Kool-Aid Drinker

The Kool-Aid Drinker has moved

DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

FoxNews Says NO Just Like GOP?

I recently came across a blog post by another blogger on the other side of the political spectrum. The title of this man's post was "FoxNews Says NO Just Like GOP". First, he attempts to make it sound as if the FoxNews Channel is not going to air the speech, which is a complete lie. Fox, not FoxNews, is not going to air the speech.

What the writer is trying to imply is that Fox's, not the FoxNews Channel, decision not to air President Obama's speech is somehow a political decision. Fox also decided not to air a speech from former President Bush back in 2001, I suppose that was somehow political as well.

The truth is that Fox's decision not to air either speech is in no way politcal. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama and had nothing to do with George W. Bush in 2001. Fox's news outlet, The FoxNews Channel, will be carrying the speech.

Nice try Mud, seems this young, kool-aid drinking, easily duped kid was not able to be duped by you. Have a good one and God Bless!

This is what Obama's approach to illegals and healthcare will result in. Just thought I would show what the effect on the hospitals illegal aliens really take.

Supreme Court Protects Our Rights

FoxNews.com-

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Thank God they have some sense. After that blooper on Gitmo detainees, this is a relief to see that the Supreme Court can follow the Constitution and protect America and it's citizens rights instead of constantly trying to legislate from the bench.

What is the Role of Religion in America?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State…." This is a quote, taken from Thomas Jefferson, that many today use to strike down Christianity. They say that this quote proves that our Founding Fathers did not want God in American government.

It’s true that our country’s founders did not want church-run government, the kind of government they left behind in Europe. They knew the atrocities that had been committed in the name of “God’s Will” and did not want that type of rule in America. At the same time, “Separation of Church and State” has been taken to far and has interfered with our First Amendment right that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This amendment prevents the government from establishing a church, but it also gives Americans the right to exercise their religion.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he proposed this language for the Virginia constitution, “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” No person should be required or forced to believe in, or not believe in any certain religion or be restricted from practicing their faith. Neither the First Amendment nor the words of Thomas Jefferson allow our government to stop public prayer or prevent politicians from practicing their faith publicly. They don’t give individuals, or groups (such as the ACLU), the right to sue the government for showing the Ten Commandments or sue others for praying where they can hear. If that was the case then I could sue anyone for playing their music a little too loudly or for saying they don’t believe in Christ or God.

The Treaty of Tripoli has language in it that some use to further support separation of Church and State. The 12^th Article reads as follows, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]…” Many take the first portion, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” and omit the rest to support the infringement of our first amendment right to practice our faith freely. To fully understand the meaning of this part of the treaty you have to look at a couple of things.

The first is to just include all of the text, not just bits and pieces. If you read that first part and then include the rest it explains what it means. The treaty does not simply say that the United States is not a Christian nation, what it says is that it is not a Christian nation like European nations were. So called “Christian” European nations were always at war with Muslims over their religion (hence the Crusades) and the United States wanted to make sure that the Barbary States understood that they would not follow in Europe’s footsteps.

Second, you have to look at the position the United States was in when this treaty was written and signed. The Barbary States knew Christian nations to be warlike nations. To them a Christian nation was a threat, an enemy. The United States had just become an independent country and had few resources due to war (Revolutionary War). The United States had no navy and our trading ships were being attacked by the Barbary States. With our resources limited and no navy, the United States had no choice but to enter into a treaty with the Barbary States (who considered the United States an enemy at the time).

America’s president at that time was President John Adams. President Adams was America’s 2^nd president and the president that signed this treaty and sent it to the Senate to be ratified. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," those were President Adams’ words just two years after signing the treaty. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united." It is obviously clear that Adams was a Christian and that he believed, and knew, that the Constitution was made for Christians and “religious people.”

Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli and taking those points into consideration, it’s fair to say that the treaty does not mean America is not a Christian nation, but that it means that America will not follow Europe’s example and fight more religious wars or persecute those for their faith. Also, judging from Adams’ words after the treaty it is evident he, and many others, knew that the United States was founded on Christian principles.

Many secularists argue that the Declaration of Independence is not law and because of that it’s not relevant that it includes “Our Creator.” They also argue the fact that the word “God” is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is proof enough that the founders had no desire for God to be part of American government and that their (secularists) view of separation of Church and State is right. This, like so many other things they believe in, is not true. Although the word God does not appear in the Constitution, a reference to our Lord does. In Article VII, of the United States Constitution, there are these words, “…Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…”

First, let’s just make clear that the U.S. Constitution was done by the “Unanimous Consent of the States present…” So now that we know that it was unanimous lets look at the reference to “our Lord.” Now who is this Lord that they are referring to? Is it just a word they through in to make it sound better? No. Is it just the date? No, they could have done that without referring to our Lord. Then who is this Lord and Creator they are speaking of? John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Johnston, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, James McHenry and many, many more Founding Fathers and early country leaders have made it very clear. From public speeches to military addresses to private letters to congressional debating they make it very clear. This Lord they were referring to is Jesus Christ, and the Creator, God.

Did the Founding Fathers want a separation of church and state? I believe the answer is in the First Amendment. That amendment, though very short, explains the Founders’ intent concerning religion and government. There should not be a government-run church or church-run government. The people of the United States have the right to practice their faith, or lack of faith, freely and should not be discriminated against for their choice of faith. They should not be forced to believe in something or restricted from practicing their faith.

What about God and government? Our country’s founders have made it very clear. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the words spoken and written by these very men, it’s easy to see that they intended for a country founded on God. For a country with the most solid foundation available. They knew that there were no better principles than those of Christ. This is clear in their own words, such as, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God,” by John Adams. Or, “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus,” and “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,” by Thomas Jefferson.

Separation of Church and State has been taken too far. America needs to go back to our founding documents and reexamine our country. God was intended to be part of America and should continue to be our foundation.

Obama Still Defending Wright

Senator Barack Obama continued his defense of his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, today by saying that Wright was stuck in a "time warp".

“What they spoke to was, I think, a brilliant man who was still caught in a time warp back in the ’60s, early ’70s and the ’50s, where he grew up, and had a sense of where America was and didn’t have a good enough sense of how it had changed,” said Obama. Obama's comment came on an appearance on "The View" earlier today.

If this man cannot grip reality and realize that this is not the 60's, he has no place on the pulpit. Obama can defend Wright all he wants, but the fact is that this says a lot about Obama's judgment and character. As much as he claims that he was not present for "SOME" of these statements, made by Pastor Wright, there is no way that you attend a church for 20 years and not know what types of things are being taught. Especially when you are as involved as Obama has claimed to be.

To go back to something else that I mentioned in this post, Obama said that he was not present for "SOME" of the bigoted, racist, anti-American and hate-filled sermons. So was he saying that he is was also present for some? If he was then there is no excuse for not getting up and leaving in the middle of a sermon. He should of either left the church or asked Wright to resign. It is my personal belief the he was present for some or at least knew of some of the hate-filled sermons delivered by Wright. Because he chose to continue to be a member of the church and had a close relationship with the racist pastor I am certain that his man lacks the judgment and experience to lead the strongest country in the world.

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

D.C. Gun Ban Goes to Supreme Court

Tomorrow is a very big day for Washington D.C. and the rest of the country. Washington D.C.'s unconstitutional handgun ban is finally going to the Supreme Court, where I pray they will uphold the Constitution and our right to bear and keep arms. The Supreme Court's decision could affect the rest of the country's fire arm laws.

Dick Heller is the agitator bringing on the suit against D.C. . He claims that his personal handgun is necessary to defend himself at home (which we know is true).

What is really interesting in this case is that D.C. claims that the Second Amendment does in apply to them because they are a district. But wait, I thought that they wanted equal representation in congress as a state? I guess that liberals there just can't make up there mind. They really don't care, as long as they get more power.

55 Senators (Democrats and Republicans) and 250 Representatives (Democrats and Republicans) have sent a brief to the court in support of Heller. Only 17 Representatives (all Democrats) have sent a brief in favor of ignoring the Constitution. And of course Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not made their positions known, but I wouldn't expect anything else from them, they're just liberals playing politics and the less we know the better right?

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

For more information on the arguments being made here is a link

Marines Under Attack At Home

After the show of anti-American patriotism in Berkeley, CA, Toledo, OH Mayor Carty Finkbeiner kicked United States Marines out of Toledo. His reasoning; they scare people.

The Marines have been training in Toledo since 2004, but Finkbeiner just would not have it. The police departments knew what was going on, yet Fink kicked the Marines out after they had already arrived. This is why we don't want to hear liberals say they "support the troops". You guys really show it. I guess you're really proud of Fink aren't you Mudrake? This is why I will not support the Democratic party. It is anti-American and anti-patriotic.

San Francisco denying the Marines a spot to film a commercial yet clearing blocks for the gay sex parade, Berkeley trying to kick out the Marines from recruiting there and now Toledo Mayor Fink kicking marines from his city because he claims that they scare people yet they have been training there since 2004. This is sick, it is wrong and we need to get these lunatics out of office. Thank you for reading and God Bless.

We Need to Take Advantage

While John McCain has pretty much won the Republican nomination, the Democrats are still fighting for their nomination. What Republicans need to do is start concentrating on a national campaign against either Clinton or Obama.

The Democratic race could go on for months and possible even to August. Republicans, conservative or moderate, need to unite behind McCain because, regardless of your disagreements with him, what he has to offer is far better than what the Democrats have to offer.

McCain will stand behind our troops, has said he will make President Bush's tax cuts permanent, will secure our border, will cut taxes further, will ban internet taxes, cut spending (he has the best record of anyone on spending), appoint strict constructionist judges, support the right to life, improve education by implementing choice, defend marriage and protect our right to bear arms. The Democrats will surrender in Iraq, embolden our enemies around the world, lighten up on Iran at a time that Iran is getting bolder and bolder and killing American troops, socialize health care, increase taxes, expand government control, handicap American trade and support the murder of millions of innocent babies.

Obviously it is clear that McCain is a far better choice than either of the Democrats. We need to use the time we have to get an advantage over the Democrats. Our country is at stake and we need to do all we can, and that means supporting something who you have some disagreements with because, I cannot say it enough, McCain is better than the Democrats. Thank you for reading and God Bless.

Democrats Have No Accomplishments

I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night on FNC and the had Frank Luntz, a pollster on. Frank Luntz was with a group of Democrats discussing who they were favoring and Sean Hannity had a brilliant idea. That idea was to ask the Democrats what accomplishments either Hillary or Obama had accomplished. The Democratic group could not think of one, neither could Alan Colmes. It just shows that the Democratic party is all about talk but nothing more. They are voting on personality. If you ask Republicans what accomplishments McCain, Romney or Huckabee have, we could name at least one for each and more. Attacking spending for McCain, tremendous business man in Romney (i.e. Salt Lake City Olympics) and Huckabee helped Arkansas have one of the best school accountability in the country. There are many more by the Republicans than the Democrats. In fact all that I can come up with is nothing for Obama and a failed attempt at health care for Hillary.

I just had to post this because it was really great. thank you for reading and God Bless.

Not So Conservative Romney

All I've heard from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and many other "conservative" commentators this last month is how Mitt Romney is the only Conservative in the race. Now I respect and admire all these people, but they are way wrong on the issue of who the true Conservative is.

The most Conservative candidate that was in the race is now out, Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney is no where close to being a Conservative. John McCain and Mike Huckabee have always had their views on most issues...except McCain on border security and I believe he learned from how his bill was defeated. He heard the people speak. But Mitt Romney began changing his stance on just about all issues as he was getting ready to enter the race. Abortion, 2nd Amendment, gay marriage, taxes (or, as Romney would say, FEES), Vietnam and so many more issues.

On the issue of taxes and fees, Romney raised taxes and fees between $630-million to $880-million, depending out your definition of fees. My definition of fees is still having to pay my money to the government and is no different than taxes.

Now here are 3 articles to read about the not-so-Conservative Romney and the timing of his flip-flops to coincide with the election.

Romney and Taxes
Romney and Vietnam
Romney and FEES

I don't dislike Romney, I just think that with talk radio and others hitting McCain so hard and they way they his Huckabee when he was surging, Romney should also have his record examined. Thank you for reading and God Bless.

An America Hero

August 20, 2003 US forces in Iraq had an Iraqi police officer in custody, on suspicion of knowledge of imminent attacks against his battalion. US forces were interrogating the police officer and getting nowhere. The officer in charge, retired Colonel Allen West, had enough and took over the interrogation. After still not getting the information, Colonel West pulled out is 9mm pistol and discharged the weapon above the suspects head, causing no harm. And surprise, surprise...we got the information. For the rest of the duration of Colonel West's leadership no attacks were made against his battalion. Many American lives were spared but, despite the lives being saved, Democrats called for his court martial.

Outrageously, Colonel West, an America hero, was punished and fined 5,000 dollars. Despited Democratic calls for his court martial, 95 members of congress signed a letter, in support of Colonel West, and sent it to the Secretary of the Army. The result was Colonel West retiring honorably (the way any American hero should) and getting all the benefits owed to him.

Colonel West is currently running for Florida's 22nd US Congressional District, hoping to unseat Democrat Rep. Ron Klein. So to those in Florida, Colonel Allen West is an American hero and would make a great American Congressman. He will stay true to Conservative values. Colonel West will make a commitment to end earmarks, shrink government, cut taxes, reduced our debt by cutting the budget (not more taxing like the Democrats want), strengthen our relationship with our most beloved ally Israel, secure our borders, not play partisan politics and ensure victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for reading and God Bless

War Monger or Patriot?

I never was that into politics until the beginning of last year when President Bush announced that the new strategy in Iraq would be a surge. I was shocked at all the opposition that President Bush got from the left. So I started to follow what was going on in our country very closely.

In the last year I've seen and heard people call for President Bush's impeachment for, so called, "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". I've also seen Iran grow bolder in there opposition to America because of all the fighting here. Liberals just cannot seem to understand that, no matter what we do, if we don't bow down to Islam then terrorists and sponsors of terrism(i.e. Iran) will never stop taking innocent lives. When you try explaining that to a liberal, who lives in a fanasty world of nothing but peace and marijuana, they call you a "war monger". I've learned to wear that name with honor and pride, just like I do as a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Now here we are, a year after the troop surge in Iraq, and violence is down, Iraqis are joining together to combat terrorists, American and Iraqi troop deaths are down, we're beginning to remove troops from Iraq, we're handing over control to the Iraqi military, Iraqis are sharing oil revenues, all political parties are being represented, laws are being passed and citizens are beginning to feel safe to walk the streets and return home. And what do the anti-American liberals say? They say that would should have pulled out all our troops a long time ago and leave millions of innocent people to die. We should of pulled out and let Iran take the country over and use it as a training ground for terrorists. We should never have gone in, even though their King (Bill Clinton) said that he also believed the intel. Our government was in on 9/11. We should give terrorists rights that we have in our courts. That we should allow Iran to do whatever they want. That we should let Iran take out Israel. That our troops are the ones causing terror. That we should SURRENDER! Even after they say all those things, they have the audacity to say that they support the troops, that they are more patriotic than I and that we are the enemy.

If we follow the path that liberals want to go down then what we are going to end up with is country that is inferior to those like Iran, China, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea and Syria. We will have a country were freedom no longer exists. But hey, it's okay because we will have the freedom to go and get high. I don't want a country like that and I hope you don't either.

Thank-you for reading and God Bless.

Republican Chaos

Iowa was Huckabee's, Wyoming Romney's and New Hampshire belonged to McCain. I think it's pretty fair to say that the Republican race is very chaotic and very wide open. Rudy is waiting for Super Tuesday and Thompson is hoping for the South.

Fred Thompson will most likely not stay in it too long because he basically has no strategy.

It's probably do or die for Romney in Michigan. He has lost two races in which he has outspent his opponents by at least 7 to 1 or more (not to mention one was his neighboring state) and he has run a pretty negative campaign, voters don't seem to respect that very much. Romney may not drop out after Michigan because he does have the money to stay in the race for a while, but it would be highly unlikely that he gets much support. If Romney cannot win Michigan (the state in which he was born and his father was governor), I think it's pretty fair to say that his chances are pretty much gone.

Rudy is putting all his dice in Florida, but that may not work with Huckabee right there with him. If Huckabee can pull off a victory or good showing in the states leading up to Florida and Super Tuesday, and it looks like he could, then he may get enough momentum to upset Rudy in Florida. A loss in Florida would greatly hurt Rudy's campaign and would give McCain and Huckabee a better chance to make it a two man race between them.

Huckabee got a huge boost from Iowa and showed that he is viable from his third place in New Hampshire. He is currently running second in Michigan and South Carolina to John McCain. A second place finish to McCain in Michigan would most likely knock Romney out of the running (although Romney would probably stay in a little longer because he has the money) and give him more support in the primaries following Michigan, but a loss in South Carolina could do great damage his campaign because of the number of Christians in South Carolina. If Huckabee cannot keep those evangelicals then he will lose his greatest base of support.

John McCain has the brightest future in this race (in my opinion). He proved, like Huckabee, that money will not buy an election and defeated Romney in New Hampshire. He is also showing the he is the most trustworthy by telling the truth about his record and just straight-talking with the people. He's stealing Romney's support in Michigan and Huckabee's evangelicals in South Carolina. Another advantage the McCain and Huckabee both enjoy is their ability to attract the Independent vote.

Now I just want to set a few things straight for the people: Romney attacked John McCain about his record on the Bush tax cuts. The truth about that, and what McCain makes very clear, is that he didn't support the tax cuts because they didn't have spending cuts along with them. Romney also attacked McCain on supporting Bush's immigration bill but fails to mention that he also supported it until he decided to run for President, just another one of those flip-flops that are so common in Romney.

Next comes Huckabee. Romney attacked Huckabee because he raised taxes in Arkansas, again Romney is not telling the whole truth. Huckabee raised taxes only after the people voted overwhelmingly for the increase with 70-80 percent in favor. Romney also fails to mention that he raised taxes in his own state (though he calls them fees). He has also claimed that Mike Huckabee gives illegals special privileges, which is not true. What he is talking about is Huckabbe allowing the children of illegals, who have attended Arkansas schools their entire education careers, to pay in-state tuition rates for college. What Romney makes it sound like is that Huckabee was letting any illegal come to Arkansas and get those rates and that's just not true.

I've had lots of respect for Mitt Romney and even supported him as my second choice until he started with a negative ads. A few negatives are ok, but when that's all you do it's not what people respect.

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

Iranian Provocation

I'm sure that most of you are already aware of the threat Iran made to the US Navy over the weekend. If you are not then here is the story, Iran Confrontation. This is further proof that, even with the latest intelligence report finding Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program, Iran is still a threat to America. They still have not stopped enriching uranium.

Some liberals are comparing this incident to what happened last May when we sent another carrier to the Gulf region in a show of military strength. What happened last May was Iran continually provoking the US, defying the United Nations and murding American troops in Iraq, America basically said, "Hey, back off. We're bigger than you and you need to stop." What happened over the weekend was Iran trying to provoke the US into a fight by threatening our ships and saying they were going to "explode." To say the two incidents are the same is something only an idiot would do, but hey, the liberals I'm talking about are on the DailyKos and you can't expect more than idiocy from there.

The timing of this threat comes as President Bush is making is trip to the Middle-East. When Ahmedinejad came to New York, we didn't do anything like this (although we probably should have).

America is a country that promotes peace and democracy, but we are also a country that will cut down any threat to our national security. We don't force other countries to do anything unless they are a threat to us. Liberals would have you believe that we are occupiers and that we force countries to do what we want and that is completely untrue. Iran is a threat, Iraq was a threat and terrorism is still alive. Thank you for reading and God Bless.

Ain't It True?

This picture, from TownHall.com, isn't just funny, it also shows the truth about how our enemies feel about Democrats wanting to surrender. The last time I checked, our national security was more important then what terrorists thought about us.

You can make the claim that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and I can respect that view (because we went in on faulty intelligence), but the fact is that we are there and if we were to leave now, it would be catastrophic for the United States. There's no doubt that Iran would just go in and take over, it would also emboldened our enemies all over the world. Attacks on the United States, and our bases and embassies around the world, would rise because we would be seen by our enemies as weak. It would also result in a massacre (genocide) in Iraq. It would be just like Vietnam (and if you think we had a bad image after that, just wait and see what our image would be like if Democrats got their way).

Democrats are always say that President Bush's foreign policy is disastrous and it is ruining our ties with other countries. Well, the only ties it is ruining is ties with countries that are supporting terrorism, cheating on trade and making threats against America. One example is Russia, they are helping Iran with their nuclear program and directly undermining the UN. Other examples are China and Venezuela. If these countries are going to support our enemies, then we do not need good ties with them. On the other hand, Bush has strengthened relationships with the UK, Germany, France, Mexico, Canada and many more. Our relationships with these countries are better than they have ever been.

Democrats just can't seem to understand that America MUST be tough on terror and we must be tough on our enemies. It seems like only time they feel that way is when we get attacked and it will help their political image. Thank you for reading and God Bless

Merry Christmas

Liberals In Congress Praise Islam But Deny Christianity

Democrats in congress voted to recognize Islam as "one the of the great religions of the world" and condemned the persecution of Muslims around the world. They also voted to honor the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. Now there's nothing wrong with condemning the persecution of anyone or respecting the religion of anyone, but there is something wrong when Democrats vote for religious tolerance for Muslims but refuse to do the same for Christians, especially when it is known that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, more than any other peoples around the world.

The Ramadan resolution began:

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramandan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month:"

The Christmas resolution began:

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world... Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ...Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others:"

The Democrats that voted yes to Islam and No to Christianity are:
Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of N.Y., Alcee Hastings, FL, Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey, CA, Jim McDermott, WA, Robert Scott, VA and Diane DeGette, CO.

This just shows that liberal Democrats want to stray farther and farther away from the values that this country was founded on. It's ridiculous this even happened in this country, which was founded "under God."

I believe that it is now evident, to those who denied it, that there is a war on Christmas in the United States and liberals are to blame. If any of these idiotic Democrats are representing your district, then you need to let them hear your voice and let them know that Christians founded this country and that Christmas is an American holiday. Let them know that the persecution of Christians deserves the same condemnation as the persecution of any other people.

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

Diversity

People often talk about "diversity" in our schools, jobs and government and we've all heard the different classifications (such as race, age, gender and nationality). I believe in diversity, to an extent (meaning I believe that merit should come first), but liberals have spun that way out of control. They've now added "sexual orientation" to the list of categories pertaining to diversity.

Now, they have been using this term for quite a while but I haven't heard anyone really challenge it much. How liberals come up with this? I don't know, but what I do know is that the question of sexual orientation is simple, you're either a male or female. There isn't an "in between". There is also a very simple and easy solution to gays and lesbians claiming that they are discriminated against in the workplace, school and so forth. That solution is to not flaunt their immoral behavior.

The reason I'm writing this right now is not to incite any hatred or ill will against gays or lesbians, but to show that the liberal left has completely gone off the deep end. They use the issue of diversity to push their liberal agenda and make our schools into indoctrination centers. They claim that gay, lesbian and "transgendered" students (whatever the hell that means) are the ones that are discriminated against, yet it's the students that have family morals, the student that don't drink their koolaid, those students are the ones that are always in trouble for not accepting other students immoral lifestyles in our schools.

Gays and lesbians are allowed to promote their lifestyles and even got a "day of silence" from schools (while, at the same time, trying to take away our children's right to a moment of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance), but when a student with American values wore a t-shirt claiming that it was "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" that student was suspended.

The left's agenda is also being pushed by our schools with the emergence of days such as "Gender Bender Day" (Des Moines, IA) and "Gender Switch Day" (Bay Area, CA) where students are encouraged to dress in clothes of the opposite sex. When the students do not they are ridiculed. All they are doing it following what the believe and following the Bible, which says, "Deut. 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

I just want all parents to monitor your child's school closely, because these things are happening all over the country. Thank you for reading and God Bless.

Thanking God

This Thanksgiving, while we were saying the blessing, I wondered how many families actually prayed for our soldiers, country and leaders during their Thanksgiving prayer. I really don't know how many prayed for that or if they even prayed at all (with the ACLU trying to take that away). So what I would like to do today is say a prayer.

Dear Heavenly Father, we come to You today to thank you for for all that you have given us and the wonderful freedoms we enjoy because You are so gracious.

We pray for our brave troops that are fighting for our freedoms and blessings and ask that You be with them in this fight they are fighting. That You keep them safe and help them to do what they need to do and come home.

We pray that You be with our leaders that we have chosen to lead this great nation that you have given us. We pray that You will give them the wisdom that is needing to lead in the way that You would have them lead.

We pray that You will give us the wisdom and strength to follow you in this lost and confused world. We ask that You help us to keep focused on You and not all the worldly things. To please You and not the world.

We thank You for what You have given us through Your Son, Jesus Christ. We know that we are not worthy of Your Son but are forever grateful. You have given us the greatest gift, and that gift has given us a light to follow in this dark world.

And lastly, we pray for our enemies who are lost in this world. We pray that You may soften their hearts so that they may come to know You.

We pray all this in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ
Amen

More Democrat Hypocrisy Backed With More Facts

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, they need to look at the FACTS:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea

North Korea never attacked us .

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us .

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But wait!

There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):

'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day...to a veteran's hospital and look those men .. with their mangled bodies .. in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in A rlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you? For those who don't remember. During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.