Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Due


The Defiling Punk Is Getting His
Portsmouth police have arrested a man they say defaced a Confederate monument by spray painting the face.
In June of 2005, someone called police saying the statue, which sits at the corner of High Street and Court Streets, had been vandalized. According to investigators, someone spray painted the face of the statue with black paint.
On Tuesday, police arrested 20-year-old Troy Allen Capps of East Pollux Circle. He has been charged with a class 6 felony. Capps could face up to 2 years in prison with additional fines.


It took a long time, but they have finally got this vandal. I wonder how hard the slap on the wrist he's going to get will be.

Alien, what's an alien


TALLAHASSEE -- A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents."I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"She said she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in-state tuition at colleges and universities. Wilson, who directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asks witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term."There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens and we shouldn't label them," she said. "They are immigrants, through no fault of their own, not aliens."Wilson said the first word isn't as bad as the second."'Illegal,' I can live with, but I like 'undocumented' better," she said.Asked if her bill (SB 2154) might run afoul of Gov. Charlie Crist's "plain speaking" mandate for government agencies, Wilson said, "I think getting rid of 'alien' would be plain speaking."

They want to ban the word 'alien' on all official state document? You know they don't care about citizens when they spend money to debate the feelings of ILLEGAL ALIENS. It would be down right funny if it wasn't happening in America (I mean regional North American sphere formerly known as The United States of America).

Listen to what I say, Don't look at what I do

Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.
The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them....................


Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?
The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.
Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.
Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, "Gov. Romney . . . shares our values." Of Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."
However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.............

However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.
As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush "one of us," they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved


You may have noticed the almost, total media blackout of Ron Paul and his entry into the presidential field of candidates, which assumes you've heard of Ron Paul before from your own research because you probably haven't even seen his name on anything in print or on the television. Chuck Baldwin's article sums up the reasons that Evangelical Christians won't vote for Ron Paul, and he is right, but the problem is much larger than that. No 'republican' would possibly vote for Ron Paul; that would force people to come to the conclusion the republican party doesn't have the slightest shred of respect for the constitution when not running for office and only pays lip service to our supposedly 'revered' law/founding document. Ron Paul votes according to the constitution; no one in congress or the senate does that, and thus if you've voted for those people you have voted against the constitution. No one who calls themself a conservative could possibly bring their hypocrisy to the forefront of their minds like that. It would be too hard for Ron Paul to inflict such intellctual dissonance on the people. This is the reason that Ron Paul will continue to be ignored not only by the main stream media, but the people who should support him as well.

Quote of the day


What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage.

-Marcus Tullius Cicero-

Something Both Republicans and Democrats Agree On


WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Democrats on Tuesday urged Republican Party chairman Mel Martinez to stop the independent College Republicans from holding "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" events around the country.
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean and Ramona Martinez, chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic caucus, sent a letter to the GOP chairman asking him to put a halt to the events.
"These despicable tactics have no place in our public discourse or on our college campuses," the letter said.
The game is a variation of hide and seek, with one player posing as an illegal immigrant and everyone else trying to find the person. The winner usually gets a prize.
Tracy Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said "we find these activities both egregious and offensive and condemn them wholeheartedly." But she noted the College Republicans are independent of the RNC: "We do not control their activities."
Democrats sent a similar letter to chairman Martinez's predecessor Ken Mehlman in September last year, noting that College Republicans were holding similar "catch an illegal immigrant" events in Pennsylvania and Texas. The RNC condemned the activities at the time.
The DNC noted that the game was recently played at New York University and drew several hundred students. Students at other colleges also have played the game.


Maybe it is out of embarrassment that the democrats have found something to protest about the college republicans in New York. Or maybe, they just feel so criticized by a bunch of college republicans who are more in tune with the people on the illegal invasion than they are that they have to strike back some how. Catch an illegal day is, of course, just a stunt to get some awareness on the issue of this mass calculated invasion of these united states. When democrats want to talk about something they push down other peoples throats they call it a 'dialogue', but when it is something they protect and defend more than the borders and the constitution it is called hateful. Street theater is always their friend until it is used against them. They asked the RNC how they felt about this and they responded in the politically correct way, that it is egregious and some such sour words for the college kids who want to make a point. I thought leaving the border wide open and conspiring with the democrats to keep it open would be considered egregious. But what do I know?

If the republicans can't be counted on to support a game that merely gives lip service to the idea that illegal aliens shouldn't be in our country, can they really be counted on to stop this flood coming in?

Friday, February 23, 2007

Quote of the day


What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.

-Thomas Paine-

Just One Vote

Is All It Takes

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said today while he has no immediate plans to become a Republican, he might change his mind if Democrats oppose funding the war in Iraq.
"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman told the Politico. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with." The Politico asked whether that hasn't already happened, as Democrats have focused their energies on passing a non-binding resolution condemning President Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," he said, referring specifically to how the party handles war funding.


If you haven't come to the conclusion that both parties are essentialy the same, you need no further proof than this article on Joe Lieberman who is 'mulling' a switch to the repuclicrat party. Lieberman is one of, if not the most liberal politician on the Potomac as can be seen from his voting record (Stalin would have been farther to the right than this Joe), and all it will take to have him switch parties to the Democrat's --cough, cough-- ideological enemy is a vote on the funding of the war. I could keep writing and writing to convince you, but must I? And if the war leads one to believe that there is a difference of opinion up there, why hasn't Lieberman already changed parties? Because either party he is in, he will vote the same way. Nothing changes but a letter behind a name.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Ron Paul for President


The Last, True Defender of the Constitution is Running for President
If you've read my blog you know that often times I'd say," Ron Paul for president 2008, if he doesn't run, write him in." He's running. Now vote for him in the primary.

Please watch the video in the link above and CLICK HERE TO DONATE, SUPPORT AND CAMPAIGN FOR RON PAUL!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Quote of the day


"It's my conviction that the human race has entered a stage where we are all dependent on each other. No other country or nation should be regarded in total separation from another, let alone pitted against another. That's what our communist vocabulary calls internationalism and it means promoting universal human values."

Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

More than just a name


The Museum of the Confederacy will likely drop the word "Confederacy" from its name when it moves its collection to a new home.
"One of our challenges is a gap between the public's perception of who we are and the role we play, and the reality of who we are and the role we play," Waite Rawls, the museum's president and CEO, said yesterday. "The repositioning we have done over the past 30 years is to be more of a modern education institution and less of a memorial . . . to the Confederacy."
The museum dates to Feb. 22, 1896, when The Confederate Museum opened in the former home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The new name, Rawls said, would depend on the location of the museum.


They're going to change the Museum of the Confederacy to the museum of the? I know what name they should use. I propose to call it The museum of the we've been beaten down by leftists who liken anything with the word Confederate or Confederacy to racism. Did I mention my wrist is limp? And we're not racist, I swear, Museum.

The name is long, I admit, but it succintly sums up the position of the museum and it's new progressive direction. They aren't a memorial to the Confederacy you see. They are a 'modern education institution', whatever the hell that is.

To me, the Confederate flag symbolizes slavery, oppression and denying people their rights," Lexington Councilwoman Mimi Elrod said yesterday in a phone interview. "I have a problem with a museum that celebrates that being in our city. If you have a museum that looks at all aspects of the Civil War, that's very different to me."
After discussing a possible name change with Rawls, Elrod said she welcomes more talks. Lexington City Council has appointed a committee to look into the best uses for its courthouse complex.
"This may all work out very nicely," Elrod said.


And some city councilman has who wants fifteen minutes of fame and who I think is affiliated with Washington and LEE university ( no irony there) has her sights set on the standard progressive bonafide of attacking the Confederate Battle Flag as racist and asking it to come down. At least the paper hunted down a person of influence to comment on the flag and the museum.

This is just more of the same, but damn if they aren't getting bolder.

They did go to great lengths to malign the flag and make modern Confederates see, that it is racist and, in the modern American tradition of making more money, the name should be changed. They found about 10 (About?) historians, grant writers, and perservationists (No doubt Yankees or transplanted Yankees) to vouch for their new push.

A group of about 10 historians, grant writers and preservationists don't think so. The committee studied the museum's health last year and released its findings in October. The report states that the word "Confederacy" carries "enormous, intransigent and negative intellectual baggage with many. For them, the Confederacy, and by association the Museum of the Confederacy, now symbolize racism."

So if they change the name Confederacy they won't be racist? I just don't get it, but I wasn't educated in a northern college.

What do you call those people who betray their own? Traitors, that's it. Scalawags sounds just as good.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Quote of the day


"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day, I personally would like to see it (Confederate Battle Flag) removed from the Statehouse grounds,"

Clinton, Hillary (New York senator) said during her first trip to South Carolina since announcing her White House bid.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Quote of the day


"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States"

-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)--

Business as Usual

The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.
In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover.
Details of the shipments have emerged in a memorandum prepared for the meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform which is examining Iraqi reconstruction. Its chairman, Henry Waxman, a fierce critic of the war, said the way the cash had been handled was mind-boggling. "The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"


I guess there is a need for a story about the 393 tons of $100 bills the federal reserve sent t0 war torn Iraq and dispersed without any oversight, but it's just business as usual. The tyranny of the federal government is becoming so transparent and commonplace that it doesn't even get a reaction out of most people any more. Business as usual. What are we fighting for in Iraq again? Stealing billions and billions of dollars from the government and giving it away to, we don't know who they gave it away to, God knows who is no example for that fledgling democracy in Iraq. It is a good lesson for them on how to steal from the people, which is something the united states does extremely well.

This is just strange!


As global public opinion sours towards the United States, Americans weary of the relentless negativity can take heart from an exotic corner of the South Pacific.

Tannese Islanders belonging to the John Frum Movement
The US's standing in the world may have plummeted under President George W Bush, but a bizarre cargo cult in the Vanuatu island nation holds America in god-like esteem. The Jon Frum movement celebrated the 50th anniversary of its founding yesterday with a lavish feast in which village men dressed up as US soldiers and marched in front of a giant Stars and Stripes flag on a bamboo pole. Miniature American flags festooned trees lining the black sand parade ground which forms the focus of Lamakara village, the headquarters of the cult, on the jungle island of Tanna. Older men dressed as officers marshalled the crowd of several thousand cult devotees, while 50 young men shouldered their bamboo rifles and came to attention in a perfectly orchestrated drill.


Just Strange!

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Do as I say, not as I do!


A couple decided to set up a radar gun by their house, like all traffic cops do, and netted a policeman speeding 17 mph over the speed limit. In a free society this might create what the Democrats love to call a 'Dialogue'. But this is the united states of America; the local police are prosecuting the couple for stalking.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Be A Good Citizen; Support Your Government



Do this because they are the government, and you're not!*
* The writer of this blog endorses a republican form of government and not DEMOCRACY