"To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to
conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in
the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and
beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political
systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to
calculate on the weaker springs of human character. "

~~Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 34, 4 January 1788)

Reference: Hamilton, Federalist No. 34 (208)
==========================================================

"Your love of liberty - your respect for the laws - your habits
of industry - and your practice of the moral and religious
obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual
happiness."

~~ George Washington (letter to the Residents of Boston, 27
October 1789)

Reference: Maxims of George Washington, Schroeder, ed. (139)

================================================================
This speaks for itself.  We have lost these.  This nation, a nation born out of a struggle against tyranny, of battling for freedom, a battle for Religious freedom (certainly, not freedom from Religion), freedom from taxation without representation has forgotten, or now takes these for granted.  These are our essential rights, where today everything is a right; the right to universal healthcare (Hillarycare), to income (welfare), I have even heard it said in some quarters that having a phone is a right.  This cheapens our national happiness, as no one is happy unless they have a laundry list of things to fulfill their rights.

This country is going bankrupt on the backs of the taxpayer by the "right" to entitlements.  I will never be opposed to a safety net, a net that protects those who are unable to take care of themselves.  I will stand athwart those who would continue to expand the enumerated rights to make certain privileges rights and thus the expansion of entitlements.  I will also forever be fighting for the reform of those entitlements that now stand to bankrupt this nation.

 

What say you?

The upcoming report from the White House, with input from Gen. Petraeus, in September will likely show significant improvement with respect to the security in Iraq.  The tactics put in place by Petraeus have shown remarkable changes in, of all places, the al Anbar province, as well as throughout Iraq.  The Dimocrats mantra for an immediate withdrawal will likely change.  You know, as popular support and polling will shift away from the low points that the War has among the populace.  It is nice to know that your politicians are swayed by the wind, right? 

Today, via Captain's Quarters, there is a huge change, that if proved true, will spell a very large change in the security situation and the political geography:
=======================================================================================
Al-Sadr suspends militia activity in Iraq

I think that is a song from the 80's but it certainly applies to the lunacy that purports itself to be journalism at HuffPo.  Some yahoo has posted a "letter" to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace:

"General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice."

Well, at least it's a novel idea.  Shelve calls for impeachment, as any sane Dimocrat knows that if articles were drawn the Senate could not impeach on supposed lies.  Since nearly every intelligence agency from Russia, France, Britain came to the same conclusion as Bush did, it would be hard to prove lies.  I don't quite understand why Dimocrats have never simply called President Bush's though process and conclusion, rather than saying he lied. 

Somebody get the Tin Foil hats over to HuffPo, with the King Dunce Cap to Martin Lewis...can anyone say "When pigs fly?"

I saw this post the other day and meant to comment on it but alas I did not.  I wonder if faced with death you or I for that matter, would sacrifice life for the freedom and liberty that this country enjoys.  With my faith in Christ and my family secure in their faith I believe I would.  The man described below is a hero, as much as those who went down with United 93.

Via Threats Watch: Rapid Recon

Deeds Not Words

Michael

Well, if you are not deaf, dumb, blind, and/or a Dimocrat you should be aware that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) keeps lowering the projections of the deficit.  W   hat's going on?  While the Dimocrats have been so vociferous about flailing President Bush about lowering taxes for the "Rich (or as the Silky Pony says, Two America's narrative) they have remained rather silent about the deficit of late.  Perhaps the following has something to do with that:


Courtesy: Investors Business Daily$$

A budget surplus beginning the year following the Sunset Provisions as provided by Congress in President Bush's tax relief of 2001 and 2003?  How could be?  The Dimocrats fought a great battle to win over both Houses in 2006, and part of their argument was that spending had increased astronomically, and the Republicans could not be trusted.  And yet, they are not only itching to raise taxes, but get prepared for exorbitant increases in entitlement spending (anyone heard of Universal Healthcare, or better HillaryCare?). 

The CBO is estimating that not only has the deficit continued to shrink, but if (and it's a BIG IF) tax relief is extended.  The Dimocrats have no intention of passing the tax relief into permanency.  Talk is abounding about raising taxes on the RICH.  Anytime one looks at who pas the taxes, it's the rich.  Investing and capital expenditures by the rich creates more capital.  Just ask John Edwards, oh ye of profiting off the backs of the poor!  Two Americas indeed...the 28,200 squarefoot mansion :-)  How many were employed to build the monstrosity?  How much in taxes is paid on the property?  How many are employed in upkeep?  Ain't cheap, huh, ol' $400 Haircut Silky Pony?

This should be a clarion call for Republicans.  Tax relief permanency.  Keep the capital gains tax at 15%, and reduce the time frame to 6 months.  Lower interest rates by at least 1/2 percent to keep the economy strong and credit flowing. 

Mark my words, we are headed into a recession, if we are not careful.  Housing prices have not stabilized, and now jumbo rates have increased significantly which will impact higher priced homes, one area of stability in the housing market.  Trickle down, does Countrywide need to go BK, (too big too fail), how about a major bank?

Bill Gross over at PIMCO is calling for a bailout of homeowners, similar to the Savings and Loan bailouts of yesteryear:

 "Get with it Mr. President and Mr. Treasury Secretary. This is your moment to one-up Barney Frank and the Democrats. Reestablish not the RFC or the RTC, but create an RMC – Reconstruction Mortgage Corporation. If not, make some modifications in the existing FHA program, long discarded as ineffective. Write some checks, bail ‘em out, prevent a destructive housing deflation that Ben Bernanke is unable to do. After all “W”, you’re “the Decider,” aren’t you?" WIlliam H. Gross, Managing Director, PIMCO, September 2007, Where's Waldo? Where's W?

I am not sure that I agree that taxpayers ought to bail out those who did 100% or even 125% borrowing or lending.  The shakeout is part of business.  Risky lending, whether it be on mortgages, or unknown reserves of oil in the ground (S&Ls) should end, never should have begun.  Had the Fed really been proactive it should have seen that credit was way too loose.  Too many Liar Loans (loans given without proving income via paystubs, W2s or taxes), too many loans given to those who had marginal credit, and overextension by borrowers.  However, predatory lending, purposeful deceit and wrongdoing by  lenders, should be prosecuted, and those harmed bailed out. 

These are tenuous times that we live in.  And correct actions will continue prosperity, while other actions will, of this I am certain, throw into another painful recession. 

Republicans, where are you? 

What say you?

To render the justice of the war on our part the more conspicuous,
the reluctance to commence it was followed by the earliest and
strongest manifestations of a disposition to arrest its progress.
The sword was scarcely out of the scabbard before the enemy was
apprised of the reasonable terms on which it would be resheathed."

~~James Madison (Second Inaugural Address, March 1813)


Reference: Inaugural Addresses of the President of the United
States.

The War of 1812 was fully engaged by this time, and the nascent nation began the war woefully prepared for battle, on the sea and on land.  As the war progressed America's nationalism grew.  The United States was neutral, and Britain began blockades on the European coasts and Britain confiscated ships and impressed the sailors into service.  America was hesitant to enter the fray, but did so willingly.  Madison's point being that the United States was deliberate in it's war making and fought with honor.

Today's point: let's bring this around to the War in Iraq, where do you fall on the spectrum?  Did the US enter the war with honorable intent, and continues to prosecute the war for honorable intentions?  Or, was it all a lie, and continues to be lie?  It saddens me that those that are on the left are so anti-military.  Event hough you hear the words, we support the troops not the mission is merely double-speak.  Please, either the troops are fighting for the cause of freedom and liberty in an area that desperately needs such or they a killing innocents (or freedom fighters as we are merely occupiers).

Personally, I support the war and have from the beginning.  The world and especially the Middle East is better off without Saddam Hussein and his spawn.  Success in that part of the world may well be a "tipping point."  A strong, secure Iraq can play a vital role in countering the Ayatollah's in Iran.  Perhaps, a democracy in the middle of the cradle of civilization can create a ground swell of support for toppling the madness that is Ahmadinjad.  Success in Iraq is vital to American peace and security, as well as for the world.

Dimocrats calling for withdrawal (which is a misnomer, as most call for a draw-down, putting the military in a precarious spot) put our troops in danger and vulnerable.  Al Qaeda continues to strike, Iran continue to foment violence against innocents and our troops.  We are fighting a war against radical islamofascism.  A two front war, one declared by both Osama and the mad Ayatollah's.  Look around, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Iran, Sunni's, Shiite's are all calling for the destruction not only of Israel but the West, and that is the United States of America as the Great Satan (sound familiar?).

We are, as President Bush asserts, in a war for civilization, a war of good versus evil.  We must unite as a nation, just as we did against imperialist Japan, the fascist Hitler and Mussolini, and communist Stalin et al.  The names are different, Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, Nasrallah, but the end game is the same.  Call evil evil.

What say you?

"Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions
for the general diffusion of knowledge.  In proportion as the
structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is
essential that public opinion should be enlightened. "

~~George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)



So, I ask you: Are our educational institutions inculcating our students (primary and/or secondary) with a "general diffusion of knowledge?"  It used to be that our educators were also attempting to make good citizens. Today, I believe, there is an agenda being pushed in our schools, from pre-school to graduate school.  

Evolution is taught from day one.  Dinosaurs roam the prairie in my daughters pre-school, and heaven forbid if she were to bring a book written from the Christian perspective (ie: the Nativity Story).  Of course, the latter is shelved without a thought.  Used to be you presented two sides or taught a student how to think to make an informed decision.

What say you?

 

Okay, let's have an open and honest discussion regarding the 14th Amendment, which reads as follows:

" Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (ed. note, emphasis added), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

Investors Business Daily's $editorial page$ piqued my curiosity about the amendment.  Upon reading it, and looking at the original intent of one the one who insisted upon the emphasized wording, I recognize that many on the left and those who defend the "anchor baby" argument are simply ignoring the LAW.  Jacob Merritt Howard wrote the 13th Amendment argued the following: "he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said:

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include very other class of person.

So, here's the $20,000 question: a person that flouts our sovereignty by illegally entering the United States, Are they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?  Do they pay taxes, legally, does their loyalty lie with the United States?  Are they willing to take up arms to protect the United States against attacks by foreign invaders?  A great example, would the illegal immigrant take up arms against a Mexican invasion (not likely to happen, but you get my point)?

In other words, the accident of birth does not justify legal status, as the foreign national was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the first place.  The left loves to change the debate to fit their needs, but here the intent of the writers of the amendment are quite clear.  Here again, all we need to do as a nation is simple: Enforce the Laws and Secure the Border...

What say you?

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should,
therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.
Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties
which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

~~Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823) 
                                Courtesy Patriot Post



Prophetic words from a Founding Father.  Laws made from Common Sense, something lost on today's congressional leaders.  The whole reason our lawmakers are in Congress today is to merely get re-elected, to consolidate their power.  If they used common sense there would be nothing known as "Earmarks,"  nor would have legislators here in California making spanking a child in your own home an illegal act (Nanny State).

I argue, especially here in California, that legislators should be part-time. The California legislature tries from time to time to pass the most ridiculous laws.  They are making their "Progressive" Nanny State, the state knows best...Smoking in cars with a child in it, with the window open or not, spanking your child, etc.  Where does it stop?  And in an age of terrorism and mass murders how can a police force go about it's duties when it must pull a car over for a cell phone infraction (talking on a cell phone without a hands-free set will be illegal next year)?

The "Progressive" state takes away individual freedoms and responsibility and replaces it with THE STATE knows best.  I am waiting for the day when home-schooling becomes illegal...

I pray that one day a president takes out his pen and tries the Line Item Veto.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among
the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to
knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has
given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this,
they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible,
divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge;
I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."

~~John Adams (Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed an Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) in U.S. vs.  HLF.  CAIR does not seem to like the reporting that Counterterrorism Blog and it's Investigative Project on Terrorism.  Hmmm...touched a nerve, eh?  Counterterrorism Blog is an excellent blog that is a multi-expert blog, and the following is written by Jeffrey Imm.  The case in Dallas has not gotten much attention in the MSM, go figure. 

CAIR Cites Counterterrorism Blog in HLF Legal Filing
(http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/cair_tries_to_silence_ctb.php)

By Jeffrey Imm

In the case of United States versus Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), et al, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) clearly doesn't like it when the Counterterrorism Blog and the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is presenting the news on this subject.

In an Amicus Curiae brief by CAIR to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, CAIR complains about the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) postings on the Counterterrorism Blog with news in regards to the HLF case and CAIR.

In CAIR's Amicus Curiae brief, CAIR apparently believes that it can protect its first amendment rights by silencing the Counterterrorism Blog and other organizations reporting the news. Unfortunately, it does not understand that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to all Americans, even those that CAIR does not agree with or does not like.

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the
right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

~~Albert Gallatin (letter to Alexander Addison, 7 October 1789)

The jury has found Jose Padilla guilty (FOXNews): (Hyperlink is not working at Townhall, sorry:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293493,00.html

MIAMI — Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's campaign to stop homegrown terror.

He was once accused of being part of an Al Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the U.S., but those allegations were not part of his trial.

Padilla and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.


The lawyer of one of Padilla's co-defendants issued a statement that we are no safer because these men have been convicted.  Thankfully, we will never know if they would have been successful in their endeavors.  How many more terrorists cells are unknown?  How many third columns are needed to be infiltrated and stopped?  The goal of these madmen is to destroy us from the inside out.  To kill and annhilate all who are Jewish and Christian, do not let them fool you into a false sense of security.  We will be struck again, the question is how will we react?  6 years following 9/11 are we safer but not yet safe? 

 "It should therefore be difficult in a republic to declare war;
but not to make peace."

~~Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)