Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Soldiers Aren't The Only Ones Listening

Okay...in my last post, I talked about how sickening it is for a deployed Soldier to hear about all this Anti-War hoopla on the homefront.

Well listen to me very carefully, because I'm only going to say this once: G.I. Joe isn't the only one listening.


"Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw." Source: Here

...Hmmm...where do you think they got that idea?

C'mon, people; you aren't just alienating your own Soldiers. You're alienating the very "Coalition Of The Willing": the guys we depend on to get our backs when the chips are down. If they aren't counting on us for our strength, they will start attempting to take matters into thier own hands. And you can bet that if our fellow good guys are hearing the Anti-War craziness, our enemies are damn sure listening to it, too. They know that 2,000 is the magic number. After 2,000 dead Soldiers, all bets are off for the United States.

The John Kerrys, Ted Kennedys, and Nancy Pelosis of this great country have set a dangerous precedent, and sent an ever more dangerous message: that the once great, once all-powerful United States of America doesn't have the guts for a street fight.

Way to go, guys. You're doing the same thing to us that you did to our guys that fought in Vietnam.

You must be so damn proud.

Excerpt From An Email

I took lots of pictures in Iraq. Some I uploaded for other people to use (with my permission), some I didn't.

A very nice lady, an artist, was impressed with a pic I took that I captioned "Cav Tanker", taken in Baghdad. In a very well-worded, inspirational email, she asked me if she could have my permission to paint it.

In the email I sent back to her, I kind of "let my slip show":

"Thanks for supporting the troops. I was just talking today about how sad and hopeless I've felt since we (my little brother and I) came back from Iraq. It seems like the whole country is turning against us. It feels like my country is slowly dying, and I now feel exactly how my father did after his second tour in Vietnam."

Sorry, Left-Wing America, but it's true. You have allowed the Anti-War, Anti-Bush crazies to attack not only the President, but the efforts of the brave men and women who put thier lives on the line every single day. Do you think for a second that deployed American Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't read the Stars and Stripes? Do you honestly think that the Mess Halls in Iraq don't have CNN on 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Can you imaging sitting down for lunch, and mid-meal, CNN does a story on Rep. Murta saying "There's nothing more our military can do?" I'll tell you this: alot of the warriors fighting in Iraq lost thier appetite that day.

I'm just waiting for the first Anti-War crazy to spit on a Soldier getting off a plane and calling him a "baby killer". Then, my morally-challenged friends, the circle will be complete.

UPDATE:

The Photo in question, affectionately captioned "Cav Tanker"

...If I Was President

Okay, this is going to be a long post. My apologies up front. Also, if your feelings get hurt easily, or you're a touchy-feely Lib...sorry. Stop reading now.

This immigration thing is getting out of frickin' hand.

Dr. Madeline Cosman Reports "Illegal Alien sexual predators that menace Americans with guns and rape are among the hidden medical and social horrors of our open borders."

How many jobs have to be taken by illegals? How many children need to be murdered or raped before someone decides to do something? This border needs to be closed.

How long before some lawless coyote or drug smuggler sets up an IED ambush point, Baghdad-style, to take out Border Patrol Agents, so they can temporarily smuggle people, drugs and weapons across the border with impunity?

How many more of our Border Patrol Agents have to suffer through pot shots, 7.62mm small arms fire from armed illegals? C'mon people, enough is enough.

So what would I do, if I was President? Easy:

Step 1: Lock down the borders.

I would put up ten foot tall fences, with razor wire along the top. On the US side of those fences, I would put anti-personnel mines in selected locations. On the side of the fence facing Mexico, I would put signs, lit up at night, that stated "ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES" in English, Spanish, and Arabic. These signs would be posted every ten feet. I would then deploy the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light) to patrol the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in armored humvees.

Step 2: Stop illegal labor.

I would implememnt the harshest of penalties for employing illegal labor. Employers who hire illegals would be slapped with $250,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in prison for EACH illegal alien they hire. And no exceptions. If you dry up the demand for illegal labor, fewer illegals will find it worth thier while to jump the border.

Step 3: Give 'em back

We really need to look at repealing Birthright Citizenship. If it was up to me, I think it would be better to grant citizenship to a newborn only if one or both of the child's parents are American Citizens. If both parents are Legal Immigrants, then the child would automatically become a legal immigrant, as well (duh). Next thing I would do: deport, deport, deport. There would not be any "catch and release" program now. There would be "catch and send back immediately". The other thing is: all the criminals, murderers and rapists sitting in our jails that aren't US Citizens? I'd send them right back to thier country of origin. "Here you go, Mexico! I don't care what you do with them, but don't do it here!"

The immigration problem would completely disappear. I gaurantee it.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Made In Mexico

Are we a nation of boneheads? C'mon, people...when are we going to get with the program? Everybody on the same sheet of music? Everybody on the same page? Okay...I'm fresh out of cliches.

How could any self -respecting US Border Patrol agent run around with a "Made In Mexico" tag sticking out of his shirt? The hipocrisy in this country is apalling.



"The labels inside the U.S. Border Patrol uniforms have been making many federal agents feel uneasy. It's not the fit or feel of the olive-green shirts and pants, but what their labels read: 'Made in Mexico.'

'It's embarrassing to be protecting the U.S.-Mexico border and be wearing a uniform made in Mexico,' says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a 6,500-member union..."

Read the article HERE

I've been inclined to suggest that all Federal Agents (to include the Border Patrol) wear ACU (Advanced Combat Uniforms) like the Soldiers deploying to Iraq. Why is this a good idea?

Easy.

1. Instantly recognizable
2. Increased wear and utility
3. Wash and wear
4. More cargo pockets, more comfortable footwear
5. Streamlined logistics - everybody that works for the Feds wears the same thing

The only thing different would be the ID Tag over the left breast pocket. In the Army, it says "US Army". For the Border Patrol, it would say ...duh..."Border Patrol". You get the picture.

Why would this not work? Probably because it's too frickin' simple. And with my luck, the ACU is probably made in Mexico, too.

UPDATE:
Y'know...I just thought of something:

If the Border Patrol buys thier uniforms from Mexico, at least they are buying from LEGAL LABOR from Mexico, as opposed to buying from some US Manufacturer that employs illegal aliens.

So, in that sense...I guess they're doing SOMETHING right.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Great Tunes!

Just want to let y'all know:

The great people over at Freedom Folks have put out a great CD y'all need to check out!


"I Love America" get's the Dragon's two thumbs up...check it out by going to THIS SITE. They've posted some pretty great samples for you to hear for yourself. I think you'll be as impressed as I was.

Freedom Folks...keep up the great work.

BACKFIRE!

Okay...as you know, I have made a crusade of pointing out the hypocrisy of some Democrats, (namely: Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dingy Harry Reid, even Loopy Nancy Pelosi) for thier pro-war statement BEFORE the Iraq War concerning WMD, and the 180 degree flip flop when the going got tough.

I think you remember the Vice President talking about people trying to rewrite history.


Well, it's looking like the Democrat's plan backfired:

" Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.


The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

This poll is one of the few pieces of supportive news the administration has had lately on Iraq. Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.


Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances." Source: Here

Pretty darn good news for Dubya! Man, I love Joe Sixpack.

Great Quote

"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. " - Ronald Reagan

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Tit For Tat: Military Recruiter Edition

Y'know something that really bothers me? Colleges and Universities that ban Military recruiters from thier campuses.

Being a recruiter is probably one of the hardest jobs in the Army. And this is coming from someone that #1: Is a dirty, muddy, greasy M1 Tanker, and #2: Has never been a Recruiter. Recruiting is probably the only job in the Army that you can go from "Sugar" to "5hit" in 30 days. If you make your mission (your quota of people signed up for a month - varies by region and time of year) - you're "Sugar". If you don't "make mission", then you're "5hit". It's just that simple. Recruiting is probably the only job in the Army where they will pin an Army Achievent Medal on your chest, and the very next day, threaten to fire you for not "making mission". Keep in mind, for most Recruiters, it's a temporary two or three-year duty, before going back to "the line". Most of these guys are combat vets, having served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and are on a well-deserved break from deployable status before going back down to the line and gearing up for the next real-world mission. Twelve to fouteen hour days are common. I've heard of Recruiters sometimes working eighteen hours a day to make mission.

What do I want you to take from this? That being a Recruiter is tough.


With the Anti-War craze in full swing, life as a Recruiter is hard enough. But to ban or kick Recruiters off college campuses? Well, that's a slap in the face. It's an insult not only to the US Military, whose members routinely lay thier lives on the line to secure the very freedoms these Anti-War nuts choose to exercise, but to the brave Combat Veterans that time away from thier careers to keep the Army strong and vibrant.

Check these links out:

1. "Students Against War" petition Seattle Central Community College after mob chases off Military Recruiters

2. Campusactivism.org has a whole resource devoted to undermining Military Recruitment on campuses

3. NPR reports that Yale and "Elite" universities are going to the Supreme Court to prevent Military Recruiters on campuses

4. Harvard bans Military Recruiters: cite "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as discriminatory

Wanna know what I think? Screw it.

And screw thier government funding, too. No Recruiters = No Federal Funds, whatsoever. I'm talking government grants, fellowships, eligibility for application of financial aid, tax status...the works. Pull out every single dollar.

Look, no one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to join the Military. If a university wants to ban any presence of Military Recruiters on campus, fine. But they aren't going to get a single one of my tax dollars, if I can help it.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Sorry!

Hey, I want to take the time to apologize for not posting the last few days. I've been on Vacation in South Texas visiting family.

Until I get back sometime tomorrow, why not do your mind a favor and click some of the following links:

The authors@FreedomFolks have published an awesome post on eliminating Birthright Citizenship. With the deplorable state of our Border Security...it might not be a bad idea.

Chip Mathis over at (predictably) The Chip Mathis Experience has a kick ass post exposing the Iraqi Insurgents as anything BUT "Holy Warriors". On the contrary, he exposes them as immoral criminals, carrying out terrorist attacks in exchange for alcohol, drugs, and (shiver) sex.

Once again, I'm sorry for not posting in a couple of days. I'll be back tomorrow (Sunday).

Dragon MG, out.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Rest In Peace, Dom

Another casualty in the War in Iraq.

I just recieved a call last night by a good friend from my days at Fort Riley, Kansas. One of our good friends was killed by a sniper while atop his tank in Taji, Iraq.

This isn't the first friend I have lost in this war, and it's likely that he won't be the last. The one thing that bothers me, though, is some politician using his death, and the deaths of my fellow Soldiers, to unpatriotically beat the drum to pull out of Iraq.


Dom was a patriot, through and through. He grew up in New York City, and joined the Army not only to make a better life for his family, but out of a desire to serve his country. He had spent his entire career at Fort Riley, in the same unit. He made friends easily, and he was always one of the guys you could trust to pull you out of a jam, no matter how deep you got yourself in.

Tactically, he was one of the most gifted and proficient Tank Gunners I have ever had the opportunity to train alongside. He had a deep understanding of mission priorities and the tactical know-how to get them done.

He was a great Soldier, and a great Non-Commissioned Officer. I will value the time I spend training alongside him: Tank Gunneries at Fort Riley MPRC, Force On Force rotations at the National Training Center, Platton and Company STX lanes at Shanks Cementary in the Fort Riley Training Area. I will also value the times we spent together off duty: Superbowl Parties at my place, making rounds at the pubs in Aggieville, pool games played drunk at 0100 hours over cold beer and cigarettes while we groaned over having PT formation a few hours later.

Dom was a multi-faceted guy that you could always count on in a pinch. I know where he is right now: Drinking cold beers and smoking cigarettes with St. George over a pool table, complaining that God's 0630 PT formation is just a few short hours away.

Rest in peace, Dom.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Great Stuff!

Q: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a trampoline ???
A: You take off your shoes before you jump on trampoline.

Q: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a hooker ????
A: The Hooker gives value for the money she takes.

Q: Whats the difference between a dead skunk and a dead Democrat ???
A: Vultures will eat the skunk.

Q: Whats the difference between a catfish and a Democrat ????
A: One is an ugly , scum-sucking bottom-feeder , the other is a fish.

Q: What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a lawyer ???
A: Chelsea.

Q: Why should Democrats be be burried 100 feet deep???
A: Cause deep down they re really good people.

Q: Why did God create Democrats???
A: In order to make used car salesmen look good.

Last but not least ....

They say Christopher Columbus was the first Democrat ,
when he left to discover America , he didnt know where he was going ,
when he got there he didnt know where he was ,
and it was all done on a government grant

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Santa Claus...WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!

Okay...this is complete BULLSH!T. First Christmas is under attack from the left...seems that even the WORD Christmas "offends". It might make some Muslims and atheists angry...strapping explosives and ball bearings to yourself in the middle of innocent civilians, or chopping off someone's head and releasing it on the internet are ok, it seems...but "Christmas" is going TOO FRICKIN' FAR, PEOPLE!

Now, Christmas is even under attack from the "Politically Correct"! (Is Wal Mart in the middle of ALL this?)

Seems that I took my wife and son to buy some CHRISTMAS lights to put up outside. As I'm standing in the garden center check out aisle to pay for my CHRISTMAS lights, what do I spot out of the corner of my eye? Allow me to show you...

No... your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. Santa's gone bi-racial.

C'mon, people..don't we confuse children ENOUGH?

I don't know what was more hilarious at that moment...the fact that there was a White AND a Black Santa Claus...or the fact that I couldn't find the Asian or Hispanic version.

Late Edit:

Well, I'm offended. I'm gonna call the ACLU.

I'm not being adequately represented. There's no HISPANIC Santa.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

I'm calling my lawyer! Maybe I'll get a big fat settlement, and buy myself a Hummer H3 or a 2006 Roush Mustang with the proceeds.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Dick Cheney Tellin' It Like It Is...

The people at Freedom Folks have a GREAT post on Dick Cheney. Read it HERE.

The text of one of the VP's recent Speeches:

November 16, 2005

Text of Remarks By Vice President Dick Cheney (As prepared for delivery)

"As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.

In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

And the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

Those are facts.

What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory."
____________________________________________________________________

Get 'em, Mr. VP!


Master Gunner

I'm always getting emails asking what the hell a Master Gunner does.

This is from a V Corps Press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 10, 2005
TANK AND BRADLEY MASTER GUNNERS TAKE ON
‘ZERO-DEFECT’ JOB
By Sgt. Christopher Stanis
1st Armored Division Public Affairs Office

GRAFENWOEHR TRAINING AREA, Germany – Master gunners are the experts for
two of the Army’s premier heavy combat weapons systems -– the Abrams main
battle tank and the Bradley armored fighting vehicle.

A master gunner needs to know everything about his machine and its arsenal, said
Sgt. 1st Class Charles Elam of the 1st Squadron, 1st U.S. Cavalry of V Corps' 1st
Armored Division, a master gunner since 1998.

A master gunner earns his pay during tank and Bradley gunnery, the annual live-fire
field exercises where Soldiers qualify their machines' weapons systems.

“This is the master gunner’s world,” said Elam during the unit's recent month-long
gunnery exercise here. “The commander is responsible for what happens at gunnery,
but the master gunners are responsible for executing it.”

Master gunners train crews on their vehicle’s capabilities, especially if the Soldiers
are new and have never been through gunnery.

“That’s what it’s all about,” said Elam, “watching a crew go from being brand-new to
qualifying the first time. Knowing you twisted and molded them to get to that point,
nothing else matters to me.”

Elam said master gunners are technical advisors on the training field, but they are
also key players on the battlefield.

“They advise the commander on what the vehicles are capable of doing and what the
enemy’s capabilities are against you,” Elam said.

With a responsibility like that, Elam said, being a master gunner “is a zero-defect
job.” While many Army schools require a 70 percent grade point average to pass,
master gunner course students must maintain 90 percent proficiency, he explained.

Generally, there are two types of master gunners, explained Elam. Bradley master
gunners are usually infantry or cavalry Soldiers whose training takes place at Fort
Benning, Ga. Tank master gunners attend courses at Fort Knox, Ky.

The three-month courses teach subjects such as creating gunnery plans, training
crews and vehicle capabilities. To enroll in the course, Soldiers must be at least staff
sergeants and prove they have knowledge of the tank or Bradley, said Elam.

“The school is a lot of grueling exams,” he said. “It’s a great job, but you have to
have the heart to want it.”
____________________________________________________________________

Any more questions?

Dingy Harry's Secret Plan For Iraq War!

Thanks to Chip over at the Chip Mathis Experience for the link!

He writes a Pretty Frickin' Good analysis of the Recent House Resolution(571) HERE.

Speaker Hastert Comments on Iraqi Resolution

The line in the sand was drawn. After so much whining and crying by the Democrats in the House of Representatives about withdrawing troops from Iraq, House Republicans made a bold challenge: "Put Up Or Shut Up".

It failed, 403-3.

The Resolution

Who Voted and How
___________________________________________________________________

11/19/2005 12:34:00 AM


To: National Desk

Contact: Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller, 202-225-2800, both of the Office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) released the following statement in response to the defeat of H. Res. 571, a resolution regarding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The resolution failed, 403-3.

"The U.S. House of Representatives has sent a resounding sign of support for our Armed Forces waging the War on Terror. We have said, firmly and unconditionally, that the United States of America will stand strong against those who wish to terrorize our citizens and disrupt democracy -- America's and Iraq's.

"We have to remain on the offensive. To cut and run would invite terrorism into our backyards, and no one wants to see troops fighting terrorism on American soil. Vigilance and resolve are key to winning this War on Terror. Now, I hope that the U.S. House of Representatives can move forward united in support of our troops and determination to win this war."
____________________________________________________________________

Now that we have a consensus...can we get back to winning the war?

Thanks.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Santa's Little Helper!


Getting Ready For The Holidays! Posted by Picasa

One of the 7 different choices we've narrowed down for our 2005 Christmas Cards.. Wanna vote? Click HERE!

FUNNY!



A father watched his young daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and pure his little girl was. Tears formed in his eyes as he thought about her seeing the wonders of nature through such innocent eyes.

Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her to see what work of God had captured her attention. He noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.

"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked
"They're mating, " her father replied

"What do you call the spider on top?" she asked

"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered

"So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.

As his heart soared with the joy of such a cute and innocent question he replied "No dear. Both of them are Daddy Longlegs"

The little girl, looking a little puzzled, thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat and said, "We're not having any of that gay stuff in our garden"

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Political Test

Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?

Is the Glock properly registered with the ATF?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1? FEMA? Homeland Defense? My Congressman?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint-and-weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would
discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:

BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
click.....

(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester SilverTips, Black Talons or Hollow Points?

Son: Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You are NOT taking that to the Taxidermist!

Sacramento Passes Anti-War Resolution!

Text of the resolution:

RESOLUTION 2005-805 AS PASSED

A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE WAR IN IRAQ AND CALLING ON PRESIDENT BUSH TO BEGIN THE WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS

WHEREAS, the United States of America carried out an invasion of Iraq based upon the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and therefore posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States and still no evidence has been found that Iraq possessed such weapons or the capability to deploy them; and

WHEREAS, the war and military occupation of Iraq, according to the Department of Defense, have cost the lives of over 2,000 U.S. troops, as well as wounding and disabling over 15,000 troops. Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at over 100,000 men, women and children; and

WHEREAS, we recognize the courage of the over 1 million American military personnel, including city staff and many residents of the City of Sacramento, who have served in the war in Iraq. They have faced extraordinary danger and have made huge sacrifices in this war; we now want them to come home because bringing them home is the best means of protecting them and the interest of our nation; and

WHEREAS, Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated in August of this year, "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq,” and that "there is a parallel emerging" between the War in Iraq and the War in Vietnam; and

WHEREAS, Retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said in September of this year that the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists, and he said the United States should withdraw from Iraq; and

WHEREAS, A Bi-partisan group of Members of Congress - two Republicans and two Democrats - introduced the Homeward Bound Act on June 16, 2005 to begin the process of putting in place an exit strategy from Iraq. The Act now has 60 co-sponsors; and

WHEREAS, Wisconsin United States Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has proposed a timeframe for the completion of the military mission in Iraq and suggested December 31, 2006 as the target date for the completion of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; and

WHEREAS, the war in Iraq has cost American taxpayers over $350 billion. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, or $295 million from the residents from the City of Sacramento, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years; and

WHEREAS, the continuation of the war and the redirection of our nation’s resources will cause grave harm to the people of Sacramento, especially its low income residents and communities of color; and

WHEREAS, the recent tragedies caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have shown the United States needs to direct massive resources to recovery in the Gulf Coast, and we as a nation should turn our attention and resources to domestic recovery, emergency prevention measures and preparedness activities; and

WHEREAS, over 100 United States cities have passed resolutions calling for an end to the war in Iraq; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Sacramento, on behalf of the citizens of Sacramento, urges President Bush and the United States Congress to commence a humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel and bases from Iraq; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Sacramento calls on President Bush and the Congress of the United States to provide promised veterans’ health, education, disability, and rehabilitation benefits, and otherwise meet the needs of returning veterans.
___________________________________________________________________________

You know what I say?

Screw Sacremento!

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Who Said It:? - Saddam Has WMD Edition!

I know, I know..."Bush Lied", right?

Well, if that's true, Bush Haters.... you'd better do some more research:

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Note to Cindy Sheehan: You have alot more people to add to your "List Of People To Harrass and Slander".

Monday, November 14, 2005

Git 'Em, Dubya!

Bush: Democrats 'Irresponsible'
14 Nov 2005 - Associated Press

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — President Bush hurled new arguments against Iraq war critics on Monday as he headed for Asia, accusing some Democrats of "sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."


"That is irresponsible," Bush said. Bush addressed U.S. forces and their families during a refueling stop in Alaska. It was the initial leg of an eight-day journey to Japan, South Korea, China and Mongolia. Bush has hopes of improving his image on the world stage.

"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said. "Only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein."

Bush, who wore a flight jacket, was cheered and applauded by the receptive audience.

The president sought to defend himself against criticism by Democrats that he manipulated intelligence and misled the American people about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as he sought grounds to go to war against Saddam's regime in 2003...


Source: Here
____________________________________________________________________

...Finally. I, for one, have been getting tired of listening to the same morons drone on and on about lying to the American people, WMD, ad nausem. Enough already. These same people were the ones that voted WITH the Republicans to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Kerry in particular said "If you don't think Saddam is a threat to the United States, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Can the Democrats PLEASE take a step back from finger-pointing and get back to helping us win this war? We'd appreciate it.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Suicide bomber: My Husband Taught Me

"Amman - It was Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi's husband who taught her how to put on a suicide belt and how to detonate it. He succeeded in their bloody mission that left 57 people dead - but she failed.

On Wednesday she and her husband, Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, strapped explosives to their bodies, strolled into the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman and sized up a packed ballroom.

"There was a wedding at the hotel with children, women and men inside. My husband and I went inside and he went to one corner and I went to another. My husband detonated (his bomb) and I tried to explode my belt, but it wouldn't," the 35 year old said on Sunday on Jordan's state-run TV hours after her arrest."

Rest Of Article: Here

___________________________________________________________________

This is a disturbing trend...there are reports of more and more female suicide bombers.

I don't know what is more disturbing, however: the fact that she calmly gave a statement to police, or the fact that the media is trying to paint her as even remotely human.

Too bad her bomb didn't go off when she and her husband were strapping them on. Then she could have taken them BOTH out in the comfort of thier own home. That, and innocent lives could have been spared. I feel nothing but contempt for this woman. Death would be too good for her. She needs to spend the rest of her natural life in confinement, so she might think of what she was ready to do: kill innocents in a cowardly suicide bomb attack.



On a positive note - Kudos to King Abdullah for calling a spade a spade:

"We are going to crack down and take the fight to Zarqawi," King Abdullah vowed. "To see a wedding procession and to take your spouse with you into that wedding and blow yourself up - these people are insane."

The king has always gone out of his way to establish a positive relationship with the US. Let's see how far he will go to keep his promise.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

France suspends 8 police officers for beating youth

PARIS, Nov 10 (Reuters) - France has suspended eight police officers after two of them beat a young man they had detained during rioting in a suburb north of Paris and the other six looked on, the Interior Ministry said on Thursday.

A police inquiry showed the beating took place on Monday in Seine-Saint-Denis, the area north of Paris where the accidental electrocution of two youths apparently fleeing police triggered the unrest, the ministry said in a statement.

The youth beaten by police had been detained "in the context of the recent urban violence". He suffered superficial injuries to the forehead and foot, the ministry said.

President Jacques Chirac called earlier on Thursday for a swift response to problems faced by residents of riot-torn suburbs, many of whom are of North African and African origin.

But a police chief said he feared the rioters were planning violent protests in central Paris. Many youngsters in the Paris suburbs say heavy-handed police tactics provoke violence, although Chirac has praised the police handling of the unrest.

Chirac has vowed to restore public order and his conservative government has imposed rarely used emergency laws so that riot-torn areas can be placed under curfew.

The violence in urban areas has eased following the adoption of the emergency powers aimed at halting the two weeks' of unrest over racism, poverty and unemployment.

Source: HereThis guy is a dope. After all the heartbreak and insults he's hurled across the Ocean, he sitting on a ticking Muslim Extremist Time Bomb. I guess what goes around... comes around. I am suprised the French haven't yet surrendured to the Rioters. Seems their police are putting up more of a fight than their whole army did in WWII. And the cops are actually BEATING people? Wow, I'm impressed. I was always under the impression that the only beatings in France were the ones that the military would get on a regular basis.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Don't Count Your Chickens, Fellas...

Am I the only one that has been reading the news and how blatantly leftist the MSM has become? Here are some "headlines":

Terminator given a bloody nose as Bush sent message by voters

More Bad News for Bush

The GOP Takes a Beating

Big Wins For Democrats

Does the Democrats' Big Night Mean More Success to Come?

Election Results Set Off GOP Alarms

Democrats Win Big in Off-Year Elections


You have to admit...the reporting in those articles is VERY slanted...even the titles! Where are the "big gains"?

I'm not at all worried..so the Dems picked up two Governer's Seats...

All I am saying is this: the media gets real "Doom and Gloom" when they mention Republicans, and "Triumphant and Chipper" when they mention Democrats...I don't think you could argue that there ISN'T a huge left-wing slant in the mainstream media.

Also, Governer Seats don't really mean a whole lot...New Mexico has a Dem Governer...Bill Richardson...and Dubya won the state in 2004. Janet Napolitano (D), governer of Arizona...yep, Red State. Tom Vilsack, Governer of Iowa, is a Democrat...guess who won the state in 2004? Kathleen Sebelius (D) is the governer of Kansas...yep, it went red in 2004. Horrible Kathleen B. Blanco (D) of Louisiana is a Democrat...and the state went to the Bush in 2004. Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming all have Democratic Governers...and they all went to President Bush in 2004.

I fail to see how this is a disaster for President Bush, or how it "underlined the political troubles of President George W. Bush and Republicans heading into next year's congressional elections."

In other news... the one issue I was most concerned with was the Anti-Gay marriage issue. I think Texas solidified it's status as a "Red State" with that one:

"The same-sex marriage contest in Texas was lopsided; near-complete returns showed the gay-marriage ban supported by about 76 percent of voters. Like every other state except Massachusetts, Texas didn't permit same-sex marriages previously, but the constitutional amendment was touted as an extra safeguard against future court rulings.

"Texans know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and children deserve both a mom and a dad. They don't need a Ph.D. or a degree in anything else to teach them that," said Kelly Shackelford, a leader of Texans For Marriage, which favored the ban.

Gay-rights leaders were dismayed by the outcome, but vowed to continue a state-by-state battle for recognition of same-sex unions.

"The fight for fairness isn't over, and we won't give up," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "These amendments are part of a long-standing effort by the extreme right to eliminate any legal recognition for gay people and our families." Source: Here

I'll bet that 76% of the voters in Texas...the same 76% that voted against the Gay Marriage Bill...aren't all Republican. I wish that advocates of Gay Marriage would see this rejection not as a political issue, but as an assertion that gay marriage is just plain WRONG.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Torture Terrorists...So What?

James Solis over at Philologous (great Blog, I highly reccommend it. Better yet, bookmark it!) has a great article on the torturing of terrorist prisoners. You can find the article HERE.

If you think, for a second, that Abu the Terrorist won't torture and kill you the first chance he gets, then you are sadly mistaken. This, of course, is right before he videotapes himself sawing your head off with a dull knife as you are screaming and gurgling in your own blood.

Not too sure if posting the video on the internet would bother you much, but it sure makes a great psychological warfare tool for Abu!

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Wake Up, Europe, You've A war On Your Hands!

Mark Steyn November 6, 2005 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.

Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst nig
ht of violence in a week of urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.

The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for f
rosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall . . . a firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.''

Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they'd won, they'd have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ''Perhaps,'' wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ''the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.'' There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ''an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.'

'
Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

What to do? In Paris, while ''youths'' fired on the gendarmerie, burned down a gym and disrupted commuter trains, the French Cabinet split in two, as the ''minister for social cohesion'' (a Cabinet position I hope America never requires) and other colleagues distance themselves from the interior minister, the tough-talking Nicolas Sarkozy who dismissed the rioters as ''scum.'' President Chirac seems to have come down on the side of those who feel the scum's grievances need to be addressed. He called for ''a spirit of dialogue and respect.'' As is the way with the political class, they seem to see the riots as an excellent opportunity to scuttle Sarkozy's presidential ambitions rather than as a call to save the Republic.

A few years back I was criticized for a throwaway observation to the effect that ''I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark." But this is why. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that's less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.

If Chirac isn't exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren't doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They're seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the 'burbs gets you more ''respect'' from Chirac, they'll burn 'em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ''The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.'' Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.
Source: Here

___________________________________________________________________

I don't usually like posting entire articles in my Blog, but I found this one to be of particular interest, as it refers to the reason this is happening.

Friday, November 04, 2005

ANWR Drilling Becomes More Likely!

"WASHINGTON — The Senate brought the country one step closer Thursday to drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search) after it narrowly defeated an attempt to kill drilling in an amendment attached to the deficit reduction bill.

"The state of Alaska has been waiting a long time to let the United States of America, which they're part of, share in their abundance of oil, and today we finally have said that it's time," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

"Using backdoor tactics to destroy America's last great wild frontier will not solve our nation's energy problems and will do nothing to lower skyrocketing gas prices," Sen. Maria Cantwell (search) D-Wash., argued in calling for opposition to drilling.

Cantwell fell two votes short when the Senate defeated her amendment to strip the provision, 51-48. Supporters of drilling say the vote reflects new political realities dictated by higher gasoline prices.

"The public opinion polls, particularly after (Hurricane) Katrina, have established the American public is in support of opening ANWR to limited exploration and development," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska."
____________________________________________________________________
Also:

"In an 86-13 vote, the Senate required that none of the oil from ANWR can be exported. Without protecting it, "there is no assurance that even one drop of Alaskan oil will get to hurting Americans," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a drilling opponent who nevertheless sponsored the no-export provision with Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who strongly supports drilling in ANWR."
____________________________________________________________________

Source: Here

Man, I predicted this after Dingy Harry Reid tried his "Closed Session" stunt on Monday. If the Dems are going to get creative with the rules, then two can play at that game!

By putting the ANWR Drilling in the Budget bill, the proposal is filibuster-proof, and only requires a 51% majority to pass. Congress has to vote on the Federal Budget as a whole, not just pieces of it. By placing the ANWR provision in the bill, the Republicans are basically muscling it through by virtue of controlling both the House and the Senate. Serves the Dems right for fighting and campaigning against Line-Item Veto.

Masterful.

Also, take note of the second part of the article (after the line break): all the crude oil that we drill will go directly into the United States' supply. It will be illegal to export the oil, and that makes it gauranteed to go into your gas tank and mine. This is the first step in eliminating our dependence on Middle Eastern oil: drilling and producing our own.

Suburbs burn in worst night of Paris riots

The poor suburbs of Paris were set ablaze in the worst of eight consecutive nights of rioting, with 500 cars torched and a gym and primary school razed.

Police today reported that the wave of unrest has now spread to at least 20 provincial towns.

An army of 1,300 police reinforcements moved into the bleak estates of the north-east of Paris last night, to enforce a belated pledge by Dominique de Villepin, the Prime Minister, to stop the rioting that has engulfed the largely Muslim ghettos.

Despite hopes that Eid-ul-Fitr, the festivities ending the fasting month of Ramadan, would calm the unrest, police reports suggest an escalation in what the police union has described as a "civil war"...

Source: Here

___________________________________________________________________________________

Where's the World Outrage? Where is the rabid denouncement of the French Government from the Germans and the Looney Liberal Europeans? Where are the cries for martyrdom from the Muslim Extremists?

What is that old saying?

"What goes around, comes around?"

I call on our elected officials to pass a resolution denouncing the handling of the riots in France by the French Government! BOYCOTT FRANCE!

Thursday, November 03, 2005

What Every American Should Read and Understand:

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

___________________________________________________________________

Now, I want you to have read those words and understand that we did not go to war soley on "WMD" intelligence, but in fact seven different and distinct reasons. President Bush did not lie to the American People. So you looney Libs out there: GET OVER IT!

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Dingy Harry Reid - Diggin' Himself A Hole

And actually, this is GREAT news!

The Dems have set a precedent here. They used this cheap stunt to bring attention to themselves after thier Karl Rove hunt fizzled with one person indicted (Scotter Libby), not even Karl Rove. Dingy Harry was bent out of shape because Judge Alito's nomination basically knocked Scooter Libby off the front page.


This shows the desperation of the Dems, to the point where they are grasping at staws. This is the first time in modern history that the Senate has gone into a Closed Session without the coordination and consent of both parties.

Harry Ried was taking advantage of Senate rules in order to garner attention. Remember, Sen. Roberts had already scheduled hearings. The Senate doesn't create committees with the intention of never getting reports from them ...DUH.

Back to what I mentioned earlier: with this move, the Dems set a precedent that "we're not going to play nice". This is exactly what I wanted to see (although, admittedly, not quite in this way). Expect this: if the Looney Libs try to block Judge Alito's confirmation, the Republicans won't "play nice" anymore, either. They will ALSO break long standing tradtion, and invoke "The Nuclear Option".

Seems that the Libs have opened a can of worms, and now they can't get them all back in. This is going to be GREAT!

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

" The nuclear option is a controversial phrase used to refer to a change in the U.S. Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of judicial confirmations. Also known by the controversial term Constitutional option, it is an American political code word used during the 2005 judicial confirmation political fight.

Currently, Senate rules allow any member to prevent a confirmation vote of a Presidential appointee by staging a filibuster. The filibuster can be overridden by a three-fifths majority (60 out of 100 senators) vote via a cloture motion. The nuclear option would allow a simple majority (50 out of 100 senators, plus the Vice President) to end a judicial filibuster. Once cloture is achieved, the nominee would be confirmed or rejected by a simple majority vote."

And, (Same Source):

"The nuclear option would affect nominees to U.S. district, appellate and the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which are lifetime appointments. In the 2005 Senate, Republicans held 55 seats, Democrats 44 and Independents held one. The nuclear option would allow 51 Republican Senators to hand confirmation power to themselves."

This is going to be great! We'll finally get to see Republicans going back to crackin' some heads!

Great Quote!