About Me

Name: LowDownCentral
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Our Three Kings

 imageimageimage

Our three stars of the GOP are,

Newt and Rudy and Romney so far

Field and fountain,

moor and mountain,

follow their shining stars.

(chorus)

O Star of Fox News, New York White Knight,

Star over Boston’s liberal plight.

Westward leading, Iowa proceeding,

Guide them through the primary fight.

*
Herald the Speaker once on the Hill,

Also a leader of Olympian thrill,

Add a Protector New Yorkers ordained

share in their brilliant campaign.

(chorus)

O Star of Fox News, New York White Knight,

Star over Boston’s liberal plight.

Westward leading, Iowa proceeding,

Guide them through the primary fight.

*
Common sense to offer have they,

Liberals scream in utter dismay,

Trails blazing, GOP praising,

Follow them through ‘08.

(chorus)

O Star of Fox News, New York White Knight,

Star over Boston’s liberal plight.

Westward leading, Iowa proceeding,

Guide them through the primary fight.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Diplomacy For Dummies

 image

by Lance Thompson

Recommendations to open direct talks with Iran and Syria from the Iraq Study Group are only the latest iteration of the Holy Grail of liberal foreign policy–diplomacy. The flaw in the diplomacy game is that it is played with different rules in different countries. The United States, and the few other democracies which believe in the rule of law, negotiate in good faith. Those we must negotiate with, including communist states, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East and Latin America, and fledgling rogue states in the Third World, all share a radically different view of diplomacy.

We value stability, they crave instability. We value, support and maintain a stable world order based on values of individual freedom, human rights, and international responsibility. We are willing to make compromises and concessions to ensure that a stable world order continues. If negotiations fail, and we must go to war, it is to reverse aggression (as in the first Gulf War), defend human rights (as in Bosnia), or depose dictators who subjugate their own people, make war on their neighbors, or support terrorists (the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). Our opponents wish to decrease stability, by supporting terrorists (Iran and Syria), enabling the proliferation of nuclear weapons (Russia, China, Pakistan), or calling for the destruction of other states (Iran against Israel). We must realize that in any negotiation with these states, we have vastly different goals than our opponents.

We negotiate to reach a compromise, they negotiate to gain what they can’t from other means. Our concept of a fair agreement is one where both sides will make concessions and both sides will realize gains. Our opponents only resort to negotiation when other tactics fail to yield results. In 1987, when Ronald Reagan proposed the deployment of a space-based defense against ballistic missiles, the Soviets knew they could no longer match the military expenditures made possible by the booming US economy, nor overcome a sophisticated orbital system. Since the Soviets could not compete, Gorbachev proposed the US and USSR dismantle half of all ballistic missiles and withdraw all US and USSR medium-range missiles from Europe, in exchange for President Reagan cancelling the Strategic Defense Initiative. At the summit in Reykjavic, Iceland, Reagan turned them down.

We believe agreements are binding, they believe them to be temporary. We take a short-term view of the relationships between states, they take the long term view. We see an agreement as the successful end of a negotiation. Our opponents see an agreement as the solidification of gains, and but one step on the path to greater gains. During the Clinton administration, the United States secured an agreement from North Korea’s Kim Jong-il to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, fuel, and a nuclear reactor. Naively, the Clinton administration believed the signing of the agreement was the successful end to the negotiation. North Korea saw it merely as a way of obtaining aid, then continued their program while over a million North Koreans starved due to their government’s refusal to distribute the food that was provided by the deal.

We negotiate to avoid conflict, they negotiate until they’re ready for conflict. In order to avoid war, we negotiate, build coalitions, engage allies, seek consensus. Our opponents use this time to stockpile weapons, train troops, devise strategies, deploy new technology. Prior to invading Iraq, the United States secured several UN resolutions to compel Saddam Hussein to verifiably surrender his WMD arsenal. The American government warned Saddam Hussein that firing on our aircraft, defying inspectors and continuing to fund and harbor terrorists would lead to regime change in Iraq. He ignored every opportunity diplomatically to resolve the conflict, while spending the time to conceal and export the incriminatory evidence of his WMD programs. Our diplomatic overtures merely gave him time to prepare his defenses and obfuscate the causes for war.

We begin negotiations from the status quo, they begin from an extreme position. Since we strive for a stable world, that is the position from which we begin negotiations. Our opponents begin negotiations from an extreme position. Whatever compromise we reach is obviously less stable than where we began. In the summer of 2006, North Korea announced that their nuclear weapons program was active, and they fired ballistic missiles toward Japan and Hawaii. If we address this question with conventional diplomacy, we are forced to entice North Korea back to the situation prior to their missile launch. Thus, any compromise advances their pre-diplomacy position and worsens ours.

Clearly, we operate by different rules than they do. That must end. We must recognize:

1. We negotiate with opponents who do not wish us well.

2. Negotiation must serve our national needs.

3. If we desire fair negotiations, we must not begin with the status quo, but rather from a position more advantageous to us, just as our opponents begin from positions more advantageous to them.

4. No party negotiates unless the party has something to gain and something to lose.

This brings us back to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommends talking directly with Iran and Syria to reach a solution. This would be productive only if we operate by the same rules they do.

Consider the goal of eliminating the nuclear threat posed by rogue states. First, we must realize that we have nothing to offer North Korea, Iran, or any other emerging nuclear power that would be preferable to possessing nuclear weapons. Any concession we would make would only postpone their arming with nuclear weapons, and weaken us in the meantime.

To negotiate effectively, we must start not from the status quo, but from an extreme position. Such a position could be reached by significantly degrading Iran’s nuclear weapons capability with a massive conventional air strike or a nuclear strike. This drastically reduces the threat from Iran, and forms the basis of fruitful negotiation with North Korea. Now the concession we would offer to North Korea for dismantling their nuclear program is an agreement not to destroy it. The example of Iran would assure them that our intentions are serious. Instead of reaching some middle ground between North Korea building weapons and North Korea possessing weapons, our diplomatic efforts would focus on the middle ground between North Korea wanting nuclear weapons and North Korea being denied them by force.

Even if North Korea decided to renege on any agreement, their violation would necessarily release us from our constraints. In other words, by resuming a nuclear program, North Korea would be approving a nuclear strike on their own facilities.

This sounds extreme to citizens of democracies that are based on the rule of law. But this is the sort of negotiation the other side understands, employs, and uses to their advantage. If the Iraq Study Group is serious about talking to Iran, Syria, and other accomplices in the war against civilization, this is the kind of language they will comprehend.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Merry Mittmas!

By Lance Thompson

 

image

Check the polls of star Mitt Romney,

Fa la la la la, la la la la

He’s got charm and lots of moxie,

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Gone he’s now from statehouse duty

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

He’s closing fast on John and Rudy

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

In Mass he saved the fiscal day

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Back home he made Olympics pay

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

He’s got the looks, and smarts as well.

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

So he’s Mormon–you can’t tell.

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Tight on budgets, strong on Defense

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Mitt’s the choice with common sense.

Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudolph The Blue State Wonder

By Lance Thompson

 

image

 

Rudolph the Blue State Wonder,

Spoke some very witty prose.

And if you ever heard him,

You would even say, "He knows..."

All of the other hopefuls

Used to laugh and call him lame.

They never knew poor Rudolph

Played a better waiting game.

Then one foggy Convention Eve,

Dubya came to say,

Rudolph with your future bright,

Won’t you run for Pres tonight?

Then all the delegates loved him

As they shouted out with glee,

We’ll take the White House easy,

If we vote for Rudy G.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mews from Dubya Bush

 
     "Even I get it."

image
(Dubya Bush the Cat)



image

“After everything that has been said about Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Mr. Assad,. I think that the Middle East and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Syrian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.”

Superimpose James Baker's conclusions from the Iraq Study Group Report with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's words and the unintended consequences become frighteningly clear.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Christmas Gift From Washington that Keeps on Giving

 image

By Lance Thompson

Most Americans associate Christmas with the miracle of the birth of Christ. But a more recent Christmas reminds us of the miracle of the birth of this nation. Many writers have given accounts of this story in the past 230 years, few better than David Hackett Fischer in Washington’s Crossing.*

In 1776, the Continental army was a loose confederation of militia, volunteers, and adventurers under the command of 42 year-old General George Washington–a Virginia landowner and veteran of the French and Indian War who accepted his commanding role with some trepidation. The drill and discipline of Baron von Steuben that would turn American fighters into soldiers was still more than a year away. Washington’s troops had been outflanked and outmaneuvered in New York, lost the Hudson River stronghold of Fort Washington to a British siege, and withdrawn across the whole of New Jersey, pressed relentlessly by the army of British General Sir William Howe. With each setback, more Americans left the army for home, seeing no point in suffering and sacrificing to retreat endlessly.

By December of 1776, the Continental army was on the west bank of the Delaware River, safe for the moment behind the frigid waterway whose current hurled ice floes down river and defied any crossing. In days, winter temperatures would freeze the surface of the river, and the British would cross as easily as they would dry land. The pursuit of the Continental army would continue until Washington was forced into battle to defend Philadelphia or lost all his troops to discouragement and attrition.

Christmas 1776 was a moment of decision for George Washington. His army was low on supplies, winter clothing and food, and dwindling in strength. Support from civilians, the Continental Congress, and even some of his own subordinates, was waning. The British, with their Hessian allies, would only grow stronger with time. Washington desperately needed a victory to restore his army’s morale, and prevent the Revolution from dying. He might have one last chance to strike a surprise blow while he still had the troops and equipment to make it effective. But he would have to risk all to carry it off.

Washington decided to recross the Delaware River on Christmas night, to surprise the Hessian-occupied town of Trenton. The quiet village on the riverbank was occupied by three regiments (approximately 1300 men) of Hessians–highly trained professional soldiers, victors of White Plains and Fort Washington, under Colonel Johann Rall.

Washington couldn’t hope to win a major battle against the much stronger British army. But there was a slight chance he could win a quick, sharp limited engagement against an isolated enemy garrison to restore the morale of his army and show Americans that their men could fight and defeat the enemy. Washington insisted on the utmost secrecy, and chose the password for the night himself: "Victory or Death."

Washington’s plan included three separate, simultaneous night crossings of the ice-choked river, to surround Trenton and cut off the garrison from escape. Washington himself would lead the largest, northernmost force of 2400 men, including 18 horse-drawn artillery pieces. Two separate blocking forces, of 1800 and 800 men respectively, would cross south of Trenton to prevent the Hessians’ escape and prevent enemy reinforcements from reaching Trenton.

The crossing began late on Christmas night, in the teeth of a fierce storm, driving sleet and hail. Traversing the river was laborious and time-consuming, made more so by the necessity of manhandling artillery and horses into the boats. The wind was biting, the men were soaked; the landing force didn’t assemble on the enemy shore until 3:00 a. m., and were not ready to march until four. Plans for a pre-dawn attack were dashed, as Trenton was still several hours’ march to the south. Moreover, the storm, the crashing ice floes and current had proved so daunting, neither of the other American groups had accomplished their crossings. Washington pressed on, unaware that more than half his force would not join him in the assault on the enemy stronghold.

Washington encouraged, ordered, inspired and exhorted as his men marched into the raging storm over ice-coated roads. The troops trudged eight miles, in predawn darkness, most of it uphill, fording two more swollen streams, to reach their objective. The weather was brutal. Two soldiers who dropped out of line froze to death.

As dawn broke, the American column, which stretched over a mile, was exposed to broad daylight. The Hessians in Trenton were on alert, warned by spies and by premature and independent cross-river raids by Pennsylvania militia the week before. Washington split his force into two attacking columns–a river road force under Major General John Sullivan, and an inland force under Major General Nathaniel Greene. Washington, possibly the first commander to do so, ordered his commanders to synchronize their watches so that the two forces could attack simultaneously.

As the Americans prepared to assault the Hessian-occupied town, the troops realized that the powder in the firing pans of their rifles was rain-soaked and useless. When Sullivan told Washington that many of his men wouldn’t be able to fire their weapons, Washington said, "Use the bayonet. The town must be taken."

At eight a. m., the two American columns charged out of the storm, supported by artillery, to completely surprise the Hessians. Colonel Rall’s men recovered quickly, putting up a vigorous defense. Rall might have retreated, but he was erroneously informed that Americans held the bridge to the south, so he determined to stand his ground. With Washington watching from high ground nearby, and shifting his forces to meet each new development via messengers, the battle was squeezed into the ever more confining spaces of the town. A fierce struggle erupted in the streets of Trenton with charges, countercharges and savage combat that went from house-to-house to hand-to-hand. Artillery of both sides fired down the narrow streets. The American assault was overwhelming and irresistible. The Hessians suffered 106 killed and wounded, lost 868 prisoners, and escaped with fewer than 400 soldiers. Colonel Rall himself died of wounds. The American casualties were four men wounded, none killed.

Washington’s victory was decisive. He had taken an army demoralized by retreat, mounted a surprise attack against a weak point in the lines of a vastly superior enemy, and prevailed in a battle that would rekindle the spirit of the Revolution. There would be defeats and disappointments aplenty in the years ahead, but the enemy would never again discount the courage and skill of the new American army, nor the determination of its leader.

We all have Christmas traditions–religious, traditional, familial, commercial. But in between shopping, writing cards, decorating the tree, going to mass, gathering around a table with family and friends, find a moment to give thanks for those first Americans who fought and sacrificed on that Christmas long ago, and for their successors who will be defending our country this Christmas and throughout the year. Their gifts to all of us are beyond value.

*Washington’s Crossing, David Hackett Fischer, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mews from Dubya Bush

Even I get this one.

image (Dubya Bush the Cat)

And this is what Democrats have been waiting for with bated breath?  Condi must be rolling her eyeballs.

image2232648g.jpg

"The United States should engage Iran, Mr. Baker contended, if only to reveal its “rejectionist attitude”; it should try to “flip the Syrians”; and it should begin a renewed quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that, he maintained, would help convince Arab moderates that America was not all about invasions and regime change."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crazy Like Fox

image



by Lance Thompson

I became a news junkie during the first Gulf War, under the first President Bush. I could turn on CNN and watch air strike footage, military briefings, and video from the front any time of the day or night.

A few years later, I heard about Fox News, a new cable news network from that wild and crazy newspaper magnate, Rupert Murdoch. It was disparaged as lightweight, sensational, and a shill for the GOP. It wouldn’t last, and I just stuck with CNN.

Then I heard about this O’Reilly guy–a raving lunatic according to reports on other networks. I tuned in. He was raving, but not a lunatic. He was provocative, opinionated, and entertaining–unlike anyone on CNN.

All the networks were gearing up for the 2000 election, and coverage on Bush was almost universally dismissive, except for Fox. Brit Hume’s show entertained views from both sides, and offered great pundit analysis every day. Just before the election, Fox correspondent Carl Cameron broke the story of Bush’s drunk driving arrest, a devastating blow to the campaign. If Fox was a GOP shill, how could he get away with that?

Fox’s coverage of the post-election recounts was fair and balanced in the way the other networks couldn’t manage. Every time I turned back to CNN or CNBC or one of the broadcast networks, the story was about Bush stealing the election. I never turned back.

Now I’m hooked on Fox News–O’Reilly’s confrontations, Brit Hume’s analysis, Neil Cavuto’s regular guy take on business and finance. Fox News specials on Iraq, Islamic terrorists and politics are always well researched and informative. And I hope Bush has another Supreme Court nomination, just so I can watch Megyn Kendall cover the action.

Fox is number one because they offer something no one else does–serious news without the haughty liberal bias. Fox does lean right, but liberals and Democrats get a fair shot and plenty of opportunity to put forward their views. Fox News is the only news organization that does it that way, and that’s what makes them number one.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Shortsightedness of the Iraq Study Group

For the real common sense lowdown on the potential harm of implementing talks with Iran and Syria, one need only check middle east news and commentary.  Since you won't be hearing it on network news, nor reading it in the failing dailies, the Iran Press is offering a quick study in what not to do.

Iran Mullahs' Aim

By: Amil Imani

The world is presently at its most wicked. It is beyond human help. It requires only a nudge to implode and prepare for the divine ruler, the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Mahdi, the Lord of the Age) to come and set it aright. It is the sacred duty and privilege of every Muslim to do all he can to hasten the death of the old world and the birth of the global Islamic Ummeh. Thus goes the thinking of Iran’s ruling mullahs and their hand-picked president Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

It seems like the old millennialism thinking, a belief held, in one version or another by major religions. Indeed it is, with one terribly alarming difference. This time around, a group of believers with tremendous resources are intent upon forcing the issue, making the conditions so dire that it leaves the reluctant Saheb-ul-Zaman no choice but to appear and assume his universal reign.

The belief in supernatural intervention to set the world aright is scriptural to major religions, including Islam. The Jews have been earnestly supplicating the Lord for the Messiah to come; the Christians are impatiently awaiting the second coming of Christ; and, the Zoroastrians are convinced that Saoshayant is the one who shall come, defeat the trouble-making Ahriman—Satan—and make the creatures again pure.

Up to this point millennialism was a belief and a hope. No one ever aspired to or had the means of making the anticipated events come about. The matter was in the hands of God. The Muslims’ perennial prayer recited every day, posted in mosques and even on bumpers of vehicles has been, “O, Saheb-ul-Zaman, hasten your coming.” The prayer for the advent, thus far, has been limited to passive supplications of the faithful.

It is a well-established fact that beliefs are potent impetus to action. If you believe your home is about to be burglarized, you secure the house and take other precautions. If you, under the influence of cocaine, believe that a bug is burrowing into your skin, you may take a knife to your own body and try to dig the imaginary bug out.

Hence, it is shortsighted to dismiss the mullahs as a bunch of lunatics who are out of touch with reality and that they have no intention of doing catastrophic mischief to compel the Mahdi’s coming. Maybe some arming of the Iraqi Shiites, a little support for Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine—but no, no major idiocy. After all, they are rational people and in touch with reality. Any large scale troublemaking spells their doom as well. Thus goes the rationalization—the greatest risky tranquilizer of the mind.

Rationalization, compounded by complacency and denial, can be deadly, particularly when the adversaries have different realities. To the fanatic mullahs ruling Iran Sahaeb-ul-Zaman is an absolute reality and his promised advent is irrevocably ordained. This is their reality and their belief and they have every intention of leading their life according to them.

It is foolish for the non-Muslims to dismiss the mullahs and the Bin Ladens as a bunch of fringe lunatics who are going to go away simply by wishing it. The Islamist reality is that the non-Muslims are the ones who deserve to be done away with; they are the ones who have refused to submit to the summons of Allah for much too long; and, it is time for the faithful to get rid of them. This makes for a lopsided contest. The non-Muslims are passively wishing that the nightmarish surge of Islamism is only a temporary fringe phenomenon doomed to die on its own, while the other side is marshalling its huge destructive power to accomplish its aim by eradicating the non-Muslims.

The cabal of fanatical mullahs ruling Iran has lost its patience, not only with the unbelievers, but also with the Mahdi as well. They aim to force his arrival. The mullahs believe they have the means to make it impossible for the Mahdi to tarry any longer by causing unprecedented death and destruction—conditions deemed essential for his coming. The world must hit the very bottom, before the Savior of the world comes to the rescue, so they firmly believe.

The question is: What does prudence demand? Clearly wishing the problem to go away is not a very effective solution in the same way that wishing for the Saheb-ul-Zaman to come has not been. Reasoning and negotiating with the mullahs and their ilk hold very little, if any, lasting promise. There are always the easy ways of denial and appeasement. We are very good at both practices. No, the Muslims have been around for ages. They make some troubles from time to time. But they really are not all that bad and dangerous. We’ll get along. If we have too, we’ll even let them live by the Sharia—their stone-age laws— in our midst. We’ll be reasonable and they will come around. We’ll just have to get along. So goes the line.

One problem: The other side doesn’t think this way. The Islamofascists don’t believe in the notion of “Live and let live.” They believe that the earth is Allah’s and it has been sullied by the heathens, the unbelievers and the kafir for far too long. Now that they have the means, they aim to make the world to their design and bring about the final solution—a nasty reminder of not too long ago Nazism.

Is this alarmist, or even hatemongering? You don’t believe Muslims can be that intolerant and hostile toward non-Muslims and that they’ll never go to the extremes? You know Muslims personally in your neighborhood or your work place and they are nice people? The nice Muslims you personally know are presently small minorities in alien lands. They have to be nice, and they may indeed be nice. Yet, when the main force of Islam surges forward, these nice folks will either have to join it or be swept aside like the rest of the resisters.

The concern is not with individual Muslims who live as solid citizens in democratic societies. They may have developed a taste for the freedom democracy bestows or have simply learned to tolerate it. Our concern is with the gathering Islamic storm from the heart of Islamdom. To truly appreciate Islam, you must experience firsthand Islam in power. Take a quick trip to the lands of the Muslims and find out for yourself how horribly they treat the non-Muslims, even the, “People of the book,” Jews and Christians. Try to have a Bible study group or build a church in Saudi Arabia and discover the benevolence of Islamic rule.

The world is a laboratory where the experiment with Islam shows irrefutable results. To the extent that Islam rules any society, that society is stagnant, backward thinking, repressive and violent. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents the cutting edge for the newly petrodollar invigorated Islam. It is determined to complete its task of ending the world of “Dar-ul-Harb”—the non-Muslim world to be warred upon—and establishing the “Dar-ul-Solh,” or “Dar-ul-Salam”—the Muslim world of the Ummeh under the rule of the Mahdi. If achieving this aim hinges on the conflagration of the Third World War, the mullahs are happy to make it happen.


Amil Imani is an Iranian born American citizen and pro-democracy activist who resides in the United States of America. Imani is a poet, writer, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at http://amilimani.com/index

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Floating Around the Net

When a clever email makes its way through cyberspace, LowDown Central would like to share with its readers those messages filled with common sense and humor.  The following email is the first in our new column "Floating Around the Net":

DEMOCRATS NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICA

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401Ks are back.
A new direction from there means, what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means, what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means, what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 60%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means. what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means, what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since
9/11/01.
A new direction from there means, what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means, what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major
US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means, what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means, what?

Now let me see, do I have this right ?

I can expect:

The economy to go South

Illegals to go North

Taxes to go Up

Employment to go Down

Terrorism to come In

Tax breaks to go Out

Social Security to go away

Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone.

I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan. I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.

Now I know why I feel good after the elections.

I am going to be able to sleep soooooo much better at nights knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of me and my welfare.

(Author Unknown)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bullies at the ACLU

 image

By Lance Thompson

You can find bullies anywhere–on the schoolyard, at the office, running Middle Eastern countries. Bullies prey on the weak or helpless, avoid anyone who fights back, and coast along on their reputations.

While individual bullies are easy to spot, institutional bullies maintain a lower profile. With clever public relations, the cooperation of sympathetic agencies, and the benign neglect of authorities, institutional bullies can thrive.

The American Civil Liberties Union is such an institution. The ACLU characterizes itself the protector of the Constitution, champion of civil rights, and slayer of authoritarian dragons. In fact, there is no more unscrupulous, dictatorial or dangerous institutional bully currently at large.

Consider the ACLU’s victories–removal of symbols of religion from our daily lives, emasculating the legal tools we use against criminals and enemies of our nation, denial of public support for institutions like the Boy Scouts of America, prohibiting prayers at graduation ceremonies. Panhandling, flag burning and four-letter words emblazoned on t-shirts are protected as free speech, but a baby in the womb has no right to life.

Consider the ACLU’s tactics–threats, endless legal actions, class action suits. The mere threat of an ACLU lawsuit is enough to make most prospective defendants surrender, rather than face the possibility of protracted litigation and staggering legal bills. This is nothing less than intimidation by summons.

Consider the ACLU’s opponents–Boy Scouts, churches, school boards, town councils. The ACLU preys on entities that do not have the resources to defend themselves against lawyers with unlimited resources.

Consider the ACLU’s clients–enemy combatants, convicted felons, litigious atheists, criminal gang members, Americans who communicate and conspire with terrorists. These are not people who need the protection of the Constitution, they are people who wish to dismantle it or destroy the nation that it created.

The ACLU defends itself by saying that they must defend the rights of the most objectionable to protect the rights of all of us. But they don’t defend the Constitution–they defend the abusers of the Constitution.

Our civil rights are not diminishing, they are expanding. The ACLU has helped judges find protection for panhandling in the First Amendment, a right to privacy for those planning attacks against Americans, and legal services for enemies pledged to the destruction of our country. They have limited the search, interrogation and evidence-gathering powers of the police. They have given greater freedom to America’s enemies, foreign and domestic. With each decision in the ACLU’s favor, we each become less safe, our sacred symbols less visible, our common values less secure.

The bullies at the ACLU are aided and abetted by the main stream media, who praise their every predation; lawyers who argue their cases; liberal politicians who cheer every strong arm victory; and misguided supporters who believe their generous contributions go to protecting the Constitution rather than dismantling it.

Bullies must be opposed, punished, and ostracized. But the first step is to recognize and expose them. The efforts of the ACLU have so tattered the Constitution, they can no longer hide behind it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »