is also more interesting historical background information here.

In the late ‘70’s American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas. The United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

Of course I’m talking about July 4, 1776 being the start of attacks and war by Muslim terrorists on America. It was debated by our Founding Fathers as they wrote the US Constitution. More excerpts from Hitch:

“However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.”

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

Some of the stuff coming out in these debates between Massachusetts politicians vs Virginia politicians are much like the debates we hear today. John Adams as the POTUS went along with paying the ‘protection money’, and when Jefferson became POTUS foreign policy changed. Jefferson and Adams had been confronted with the Muslim terrorists as envoys meeting with Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March, 1785. Here’s how Hitch describes the encounter:

When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy.

At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.

I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Heh. I think Hitch is spot on with his accounting of the history. We know the US fought well, and the USMC were especially daring during the Barbary Coast Wars.

Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):

In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,

Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:

And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d

By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.

Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,

And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.

Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave

And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.

Another Virginian, James Madison, was POTUS when the Barbary Coast Wars came to a close.

The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute.

If only people would remember Madison’s words. They hold true today just as much as they held true when we became a nation.

Nancy does 'South Pacific' number in Syria

South Pacific Happy Talk Lyrics

Talk about a star looking like a toy
Peeking through de branches of a tree,
Talk about a girl, talk about a boy,
Counting all de ripples on de sea
Happy talk, keep talking happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do
You gotta have a dream,
if you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

This morning I stumbled on to an interesting conversation between Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Philip Gourevitch
One of the most intersting topics in this conversation is about liberal betrayal.

GOUREVITCH: I gather you’ve been called an “Enlightenment fundamentalist” by critics and that you regard that as a sort of badge of honor. But when I hear the phrase, it seems that what you’re really saying is that there is a problem with decadence or hollowness in the West and there is a failure to stand up for the ideas of the Enlightenment, to embrace them, to not to take them for granted but to understand that the struggle continues. Is that accurate?

HIRSI ALI: My criticism of the West, especially of liberals, is that they do take freedom for granted. People who are born after the Second World War in Western Europe haven’t seen war; they haven’t seen conflict. They’ve been born into the middle of freedom and into the conviction of their parents to live with the hollowness that freedom brings. Freedom does not bring happiness always. Freedom brings with it a lot of doubt and a lot of depression. People come from areas where freedom wasn’t always there. They have lost the instincts to recognize that there can be such a thing as an enemy or a threat to freedom. That’s what I’m witnessing in Europe: the European elite simply doesn’t know what’s going on. The whole pacifist ideology—in itself religious-like—that’s been spread is that violence should never be used under any circumstances and we should talk and talk and talk. Even when your opponent tells you, “I don’t want to talk to you. I want to destroy you.” The European elite says, “Please let’s talk. Let’s talk about the fact that you want to destroy me.”

GOUREVITCH: I was told that Theo Van Gogh’s last words were “Can we talk about this?” as the man shot him and was starting to stab him.

HIRSI ALI: I think that’s no laughing matter and it shows that humans are capable of reaching such a high level of civilization and such a high level of morality. It’s admirable. But when there is an enemy who says, “I’m going to destroy you,” whether you’re admirable or not, you have to make sure that you don’t get destroyed.

GOUREVITCH: You’re saying it’s not only a level of civilization but also a level of unreality.

HIRSI ALI: To some it’s been a level of unreality—that idea that after the Second World War, we are not going to have another war ever, which is a good thing. It’s a good point to start with. But that works only if the entire human race thinks and believes that.

Nancy and her fellow travelers have got the same mindset as the European Elites that Hirsi Ali speaks about. I still think there are a lot of Americans who know better. People have experienced events in their lives in a barroom or a back alley where they knew that 'happy talk'
was not going to work. The problem is they suffer from BDS, and they can not allow themselves to accept that what Kenny Rogers sang is sometimes the truth

'Sometimes you gotta fight when youre a man.'

Harry and Nancy's are terrorists best friend

The announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been reported in Iran with glowing happiness. Besides the Iranian Fars News Agency the Mehr News group in Teheran has an article mentioning Harry and nancy by name. Their take is :

"But it appears likely the U.S. will be forced to leave Iraq in a far more humiliating way than the Soviet Union left Afghanistan."

If only people with BDS could take off their blinders, and see who is siding with the Democratic Congressional leaders. It is not just Iran that is 'proud to be a Democrat', but there are other terrorists who are also also very happy with the Democrat contenders for POTUS. Excerpts of an article from WorldNetDaily:

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power."

Abu Nasser Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND last night's Democrat primary debate proved "the invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario."

Abu Aziz said it was "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

Abu Muhammad, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group in northern West Bank city of Telkerem, said he believes both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by Israel but said he thinks the Democrats are better for his group's interests.

"They will keep supporting Israel, but, yes, I think the Democrats are preferred and have a bigger chance of withdrawing from Iraq and making deals with Iran and Syria."

So there you have it Harry and Nancy and the Democrats running for POTUS have made new friends with Abu Muhammad of Islamic Jihad, Abu Aziz and Abu Jihad of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the major newspapers in Iran. They can't vote, but maybe they can find other ways to support their new friends, Harry and Nancy.

I hope NOT.

Who is more French?

Who is more French? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? General David Petraeus and Admiral William Fallon?

Once upon a time over 200 years ago there were people living in a new world. They had left the old world to get away from religious persecution. They wanted the liberty of practicing their faith in their own manner of choosing. The old world empire they sailed away from decided that these misfits were going to have to pay high taxes and bow down to their authority to rule over them like masters rule over slaves. Folks in this new who grew tired of this tyranny became known as patriots, and folks who enjoyed living underneath the powerful empire became known as loyalists. The patriots got organized and revolted in a war against the empire. Here was a rag-tag untrained group of armed men in war against one of the most powerful military forces in the world. In addition they were fighting some of their own people who were loyalists.

They could not have won this war had it not been for the support of France. France did not pick the side that had the best chance of winning, and France did not have a written timetable for when they would begin exiting their military out of this war. According to a written account by George Woodbridge of the battle of Yorktown:

"The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.”

Now let us flash forward to the present day. There are people living in the old world, the cradle of civilization. The folks who grew tired of living under the tyranny of a mad man, and in the shadow of an Islamic Republic are patriots. The folks who want to live underneath the powerful Islamic terrorist empire are loyalists. The patriots got organized and created their own sovereign government. Here is a rag-tag untrained group of armed men fighting against an Islamic empire of trained terrorists. In addition they are fighting some of their own people who are loyalists.

We are now at a critical moment. Is the USA going to support Iraq the same way that France supported us in the American Revolution? Is General David Petraeus a modern day Comte de Rochambeau? Is Admiral William Fallon a modern day Comte de Grasse? Nancy Pelosi took a spring break vacation trip to the middle east. She talked with rulers in the area who support the Islamic terrorist empire and reassured them that she and the Congress have a different foreign policy approach than President Bush. She left them feeling much more comfortable than before she arrived. Now, they are relieved to know they can withstand pressure to isolate them. All they need to do is wait out another 18 months until Nancy and her party take control of the White House in 2009.

GOP select celebrity & style instead of record

The voters in GOP primaries and caucuses vote for a POTUS candidate because of the celebrity and style instead of the record. For the last 50 years the GOP candidate for POTUS is either a famous General, former vice-president, movie/TV/radio personality, Senate majority leader, or son of a former President. Ok, I left 2 out. Senator Goldwater was an exception from this type of celebrity. However he was a movement conservative with STYLE. Gerald Ford was selected to replace Agnew who resigned, and then assumed the Presidency after Nixon resigned. Ford then had the celebrity of incumbency. This is the reason that a Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Romney, Huckabee, or Tommy Thompson is NOT going to be the GOP candidate. The GOP candidate is going to be a movie/TV/radio personality, famous Mayor in 9/11 aftermath, famous Vietnam POW, or former Speaker of the House.

Actually the voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses are more likely vote for POTUS because of record. They also have chosen for celebrity and style. A charismatic son of former ambassador JFK, and 2 former vice-presidents in Mondale and Gore are the ones they selected for celebrity and Style. LBJ also became President by JFK assassination and in '64 by incumbency. The ones that they selected because of record instead of celebrity and style are Senator Stevenson, Senator McGovern, Governor Carter, Governor Dukakis, and Governor Clinton.

In 2008 I think both the GOP and the Democratic candidate for POTUS will be selected on the basis of celebrity and style over record. On some days I worry that Gov Huckabee is not joking when he suggests a Paris Hilton or American Idol POTUS candidate.

George W is unhappy with Congress

George wrote his friend William Fitzhugh a letter so he could get off his chest how exasperating it is to try to wage a war that is managed by Congress. I put the good parts in bold type:

Dear Sir: A few days ago brought me the honor of your favor of the 7th. Instt. from Marlbro. Your other letter of Jany. the 20th. came duly to hand, for both I thank you; without offering an apology for suffering the latter to remain unacknowledged till this time; because I am satisfied you will attribute my silence to any cause rather than disrespect, and to none sooner than the true one, viz., the load of business which continually presses upon me.

It was with sincere concern I heard of the injury you sustained in your property at the Mouth of Patuxent; but it is only adding another specimen to the catalogue of British clemency, and boasted generosity.

The accession of Maryland to the confederation, and the relinquishment of the claim of Virginia to the Lands West of Ohio, are events which are exceedingly pleasing to me, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with the powers of Civil government, under the present Constitutions of the several States, to determine how far they are able to obtain Men for the War, or for three years, by coercion, nor am I enough acquainted with the abilities of them, to declare what Sums they ought to have given to Soldiers under this description in preference to a draft of Men for a short term; this however I am decided in, that the latter is the most expensive, and least effectual mode that ever was devised to carry on a War, which is like to become a War of finance. and that no funds within our reach can support it long. I speak upon the best ground when I assert this, because no day, nor hour arrives without bringing with it some evidence in support of the truth of the observation. To this cause also the prolongation of the War; the wretched State of our finances, and every capital misfortune that has befallen us may be traced.

I as little scruple to add that, unless the powers of Congress are made competent to all the purposes of War we are doing no more than wasting our time, and spending our treasure to very little purpose for it is impossible to apply the strength and resources of this Country while one State complies with, another rejects, and the majority of them changes or mutilates the requisitions of that Body. Hence the willing States are capitally injured if not ruined. Hence proceed distrust, jealously, and dissatisfaction; and the impossibility of either projecting or executing (with certainty) any plan whatsoever. Hence proceed all those delays, which to people at a distance, and unacquainted with circumstances, are altogether unaccountable. And hence it is we incur useless expence, because we do not bring our force, and means, into operation at the same time, some being exhausted, before others are obtained.

We wait with much sollicitude advices from the Southern Army; our last accts. from that quarter were less gloomy than the former, but not less equivocal and distressing. I have heard nothing from General Greene since the 28th. of Feby., nor of him (with precision) since the 2d. Instt. Matters were so critically circumstanced at that time, as to add pain to impatience. Equally ignorant, and equally anxious am I, with respect to the French Fleet under the Command of the Chevalier Des Touches. No acct. of whom have I received (but vague ones through the channel of Rivingtons Paper) since he left New port. At Yorktown in Virginia there was no intelligence of him on the 15th.

I have heard nothing from General Thompson since his release from captivity, and as his joining the Army will depend upon his promotion, and his promotion on Congress, the time of it is uncertain; but that your Son may be relieved from his present anxiety, suspence, and all possible censure I will, with much pleasure, receive him into my family as an extra Aid till Thompson arrives. In the mean while, his rank may be ascertained and his Commission procured.

Mrs. Washington makes a tender of her Compliments to Mrs. Fitzhugh, to which please to add those of Dr. Sir, Yr. etc.

This letter was written 226 years ago. We have a new George W, CINC. Have we for the same learned any lessons from history. This George W is facing a Congress that is exasperating him
in similar ways as that George W.

My Case for an '08 Thompson/Thompson ticket

The upper Mississippi valley region of the USA has for many years been strategic area of electoral votes.here is a table of the states and their electoral votes from 1960-2004:

Minnesota 10EV
Wisconsin 10EV
Iowa 7EV
Illinois 21EV
Missouri 11EV
Kentucky 8EV
Tennessee 11EV
Arkansas 6EV

Total Electoral Votes=84 (2008)

1960 4D 4R (59-43)
1964 8D (95-0)
1968 1D 6R 1I (10-79-6)
1972 8R (0-92)
1976 6D 2R (58-34)
1980 1D 7R (10-81)
1984 1D 7R (10-80)
1988 3D 5R (29-61)
1992 8D (86-0)
1996 8D (86-0)
2000 4D 4R (50-36)
2004 3D 5R (40-43-1)

I want to especially call to your attention that in the 90's the Democrats had a President and Vice-President who were from this region. There are many independent voters in this region who swing in the center between the Democrats and the GOP.

We have an opportunity in 2008 for the Republicans to put 2 people from this region on the ticket. Coincidentally they both have the same last name:
Fred Thompson - Tennessee
Tommy Thompson - Wisconsin

I hope the Republican Party will give this strategy some serious consideration. I know there will be some who think because they both have the same last name that this is a joke. I am not joking. I want Republicans to win, and I think they need to get a majority of votes from this part
of the country to do it.

Honore vs Obama

What if the election for President of the United States came down to a choice between 2 African Americans, General Russel Honore and Senator Barack Obama? They are both tall, dark, and of mixed racial heritage. For me, the things that these two men have in common come to a quick end. I don't think the election would even be close. I'm talking '72 Nixon vs McGovern rout that Honore would do to Obama.

In one corner you have a man who waxes poetic in his speeches. Senator Obama:

"if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear,"

"In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope,"

In the other corner you have a man does not waste words and does not suffer fools in his speeches. General Honore:

"You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question."

"I'm totally unconfused about our mission,"

"Better is harder."

"I'd rather be in the middle of the game, playing hard with little hope of winning than to be an observer."

There is an excellent article on the American Thinker website that compares and contrasts these two men.
Personally if it came down to a choice between these two for POTUS I would not hesitate to vote for General Honore.

Compare Texas 1836 to Iraq 2006

I recently read an article that made me think of comparisons between a fledgling new Republic of Texas in 1836 and a fledgling new Republic of Iraq in 2006. In both cases these republics are supported by volunteers from the USA. Heroic men like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie volunteered to fight to defend the right of Texans to live free and independent of a former tyrant. Heroic men like David Petraeus and Lt Gen. Odierno volunteered to fight to defend the right of Iraqis to live free and independent of a former tyrant.

From the Alamo, Colonel Travis wrote to his countrymen the following:

Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall --
I shall never surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.

Now as I understand the letter was dispatched to the small settlement of Washington-on-the-Brazos. The aid with all dispatch did not arrive and the Mexicans with overwhelming force defeated the 80 Texans at the Alamo.

Now I worry today if General Petraeus writes a similar letter to a larger settlement of Washington DC what will the Democratically controlled Congress do? If I am to believe a recently passed non-binding resolution that was passed in the House and had 56 aye votes in the Senate then they are no more help for General Petraeus than the help that Colonel Travis received. Some people would say that while the Democratic party has the majority of seats in the House there are a lot of new members of the House who are Blue Dog Conservative Democrats. My reply to those people is every member of the House Democratic party voted aye to the resolution opposing sending additional reinforcement to General Petraeus. I think that there are many similarities, and I think we need to 'remember the Alamo' when we vote in 2008.