On a stump, ranting about something or another...

I count myself fortunate to have a profession which reminds me daily how blessed I am. I think it is human nature to take certain things for granted and were it not for my job, I'd stand guilty of that very sin. But I often reflect on what life would be like if I were dealt someone else's hand. I pray that I never lose that empathetic ability. It makes me good at what I do and it makes me thankful for what I have. Bad stuff happens, and not just on Television.

Everyday, working middle class Americans go about their daily grinds oblivious to life outside of their bubbles. With bills piled on the kitchen table, we peer over our cups of morning joe and bat nary an eye at the sadness that blankets our world. How is it we've become so jaded? I work in an average middle sized population on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Its a "destination" for many. People actually come here to relax and vacation. It's beautiful here. For others, its not so much a destination so much as just a place where they've landed. Economic woes are painfully evident here. Wages are low and unemployment is high. This is the Southland. Social services are sucked up by 4th and 5th generation recipients of government handouts as fast as they can be conjured.

We still have "Dixiecrats" here, though they are increasingly rare. Those "Southern Democrats" are people with conservative values wrapped up in a liberal social spending package. God fearing men in overalls with calloused hands and sore backs. No, I'm not a "Southern Democrat", but despite our differences in fiscal and economic philosophies, I respect the hell out of them. Honest folks with a home they worked hard to get and work harder to keep. Kids with fresh haircuts and bibles with creases in the spine. People who say "yes ma'am" and "thank you" as a matter of course. A bounty on the table at the expense of a name brand label on their jeans or a car that was built in the past two decades. Priorities that fall neatly in order with what is important in life. Does that guy deserve a break? Yeah, probably. Is it my responsibility to ensure that he gets it? No, I don't believe it is, but I'll bitch a heck of a lot less at the prospect of dropping money in his pockets than in the pockets of the new recipients of social services that have supplanted him.

He's being systematically replaced by people whose kids go without while they drive Lexus' and Cadillacs with rims and stereo systems that cost more than my whole car. Wearing expensive name brand clothes, women with new elaborate purple and red hairdo's, gold and platinum jewelry and ridiculous manicures swipe EBT cards at the register then shuttle their truant kids back to their poverty stricken, crime ridden government subsidized housing. Dysfunctional violent households in dilapidated trailers give shelter to those who would ignore a help wanted sign in favor of cooking methamphetamine. Priorities entirely out of whack and no intent to get better.

Meanwhile, Obama runs for the highest office in the land on a campaign of magnanimous generalities describing "new hope" and "change"... empty promises of prosperity with no specific plan and no pocketbook to pay for it. Hilary peddles her socialized medicine package to a roaring crowd of hapless sheep who actually believe that she can pluck them from their plights by giving them something for nothing. Modern day "Robin Hoods", they take from the "haves" and give indiscriminately to the "have nots". Seemingly striving to increase the "crush factor" of social equality while tearing apart any notion of the "American Dream", and like freewill busting juggernauts they remain bent on providing for people instead of teaching them how to provide for themselves and more importantly, holding them accountable for the responsibility of doing so. I think that's really where we miss the boat as a society. We can have all of the subsidies and handouts our imaginations can fathom to try to ease the pain of the downtrodden but unless people are held accountable for what they do with the opportunities afforded them, we will continue to see one generation begetting to another a sense of "entitlement" for those handouts.

I'm thankful for what I have. I'm thankful that my parents instilled in me a sense of pride in a days work. I've hoed some hard rows. There have been days in my past when I honestly didn't know how I would pay for my next meal. But God has provided for my family and I and not a day goes by that I don't value the comforts we've accrued. I remember those days as a young adult when I didn't have a nickel to my name fantasizing about how great it would be to just press the fast forward button to a day when I could just go to work and come home, pay my bills and live my life. I'd imagine having a famly, a house and a car, food on the table and gas in the tank... a normal life. Now that I have those things, I've come to realize that my "American Dream" exists on a sliding scale. The more I have, the more I want. I struggle against the tide to go from financial equilibrium to financial independence. That is my natural tendency. To be farsighted. To lose the present in the haze of the future.

But by a firm hand, God has given me a flush valve for all of those selfish tendencies because just as soon as I lose sight of all that is important to me, along comes my job everyday to remind me that I AM living the American Dream. That's what it's all about... the struggle. Reaping the benefits of my own labor. Knowing that nothing is certain, my successes are all the more satisfying having earned them myself. I am not rich nor is it likely that I will ever be. I am not meant to be. I wouldn't be very good at it. I wouldn't be a better man for it. This I know of myself. So it is with a generous portion of humility that I have learned to be happy with what I have. Slightly more than a meager existence, we have some of the things that we want, but we have all of the things that we need. So, what's so wrong with that? I may have to plan and budget for every dollar I spend but I'll not soon complain about it, not so long as I am fortunate enough to work in Public Safety and be confronted daily with the stark reality that life is so very short yet so very sweet. It gives me pause. And pause is all I need reflect on what I have. So chew your food slowly so as to savor the flavor. Take the scenic route home every now and again and hug your kids every chance you get. Take a look around your house and love the junk you've accumulated. It's yours. Smile and be happy with today because today is all you have. Tomorrow might not come. I see sadness everyday, and I am a happier man for it.

Abusus non tollit usum. (Misuse does not preclude proper use)

In keeping with the subject matter of the past three posts, I've felt it necessary to compose yet another. Why? Because I have more to say, that's why. And the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get.

Take a look at the map above. You'll see that there are 4 colors on this map of the 50 States. The blue States are called "Shall Issue" States and have adopted a "Florida style" policy on the issuance of concealed weapons permits. That simply means that when applying to obtain a concealed weapons permit, unless you are legally disqualified you "shall be issued" the license provided you complete all of the required steps.

The yellow States are known as "May Issue" States. In these States, you must demonstrate a "need" above and beyond the simple desire to obtain one to be issued a license to carry a firearm. For instance, carrying large sums of money as a condition of one's employment might be a qualifying "need" to be issued a concealed weapons permit in California or New York.

The green States have little or no restrictions on firearms. Anyone, save convicted felons and children under 18 can purchase, obtain, possess, and carry a firearm on or about his or her person, either concealed or openly with no licensing or registration requirements.

Then there are the red States. In these States, the right to bear arms is unconstitutionally denied. No one is issued concealed weapons permits. No demonstrated "need" is good enough. No one can carry a gun on their person under any circumstances except law enforcement and criminals. Everyone else must fall into the inevitable and unfortunate category of "hapless and helpless victims".

One of those red States, you may notice, is Illinois. Illinois is where the most recent university shooting happened. Illinois is where the department store shooting that killed 5 women happened. Illinois is also where one of the most violent cities in America happens to be. No one had a snowball's chance in hell of stopping these men because no one had a firearm. Had one not killed himself and the other not fled, more people would have surely died in a cowering heap of pathetic pleadings for mercy.

How can this not anger the hell out of you? Who the hell is the State Legislature to tell you that you cannot protect yourself? Who the hell are these self-righteous imbeciles at the Brady Campaign to assume that you cannot safely handle the situation of using a firearm to protect your own life and should therefore just die? What gives them the right? Who gives them the authority?

I am constantly outraged by the audacity of those who speak for the Brady Campaign when they argue against legislation that would allow law abiding, adult citizens to purchase, own, or carry firearms. Their arguments are never based on statistical data or facts. On the contrary, they are nearly always based on assumptions and opinions and always presented as though they were fact. They cannot argue with statistics that show that States with looser gun laws suffer less violent crime. They cannot discount the factual data that shows that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit violent crimes. They cannot argue, intelligently so they don't. Instead, they appeal to the audience's emotions by postulating, speculating and theorizing based solely on conjecture or otherwise using the SWAG method to presuppose what they think might happen. SWAG...that stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess!

In a recent Newsweek interview with a nonprofit organization called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus or SCCC (referenced in a post below), Brian Malte, the State Legislation and Politics Director at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, of course, that the legislation that SCCC seeks simply would not work. He had no valid reasoning for such a conclusion, mind you...just speculation. "It's ridiculous to say someone with a gun could have saved the day"..."with people running all over the place and people getting caught in the crossfire." Newsweek went on to quote Malte as saying that "...his group opposes the concealed-carry legislation, because allowing firearms to saturate college campuses, where young people drink heavily and live communally, would only heighten the danger of deadly violence."

Did you see that? Did you see what he did? He made an assumption and then projected that assumption onto you as fact. How does he know that people would be running into the line of fire and not taking the natural reaction of getting as low as possible? How does he know that the person who may be carrying concealed would not exercise due caution so as not to shoot innocent bystanders? How can he say that college campuses would be "saturated" with guns if this legislation is passed? Saturated? Not everyone qualifies. Not everyone would want to carry a gun. One would have no reason to believe that any different proportion of the campus population would choose to carry concealed firearms than the general population as a whole. And because stereotypical college students binge drink on movies like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds, it would be irresponsible to allow such an out of control group to have guns. Never mind the fact that these same people already have the permits necessary to carry guns concealed in places like restaurants and malls and marketplaces. Somehow, this genius concludes that the specific surrounding of a college campus makes it too dangerous for these same people to carry those same guns under the same constraints of the law with the same responsibilities and with the same standards and expectations of reasonable behavior. Why? How?

Can you smell the bullshit? These people are living in a fantasy land. A land where they honestly believe that it is possible to get control of all of the hundreds of millions of guns out on the street. They envision a day where guns are only in the hands of the police and the military....preferably only the military. They are delusioned idealists who couldn't rub two statistical facts together to come up with a coherent conclusion to save their pathetic pacifist butts. If you could magically wave a wand and make all privately owned guns, both legal and illegal just disappear from within the borders of our country today...then tomorrow, people would kill, rob and carjack other people with knives, baseball bats, claw hammers and power drills. History supports this. People have been killing people since Caine smacked Abel over the head with a rock! And people will continue to kill people no matter what sorts of primitive or technologically advanced weapons are afforded them. But the simple fact is, you have no magic wand. You can never get control over all of the guns available on the black market...ever. The German Gestapo couldn't do it in WWII, and you most certainly cannot do it with any of the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States intact.

Guns aren't going anywhere, folks. This is about evening the odds. This is about allowing victims to have a sporting chance at survival and giving predators a legitimate deterrent. This is about recognizing that the right to live and the right of self-preservation is inherent and inalienable to all sapient beings and cannot by their very nature be relieved from one by another because, despite any law prohibiting them, they will be enacted anyway as a natural course of instinctual reaction. You cannot make it illegal for me to meet a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm with the same or a greater amount of force anymore than you can make it illegal for me to breath. My life depends on both and despite any law to the contrary I will continue to do both. On the same side of that coin, depriving me of the very means of self preservation is akin, in my opinion, of depriving me of oxygen to breath....tantamount to murder. It is not for the law to presume whether I will act reasonably in any given hypothetical life threatening situation. It is only for the law to decide whether I have acted reasonably after the fact. For the law to step in and preemptively judge that I might act unreasonably and then, for that reason, remove from me the right or ability to act in that instance, forces the law to act in my place. Any failure of the law to act in my place under such circumstances should thus constitute negligence or malpractice, up to and including not having any representatives (ie, law enforcement) nearby.

Now I know that might be a far reach in legal interpretation on my part but theoretically it is sound and there are integral parts of that theory that cannot be refuted, such as the inherent instinctual compulsion to act with deadly force in defense of one's own life. If it is true that access to black market firearms cannot be feasibly curtailed, especially in a free state, and it is also true that all humans have the right to defend themselves and others with deadly force if a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is met and it is also true that to deny a person either the right or the ability to apply that force in a situation where it is needed might cost that person their life, then it must be reasonably concluded that a person has the inherent right to arm themselves with weapons likely to be capable of deterring, repelling, or quashing an encountered deadly force. Whether I act reasonably and in accordance with the law is up to a jury to decide after the fact, not for legislators to decide before it ever happens under hypothetical presumptions.

Fish In A Barrel

It's just too damned bad that no one told the suicidal gunman at Northern Illinois University that he was in a "Gun Free Zone". Maybe if he knew that it were "against the law" to have a gun on campus, he would have refrained from going on this rampage. Good thing that everyone else there was following the law, though huh? I mean at least they died as "law abiding citizens", right? That's all that really counts, isn't it? I wonder how come you never hear of a "crazed gunman" going on a shooting spree at an NRA convention? Quite puzzling.

This is getting old, folks. It's getting ridiculous. Anti-gun moonbats continue to demand that college students remain defenseless while a crazy man takes as many as he can with him to his grave. The law protects no one. No law ever has. The law punishes offenders "after" they have committed their crime. So what if it's "illegal" to have a gun on campus? It's also illegal to shoot people! So when a man sets out fully intent on killing a bunch of people and then ending his own life, he surely doesn't care that it's illegal to possess the tool with which he plans to execute them. Any laws that supposedly "prohibit" such actions mean absolutely nothing! And this is not unique to college campuses, either. It is true of any place where the government says you cannot carry a weapon to defend yourself.

I propose that instead of posting a sign that reads "No Firearms Allowed", or "This is a Gun Free Zone", that they advertise with the following words: "It is illegal for you to defend yourself in this place. If attacked by someone with a gun, yell, scream, pray, or cower but you may not use deadly force to protect your own life." As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, one thing will always remain true: The only thing that will ever stop a person with a gun, is another person with a gun. That is an indisputable fact. The question is: Who will that person be? A cop? Yes, that would be nice and tidy provided there happens to be one nearby. But just as a kid doesn't stick gum under the desk when the teacher is looking, neither will a criminal decide to act when a police officer is present.

So let's say you're the helpless citizen trapped in a building with a crazed gunman or worse yet, more than one. What will you do? Call the police? Yeah, that's a good idea. What's that? They're on the way, you say? Oh, OK! Well then, that makes it all better now doesn't it? We'll just wait for them to arrive and put a stop to this madness. Good thing this gunman is busy shooting "other people" while we all wait on the police to arrive and not YOU, right? Oh, look! Look out there! There's a policeman outside. Hurry, dude! What's he doing? He's hiding behind his car with his gun drawn and talking on his radio! Why is he not rushing in to save the day? My God, there are people dying in here! What the hell is he waiting for!!?? BACK UP? We don't have time for back up! He's coming my way, I'm going to be next. Oh my God, here he comes! Please! Please! Oh God, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!

So what will you do when there's no cop around? You don't know? I'll tell you what you're going to do. If you are a law abiding citizen in a "Gun Free Zone", YOU WILL DIE! In an horrific and grotesque fashion, you will meet your end at a time of someone else's choosing. No glory or purpose shall have come from your sacrifice. No greater good shall have been served by your willingness to adopt no means of protection. All of your struggles and pleadings will have been in vain and it will be then, amidst your suffering that you will come to the stark realization that no sign, no policy, no law, no court opinion or interpretation, no blind faith in the gentleness of mankind, no pacifist philosophy and no chanted slogans, could have saved you nor prevented the tragedy you have become a part of. Like so many cattle, you and those around you will have been put down, all without a single means of protest. Death will be the only release from your pain. You will have been forced to this point. You will have followed the wide, paved, well beaten path of law abiding citizenship to this very cliff's edge. You will have had no choice. You will have had no alternative. You will have had no escape and above all....You will have had no protection. You will have met this demise....because the government says so.

How long can we stand for this madness?

Why debating a Progressive/Liberal is akin to bashing one's head against the wall:

Civilized debate: What the heck is that? What makes it civilized? Why would civilized people want to argue with one another? What’s the difference between a free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner and just bashing one another with insults and innuendo? Inevitably, during a debate, someone’s going to get their feelings hurt. More often than not, that person will be the liberal in the bunch because their lives are led and their decisions are made based not on reason or logic but rather upon how they feel. It’s what makes debating with a liberal so doggoned difficult. Their emotions are a hindrance to a free flowing give and take conversation. Sooner or later they will become offended and then everyone will have to spend hours trying to decide who the offending party was and by that time the subject has been lost. It seems to become a sub-topic every time a hot debate begins. Thin skinned people who are short in mental stature always seem to be gravitated toward popular topics that are being debated about and they lash out with pointless comments meant only to enrage either because their ineptitude and inability to keep up frustrates them or because they feel as though you have insulted them, the end result being the same, the conversation gets steered way off topic. Often times one will note that, mysteriously enough, these occasions seem to present themselves at a time when the liberal needs to dodge a bullet, so to speak.

Debate is healthy. Open dialogue with one’s opposition is mentally stimulating. Some find it entertaining. Others find it informative. But very seldom is one actually swayed in their opinion. If anyone is actually swayed it is not the participants but rather the silent observers and even this is a rarity. So, why? Why even bother? Is it for the satisfaction that you’ve outlasted your opponent? Is anyone so shallow as to think that because an opponent disengages that it means victory? Some, perhaps. For those, it is more about their word being last rather than being significant. But for me debate solidifies my resolve to constantly evaluate my position. Why do I believe the things I do? Can I articulate to another not only what I believe, but why I believe it? Can I be persuasive enough in my statements to give an opponent a moment of pause to consider their position? Can I glean from their responses anything that would give me pause to do the same? What can I learn from my opponent? Is he crazy, misguided, embittered, or have I misread him? It is easy for one to assume that those who are polar opposites or spectrally different are stupid. I’ve been guilty of that very thing on occasion. Recognizing the ignorance and bigotry of such an assumption it is for this very reason that I seek to engage those who see the world differently than I do. To seek dialogue with a person in an effort, not necessarily to sway their opinion but rather to understand them and their point of view is what freedom is all about. If, in the end, all we have gained is a little better understanding or tolerance for another’s point of view, was it not time well spent?

Unfortunately this endeavor is rarely successful for the traditional/conservative. I speak not from some random, arbitrary opinion but from experience when I say that debating a progressive/liberal point for point is almost impossible. Emotions absolutely cannot be put aside in favor of logic and reason in a liberal mind. They are a constant in the liberal equation. It is the progressive/liberal who leads the forefront of the professionally offended left. Seeking out new things to be offended by is their pastime. They are the inventors of “political correctness” which hinders if not prevents altogether, honesty and the free exchange of ideas. One can no longer call a “spade” a “spade” in the world of the progressive liberal. One must call a “spade” a “perfectly legitimate suit of color which is normal and equivalent in every way, fitting the lifestyles of some but not others that may or may not resemble the head of a shovel.” Often harboring a double standard, progressive/liberals are free to temporarily dismiss this practice to put you in your proverbial place so long as you are not a member of a protected class of peoples. If you are a white, male, Christian, you can be attacked and insulted with no preclusions whatsoever. You however cannot respond in kind lest you be labeled a racist, fascist, or a bigot. Any point you make that cannot be disputed with fact, will be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Their creed is:

“I am a proud liberal, free from the bonds of archaic religious practice. I am the “enlightened” and you are the blind. I am tolerant and you are a bigot. I am open-minded and YOU ARE WRONG!”

They are elitists in their own right. Believing themselves to be above reproach, they make no attempt to defend their position based on any accepted form of reason and logic for it is that “reason” and “logic” that they reject. They are self-appointed custodians of the unfortunate and downtrodden. They are Socialists in Democrat’s clothing. To engage in civil debate would mean that one would have to be open to receiving suggestions from another. Progressive/Liberals aren’t open to anything except slamming the door on Traditionalist/Conservatives. They are looking for conformists. Dissenting viewpoints need not apply.

Christian Theocracy: Legitimate fear, or a fear mongering conspiracy theory of the anti-Christian liberal left?

The debate rages on. Jennifer has really struck a cord, it seems with her recent post that began with some cartoons mocking the liberal attack on the words "under God" in our National Pledge. This evolved to include the discussion of the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on United States Currency. Now it has morphed into the inevitable debate about the true reason liberals object to these references to God. They fear a Christian Theocracy in the United States.

It cannot be intelligently argued against, that the liberal left has had a virtual monopoly on the Main Stream Media over the past two decades. Specific among these it the collective editorial comment in the nation's print media. Unique among newspapers is their editorial "opinion" columns. Conservatives have virtually no place in which to opine on full page ads from the powerful chair of an editor. These "opinion" pages have now spilled over into the "news" pages and the end result is unfair, biased news reporting that is significantly slanted to the left. I could list hundreds of newspapers across this country, but you all know who they are. I mention this because I believe that in addition to the monopoly the left has on the academia, this control of the print media in America is the prime catalyst for the propagation of this severely misguided fear of a government run by preachers and theologians.

There is a movement among some Protestant Christians to involve themselves in and, in fact, dominate the political process. These "Dominionists", however comprise a small insignificant portion of evangelical Christians. They derive their idea from the Biblical teaching in Genesis that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. There are basically two ways of interpreting this passage. One would be the Dominionists' concept that they are charged with total control of Earth and all of its secular institutions, while the majority of Christians tend to interpret it as a command for stewardship.

Dominionists have a bit of a paradoxical problem to confront when asserting their idea that it is the responsibility of Christians to rule by God's law. You see, God has given all that he has created, including man, the free will to choose. This is evident throughout Biblical text, the fall of Satan, the fall of man, man's continuous defiance of God and God's continuous forgiveness of man, and God's commandment to spread the Gospel to all corners of the earth. (Why would this be necessary if man had no free choice to receive it?)

It is a bit of a conspiracy theory among liberals that all Evangelical Christians seek to impose a Christian Theocracy upon the United States. They are truly frightened by the Traditionalist Conservatives in this country. They peddle this obtuse theory through opinion columns and College classrooms. More recently the internet has provided them with a very flexible forum from which to get their word out that they are the true "free thinkers", liberated from the bonds of archaic religious doctrines and that Christians are evil fascists who seek to impose their beliefs upon the world. The website Jesusland.com, for example has devised what they refer to as a "crypto-fascist theocracy" complete with maps and a new National Anthem entitled "The Star Spangled Bible". You read it. Then you decide who is fascist and who is not.

Most of us seek only to acknowledge that the United States is a country that is largely Christian not to force you to go to church or celebrate Easter. We don't believe in murder. We don't believe in adultery. We don't believe in stealing, lying or cheating. So, to those who would fear that Christians aspire to govern you: How are our beliefs any different than the laws already laid down in this country? Our Bible doesn't allow us to push the Gospel upon you or force you to comply with God's commandments. It requires us to share it with you if you will listen but you have the right to refuse. Where in the Constitution of the United States are you afforded the right to never be exposed to religion? Where in that document of our freedom are you assured that you will never be approached and offered something you have the right to refuse anyway?

Whether you believe in God or not, we have morals and concepts of right and wrong that are derived from God's laws as man has no moral compass of his own. Most would concur that killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving is wrong. But how do you know? Who says? What is wrong for you, may be right for another. If there is no God, then who is to decide what is truly right, and what is truly wrong? If we are not accountable to a higher authority than ourselves, why should we then conclude that anything is bad, so long as we benefit?

The concept of right and wrong comes from the belief in a divine creator God who is all powerful, all knowing and all present; a God who is watching and who knows our every move and our every thought. It is the only reason we should fear killing our neighbor and procuring all that he owns for ourselves under the cover of darkness. Why should that be wrong unless someone greater than ourselves says so? If you are your own God, then it is you who decides what is right and what is wrong. If you then decide that it is OK to rape a little child, who is to contest you? If survival of the fittest and evolution is true, then the weak should die and the strong should live. You should be able to plant your seed wherever your see fit. Civilized behavior and social welfare should be considered counterproductive to the natural cycle of life as it allows the sick and the weak to prosper.

Sounds barbaric doesn't it? It is. But it is in keeping with the theory of evolution to which Atheists cling so strongly. It is, in fact, their "religion", one which, ironically, they shove down the throats of everyone who obtains a public education. (kinda double standard isn't it?) Christians don't hold these propositions to be true and declare it by proclaiming the name of God as Him in whom we trust all things. If you don't believe that, then that's fine. But you are still bound and accountable to the laws of civilized society which are remarkably similar to the laws of God. So if you have to live by them anyway, why should you care to whom the credit is given?

Mmmmm, MOONBAT MEAT!

Quite a spirited debate raging over at "Jenn's Journey as a Conservative Chic."

Pretty good site, I've dropped her link in the scrollbar to the right. Moonbats a plenty. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Robert's cleaning moonbat meat out of his teeth right now! Come and get you some!

It matters, not so much what we've done, as what we're going to do

No cowardly moonbat at the traitorous, Soros funded "MoveOn.org" possesses the honor required to look a man like General David Petraeus in the eye, much less spit in it as they did by taking out a despicable ad in their puppet newspaper, The New York Times accusing him of betrayal. Where Hilary gets the gall to damn near accuse the man of lying, replying to his report by saying : "I think that the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." I'll never know. One thing is for certain, though. The left is willing to do ANYTHING to derail any plan for victory in Iraq, because they see it as a victory for Republicans. The typical "smoke and mirrors"/"distraction" tactics apply, as usual, when they debate the issue, choosing to concentrate on the pointless position that invading Iraq was wrong to begin with. Well let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are right, that the entire invasion was an ill conceived idea by an idiot President.....So the hell what?

Life is not a series of perfect decisions, made with perfect interpretations and carried out by perfect execution. Hypothetically speaking, (and I do mean HYPOTHETICALLY) if you or I made a mistake, then upon realization of that mistake we would reasonably be expected to make the best decisions we could to rectify (if possible) or at least minimize its immediate and long term impacts. It's what responsible people do. It's commonly referred to as "Damage Control". Why is this concept so difficult to grasp for the Democratic elitists in Washington, so many of whom conveniently forget that they too voted in confidence for the plan to invade Iraq? Why are they so hell bent on the absolute defeat of American forces in the Middle East? Why would they accept such an absurd notion as retreat, and thus defeat?

Save your answer to that question and consider the following. Though I believe that calling the invasion of Iraq a "mistake" is in itself a "mistake", if it allows the Democrats to save face, why can't we all just agree to disagree on that fact and move the hell on? Why wouldn't they take the responsible, patriotic route of insuring that any subsequent moves by the United States wouldn't jeopardize it further (such as tucking tail and running)? Why do they steadfastly refuse to concede the very factual and obvious point that retreating now would, negate and nullify any sacrifice made by our armed forces thus far, contribute to the rapid destabilization of the entire region, create a safe haven environment for terrorist organizations and, at the same time, embolden, encourage, and empower our enemy even further, thus endangering American lives and interests both at home and abroad? We can disagree all day long whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. Historians will be debating that issue long after we're gone, but at the same time, it is ludicrous to suggest that, accepting that disagreement as a given, we cannot still adopt a common goal of the best route to achieving peace and stability through victory. How we got on this particular square in the first place is a moot point, but one the Democrats continue to harp on at the expense of ignoring the obvious and very valid question, "How are we going to proceed with the plan for victory, NOW?", that is unless the opposition doesn't like the concept of victory, preferring instead our subservience to our victors, in which case retreat would be the logical course of action.

Are there any patriots left among Democrats? Are there any who wouldn't sell out this Country and its brave servicemen and women for a few points on the latest political poll? Is making our Republican President into a buffoon that damned important? If there are any true Americans left among you, for the sake of our posterity, SPEAK THE HELL UP! Otherwise, go ahead and buy your Burqas, Qurans, cheap sandals and prayer mats now, because if our nation follows your lead, THAT will be its reward. First, we'll all speak Spanish, and then we'll all speak Arabic.

For those of you who believe that, despite any hypothetical mistake we may or may not have made in our decision to invade Iraq, VICTORY is the only acceptable outcome to this war, then click the link on the pic below and sign the petition so that your voice might be heard over the deafening flapping of the white Democratic flag of surrender.

(link lifted from the beautiful and talented Michelle Malkin.)

Peace...but at what cost? An answer from an unlikely source.

Peace. In reality, it's what we all strive for is it not? Peace is the end result to all noble endeavors. But what of peace? And at what cost must it be achieved? Nothing in this world comes without sacrifice. Nothing is gained where nothing is forfeited. So how then can the pacifist ever truly hope for peace? Is peace under tyranny, even peace at all?

There are those would give "terrorists" equal footing, equal say and equal consideration...equality at the negotiation table. They believe that a terrorist act is merely a legitimate lashing out against a greater evil and that one must consider their motives, search for their plight and "feel" their downtroddeness in order to eliminate it's cause (which is all to often, American economic influence and foreign policy). Hmmm, so sitting at a negotiation table is the proper response to someone flying hijacked airliners into buildings full of your civilians? That's what they believe.

Sound ridiculous? Well, make no mistake, these people are numerous and they are powerful. And they have their sights set not on you and I, but on yours and mine....our children, that is. They run rampant in our colleges and universities and they're tenured! Ignoring any historical evidence to the contrary, they vehemently believe in the impossible, that offering appeasements and concessions to those who would murder innocent civilians to achieve a political end can result in peace. That's bad enough, but worse still, is their power and influence over our children and young adults. Having nearly unfettered access to them at ages when they are most credulous, they indoctrinate thousands every day. The "truth" it seems, is flexible. Perhaps that is debatable but it is certainly true of history. It is morphed and molded and delivered with the political slant of the professor who's charged with teaching it.

Nowhere is this process of misinformation and indoctrination more true than in the ever-popular "Peace Studies" offered and in fact, mandated by many of this country's higher educational institutions. Churning out little socialist "global citizens" by the hundreds they turn our youngest and most impressionable citizens into enemies of everything our country and western civilization stands for. I recently read an outstanding article at The City Journal entitled "The Peace Racket". If you want to understand this movement, read this article. Read it all. Its content was spot on, but I was puzzled by it's source. ‘Twas an unlikely source, hence the title of this post. The author, Bruce Bawer, is a gay literary critic and writer who touts himself as a "liberal democrat" in his book entitled "Place At the Table", while promoting centrist politics. He also lobbed a few bombs at Christianity and Capitalism in his book "Stealing Jesus". I'm often leery of self professed Centrists. I don't trust them. They flip-flop and switch sides way to often, as seems to be the case here. Well, everyone is bound to hit the mark every now and again and Mr. Bawer certainly did that. Despite being such an unlikely candidate to expose these things, his article is without a doubt enlightening.

War is indeed terrible but it is a part of life and like peace, it has its place and it has its time. War should be avoided but not at all costs. Peace should be pursued, but not at all costs. Pacifists would have you and I believe that Peace is more important than anything, including freedom. Their "turn the other cheek" policy would hold that it is better to give in to a dictator or tyrant and thereby avoid war than for war itself to set one free. History has proven the opposite....at least history as it is written today. People long to be free. They do not naturally accept the position of living at the pleasure of another. If peace is worth longing for and living for, then it is certainly worth fighting for and dying for. One might intelligently argue that the road to peace is, in fact....war. For, historically speaking, no civilization has ever enjoyed the former without suffering the latter. Peace has always been a temporary state of existence. The same is true of war. I do not condone war, I do not wish for it, but I realize that it is the price of peace. It always has been. Unfortunately, so too is it the price of freedom and, here in America, we want both. What do you think might be the price of that?

Guard your children. Teach them reason. Inform them to be suspicious of anyone who's teachings are not open to discussion or debate. Teach them the difference between education and indoctrination. Be the driving influence in their lives while they are impressionable, because if not you....then who?