These things are to be valued above all, God, Honor, Country and Family. Without God there is no reason to be, for he alone gives meaning to life. With God and Honor, one can exist anywhere. Our fine Country gives a place to live, live well, even if not a perfect place. With God, Honor and Country, one can have a loving and wonderful Family. With that Family, one can have a reason to build, to better the world and someone to share all things with.
Our job in this world is to leave it an even better place than we found it. This we can do by each of us living our lives as we have been given guidance from God so to do. Our mission in this world is clear. God has given us both dominion and stewardship over the Heavens and the Earth and all the animals therein. We cannot but take this obligation with all the gravity due. This is not an easy task, yet it is possible to do as we have been charged. God has not asked us to make the world perfect, in His wisdom, he did not even ask this of His son, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. He has only charged us with making the world better than we found it, to the best of our abilities. This we are trying our very best to do; our job must be carried on by our children.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The rats are in the lifeboats and the ECUSA is sinking rapidly
The Episcopal Church of the United States of America; formerly known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, the flagship church of the United States. The church is a direct descendant of the Church of England, a one time member of the Anglican Communion. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members. Roughly 40 percent of all US Presidents have been Episcopalian, the same percentage of Military Flag officers (Generals and Admirals) have been Episcopalian.
Why?
As a group, Episcopalians are:
• God fearing;
• Honest;
• Selfless;
• Hard working;
• Conservative;
• Quiet;
• Self Starters;
• Like to make things work;
• Do not give up;
• Willing to work for worldly possessions and a good life;
• Fond of church buildings that look like up turned Viking boats.
In the 1960s, a group of radicals ended up as Bishops. Some like Spong and Pike were in your face, others were more stealthy. They encouraged anti-American, socialist draft dodgers to join the clergy. They replaced rectors who read the Bible and were “strict constructionists” with sensitive younger clergymen who understood the “living word of god” (intentional lower case, not to be confused with the One True and Living God). Gradually those younger clergy became Bishops themselves. By 1979, the revolutionaries felt strong enough to force a new “Book of Common Prayer” (BCP) on the church. This new while very different in theology, contained wording similar to the 1928 BCP and was claimed to be just a modernization of words to help spread the “living word of god.”
Surprise, the 1979 BCP allowed for the ordination of women, as well as adulterous homosexuals. Surprise, the 1979 BCP removed the Articles of Religion. Surprise, the Lecturn (Bible Readings) had new choices which changed the instruction given to the people. Surprise, the King James Version of the Bible was superceded in most churches by inferior translations that do not contain accurate representations of God’s word. For instance, most inferior translations contain the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” The actual Commandment is, “Thou shalt do no murder.” They normally leave the “thou” in for effect, but translate a word that means first degree murder to the word “kill.” Clearly, the killing is not discouraged, but rather murder. As evidence of that, a couple of paragraphs later instructions are given as to when killing is required. It is essential that the Lecturn be changed as well as the translations to get the desired effect.
What is the desired effect of the “reformers”?
The destruction of the church and dissipation of God’s followers so they no longer have a place to worhip.
How effective have they been?
Membership in the ECUSA is down 90 percent since 1965. It would be down further, except the local churches are actually owned by the Diocese. Thus, for a congregation to “leave” the ECUSA, they must give up the church building they paid for. Remember, Episcopalians traditionally like nice things and are willing to work for them. They also like to make things work and do not give up. They hang in there. But gradually, congregations are leaving. The sooner the better. The steeper the slope, the slipperier the slope, the closer you are to hell. Leave sooner than later.
Why are the “reformers” doing this?
The “reformers” are Devil Buddies.
Little Test – Two Quotes
Quote One
"Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and scripture does not necessarily make it wrong. We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth."
Quote Two
"If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's Word; and if we be uncertain of God's Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new god, yea himself to be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he was in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan."
One Quote is by V. Gene Robinson, Claiming to be the current Bishop of New Hampshire
Quote Two is by Thomas Cranmer, an early Archbishop of Canterbury and principal author of the traditional BCP.
One a leading light of the Anglican Christian Church, the other merely light in his loafers.
Why?
As a group, Episcopalians are:
• God fearing;
• Honest;
• Selfless;
• Hard working;
• Conservative;
• Quiet;
• Self Starters;
• Like to make things work;
• Do not give up;
• Willing to work for worldly possessions and a good life;
• Fond of church buildings that look like up turned Viking boats.
In the 1960s, a group of radicals ended up as Bishops. Some like Spong and Pike were in your face, others were more stealthy. They encouraged anti-American, socialist draft dodgers to join the clergy. They replaced rectors who read the Bible and were “strict constructionists” with sensitive younger clergymen who understood the “living word of god” (intentional lower case, not to be confused with the One True and Living God). Gradually those younger clergy became Bishops themselves. By 1979, the revolutionaries felt strong enough to force a new “Book of Common Prayer” (BCP) on the church. This new while very different in theology, contained wording similar to the 1928 BCP and was claimed to be just a modernization of words to help spread the “living word of god.”
Surprise, the 1979 BCP allowed for the ordination of women, as well as adulterous homosexuals. Surprise, the 1979 BCP removed the Articles of Religion. Surprise, the Lecturn (Bible Readings) had new choices which changed the instruction given to the people. Surprise, the King James Version of the Bible was superceded in most churches by inferior translations that do not contain accurate representations of God’s word. For instance, most inferior translations contain the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” The actual Commandment is, “Thou shalt do no murder.” They normally leave the “thou” in for effect, but translate a word that means first degree murder to the word “kill.” Clearly, the killing is not discouraged, but rather murder. As evidence of that, a couple of paragraphs later instructions are given as to when killing is required. It is essential that the Lecturn be changed as well as the translations to get the desired effect.
What is the desired effect of the “reformers”?
The destruction of the church and dissipation of God’s followers so they no longer have a place to worhip.
How effective have they been?
Membership in the ECUSA is down 90 percent since 1965. It would be down further, except the local churches are actually owned by the Diocese. Thus, for a congregation to “leave” the ECUSA, they must give up the church building they paid for. Remember, Episcopalians traditionally like nice things and are willing to work for them. They also like to make things work and do not give up. They hang in there. But gradually, congregations are leaving. The sooner the better. The steeper the slope, the slipperier the slope, the closer you are to hell. Leave sooner than later.
Why are the “reformers” doing this?
The “reformers” are Devil Buddies.
Little Test – Two Quotes
Quote One
"Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and scripture does not necessarily make it wrong. We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth."
Quote Two
"If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's Word; and if we be uncertain of God's Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new god, yea himself to be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he was in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan."
One Quote is by V. Gene Robinson, Claiming to be the current Bishop of New Hampshire
Quote Two is by Thomas Cranmer, an early Archbishop of Canterbury and principal author of the traditional BCP.
One a leading light of the Anglican Christian Church, the other merely light in his loafers.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Game Rules
Rule One
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Rule Two
Everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts
Rule Three
Facts are facts. To be a fact, it must be true. A made up item is NOT a fact.
Rule Four
Thinking, believing or wishing does not make an item a fact. ONLY truth makes facts.
Rule Five
If it was a fact yesterday, it is a fact today. Just because you say you did not say it, does not mean you did not say it.
End of Lesson Test
Q - If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A - Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Rule Two
Everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts
Rule Three
Facts are facts. To be a fact, it must be true. A made up item is NOT a fact.
Rule Four
Thinking, believing or wishing does not make an item a fact. ONLY truth makes facts.
Rule Five
If it was a fact yesterday, it is a fact today. Just because you say you did not say it, does not mean you did not say it.
End of Lesson Test
Q - If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A - Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Episcopal Church of the USA
The current Episcopal Church of the USA is likened unto a whitewashed sepulcher; claiming to be a church, yet filled with corruption. There is no pride to be taken in compromise with evil. Anyone who will not see the evil in the ECUSA is in clear danger of losing their immortal soul.
The church has lost 90 percent of its membership since the 1950s. This is a tragedy for a country who drew from its ranks many of its presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers. No more.
The decline in membership is in line with the clear goal of those who have managed to take over the church. They would have us believe God is happy with each of us doing what we think is right. If everything is fine, who needs to go to church each Sunday to find that out?
The takeover of the ECUSA has been long in the planning. The changed "Book of Common Prayer" put in to effect in 1979 was done to allow confirmation of homosexuals. It is particularly important to note that the first queer bishop was not only openly, but an adulterer who left his wife and children for his queer lover.
Those who stay with the ECUSA must understand they are in an unholy alliance. They are not negotiating with Christians who have slightly differing views of God's intention, but devil buddies who are only interested in subverting God's will.
May you live in interesting times - One heck of a curse.
The church has lost 90 percent of its membership since the 1950s. This is a tragedy for a country who drew from its ranks many of its presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers. No more.
The decline in membership is in line with the clear goal of those who have managed to take over the church. They would have us believe God is happy with each of us doing what we think is right. If everything is fine, who needs to go to church each Sunday to find that out?
The takeover of the ECUSA has been long in the planning. The changed "Book of Common Prayer" put in to effect in 1979 was done to allow confirmation of homosexuals. It is particularly important to note that the first queer bishop was not only openly, but an adulterer who left his wife and children for his queer lover.
Those who stay with the ECUSA must understand they are in an unholy alliance. They are not negotiating with Christians who have slightly differing views of God's intention, but devil buddies who are only interested in subverting God's will.
May you live in interesting times - One heck of a curse.
Friday, November 11, 2005
God, Honor and Country - Veteran's Day 2005
We are fortunate to have been allowed to serve our country and lucky to have survived. We know the feeling that comes with having put our lives on the line between the forces of Evil and our God, Honor and Country in a way those who only read about it will never know or perhaps even care about. We realize the debt we owe to those who now defend us, as we once defended them. We feel the debt and know we can never pay it back. But as a great American once said, "Better to die owing, that beat you out of it." The debt even we (or perhaps we in particular) owe those who now take up the sword in our places can never be paid back, but it must be recognized.
Our service forms a unique bond between services and generations. As age creeps up on the lucky, we hobble and wheeze, but never ever give up our honor. The honor of those who go forth to do battle for our homeland. From the French and Indian Wars through Desert Two and beyond. We are one. The American Warrior. No point in telling those who are not, they will never understand, it cannot be explained, now or ever.
We recognize each other with a word here or there; Valley Forge, Veracruz, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Verdun, Guadacanal, Saipan, Omaha, Torch, K16, Cuba, Barrel Roll, the Red, DaNang, Fulda Gap, Kuwait, Bagdad and a hundred thousand other places we have sweated, frozen or died.
We honor the bond in our salute. A salute those who only act the part can never duplicate.
God Bless you all.
Hap
Our service forms a unique bond between services and generations. As age creeps up on the lucky, we hobble and wheeze, but never ever give up our honor. The honor of those who go forth to do battle for our homeland. From the French and Indian Wars through Desert Two and beyond. We are one. The American Warrior. No point in telling those who are not, they will never understand, it cannot be explained, now or ever.
We recognize each other with a word here or there; Valley Forge, Veracruz, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Verdun, Guadacanal, Saipan, Omaha, Torch, K16, Cuba, Barrel Roll, the Red, DaNang, Fulda Gap, Kuwait, Bagdad and a hundred thousand other places we have sweated, frozen or died.
We honor the bond in our salute. A salute those who only act the part can never duplicate.
God Bless you all.
Hap
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Christmas, Holidays and Spending
As we come on the Holiday Spending Season, be prepared for an attack on Christmas by the ACLU, an acronym that covers an anti-American anti-God group bent on a One World One People One Government No God final solution to everything.
Christmas is under attack on the basis that its celebration or even note by anyone or anything, let alone a governmental agency is in conflict with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; the vaunted revered and mis-construed “Establishment Clause.”
The “Establishment Clause” actually reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
You will note that it says nothing about anyone except Congress and nothing other than making a law. For good reason, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, several states had state religions and kept them. The Constitution would never have been ratified if the people thought that the “Establishment Clause” would be used to promote atheism.
About 85 percent of the American populace is Christian, yet the ACLU would have all references to Christianity banned from the public view. By recognizing the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, Congress is not making any laws respecting the establishment of any religion. In allowing or even sponsoring a Nativity Scene government is not making any laws respecting the establishment of any religion.
You will note the same people who think that the Constitution which says:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Has no provision for armed citizens, but find the prohibition against wishing someone Merry Christmas in these words;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
You will note the ACLU never attacks Muslims and seldom Jews. Almost exclusively Christians. Not so much because of their religion, but because they are a majority whose beliefs are such that they are “meek” in their beliefs. They are willing to live and let live. Muslims are willing to kill and let die.
Enough is enough.
Let us examine who protects the country.
Atheists
Hardly.
Go to any National Cemetery.
Read the tombstones of the heros.
Christians and Jews, with a few Buddists, Taoists and Confucians thrown in for good measure.
Atheists? There is a symbol, just haven’t seen it used.
God, Honor, Country.
Not much of a motto if you don’t believe in God, have no honor and don’t think much of the greatest country in earth.
Having said all of this, reflect on the commercial.
People do not buy people Happy Holiday gifts. Christmas, yes; Hanukkah, yes; Happy Holidays, no.
The commercial aspect of Christmas has been very profitable for the American merchandiser. There is not much commercial aspect of the Happy Holiday.
Think about it!
Christmas is under attack on the basis that its celebration or even note by anyone or anything, let alone a governmental agency is in conflict with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; the vaunted revered and mis-construed “Establishment Clause.”
The “Establishment Clause” actually reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
You will note that it says nothing about anyone except Congress and nothing other than making a law. For good reason, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, several states had state religions and kept them. The Constitution would never have been ratified if the people thought that the “Establishment Clause” would be used to promote atheism.
About 85 percent of the American populace is Christian, yet the ACLU would have all references to Christianity banned from the public view. By recognizing the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, Congress is not making any laws respecting the establishment of any religion. In allowing or even sponsoring a Nativity Scene government is not making any laws respecting the establishment of any religion.
You will note the same people who think that the Constitution which says:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Has no provision for armed citizens, but find the prohibition against wishing someone Merry Christmas in these words;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
You will note the ACLU never attacks Muslims and seldom Jews. Almost exclusively Christians. Not so much because of their religion, but because they are a majority whose beliefs are such that they are “meek” in their beliefs. They are willing to live and let live. Muslims are willing to kill and let die.
Enough is enough.
Let us examine who protects the country.
Atheists
Hardly.
Go to any National Cemetery.
Read the tombstones of the heros.
Christians and Jews, with a few Buddists, Taoists and Confucians thrown in for good measure.
Atheists? There is a symbol, just haven’t seen it used.
God, Honor, Country.
Not much of a motto if you don’t believe in God, have no honor and don’t think much of the greatest country in earth.
Having said all of this, reflect on the commercial.
People do not buy people Happy Holiday gifts. Christmas, yes; Hanukkah, yes; Happy Holidays, no.
The commercial aspect of Christmas has been very profitable for the American merchandiser. There is not much commercial aspect of the Happy Holiday.
Think about it!
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Bush on the Border
The President puts forward a border policy. The open border people do not like it, the closed border people do not like it. One call “racist”, the other “panderer.”
It is said the Federal Government cannot control our border. If that is true, then we need a new Federal Government. Control of our borders one way or the other is the first priority of a national government. We need to control who is in our country for security reasons. It is patently obvious the Federal Government can control the borders, they just do not want to.
What should it be?
A simple plan:
Seal our borders airtight;
Let those we want come in easily;
Keep those we want out, out.
Points
ÿ We must control the security of our borders, they cannot continue a porous line.
ÿ As long as there is welfare, there will be those who do not wish to work, but would rather be parasites on society.
ÿ Parasites are not a good thing; all they breed is more parasites.
ÿ Our country needs people to do the bottom end jobs.
ÿ Everyone who wants a job has a job.
ÿ As long as there is welfare, the bottom end jobs will not be done by Americans.
ÿ We need guest workers or we need to eliminate welfare.
ÿ Guest workers should not be allowed to have their children be automatically granted citizenship, that is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.
ÿ We must establish a Guest Worker program that addresses the issues of security and sovereignty.
ÿ We must make it easy for legal Guest Workers to come in the country and have a mechanism to ensure they leave.
ÿ There will be illegal aliens as long as there is money to be made here.
ÿ There will be money to be made here as long as there are jobs which will not be done by legal residents/citizens.
ÿ Citizens will not do the jobs as long as there is welfare.
ÿ The current situation is untenable.
It is said the Federal Government cannot control our border. If that is true, then we need a new Federal Government. Control of our borders one way or the other is the first priority of a national government. We need to control who is in our country for security reasons. It is patently obvious the Federal Government can control the borders, they just do not want to.
What should it be?
A simple plan:
Seal our borders airtight;
Let those we want come in easily;
Keep those we want out, out.
Points
ÿ We must control the security of our borders, they cannot continue a porous line.
ÿ As long as there is welfare, there will be those who do not wish to work, but would rather be parasites on society.
ÿ Parasites are not a good thing; all they breed is more parasites.
ÿ Our country needs people to do the bottom end jobs.
ÿ Everyone who wants a job has a job.
ÿ As long as there is welfare, the bottom end jobs will not be done by Americans.
ÿ We need guest workers or we need to eliminate welfare.
ÿ Guest workers should not be allowed to have their children be automatically granted citizenship, that is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.
ÿ We must establish a Guest Worker program that addresses the issues of security and sovereignty.
ÿ We must make it easy for legal Guest Workers to come in the country and have a mechanism to ensure they leave.
ÿ There will be illegal aliens as long as there is money to be made here.
ÿ There will be money to be made here as long as there are jobs which will not be done by legal residents/citizens.
ÿ Citizens will not do the jobs as long as there is welfare.
ÿ The current situation is untenable.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
The Message
Did you ever wonder about the message?
People mean what they say, oddly enough. Not always, but usually.
Did you know that liberals care what color you are? It is important to them that they can pigeonhole you in a category based on your external characteristics. They know if you are say, black, you are of a certain mind set, certain abilities, certain feelings. They know only they can help you be a full member of society, clearly you could not do this yourself.
Did you know that conservatives don’t care what color you are? All they care about is who you are and what you can do. They think you should be able to help yourself, regardless of what color God made you. They hire you for the job because you are the best candidate. They know you are the soul inside the body. They care about you, not your skin.
The KKK’s Imperial Lizard Tom Metzger, the Omnipresent Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Omnisouced Teddy Kennedy all have the very same message, “Blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Without the government holding whites back, blacks will never get ahead. Without special treatment they will always be second rate, with special treatment, they will get education and jobs they could not get on their own because they are second rate.”
Contrast that with President Bush’s attitude, “Hire the best.” Too bad for liberals that Condelezza Rice is black. They cannot believe she could be Secretary of State because, after all, she is, well, black. And, they all know blacks will never amount to anything without help from a liberal. They would like to help her, but they can’t really. After all, it is bad enough the poor thing is black, but she is conservative, don’t you know.
People mean what they say, oddly enough. Not always, but usually.
Did you know that liberals care what color you are? It is important to them that they can pigeonhole you in a category based on your external characteristics. They know if you are say, black, you are of a certain mind set, certain abilities, certain feelings. They know only they can help you be a full member of society, clearly you could not do this yourself.
Did you know that conservatives don’t care what color you are? All they care about is who you are and what you can do. They think you should be able to help yourself, regardless of what color God made you. They hire you for the job because you are the best candidate. They know you are the soul inside the body. They care about you, not your skin.
The KKK’s Imperial Lizard Tom Metzger, the Omnipresent Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Omnisouced Teddy Kennedy all have the very same message, “Blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Without the government holding whites back, blacks will never get ahead. Without special treatment they will always be second rate, with special treatment, they will get education and jobs they could not get on their own because they are second rate.”
Contrast that with President Bush’s attitude, “Hire the best.” Too bad for liberals that Condelezza Rice is black. They cannot believe she could be Secretary of State because, after all, she is, well, black. And, they all know blacks will never amount to anything without help from a liberal. They would like to help her, but they can’t really. After all, it is bad enough the poor thing is black, but she is conservative, don’t you know.
People mean what they say, oddly enough.
Did you ever wonder about the message?
People mean what they say, oddly enough. Not always, but usually.
Did you know that liberals care what color you are? It is important to them that they can pigeonhole you in a category based on your external characteristics. They know if you are say, black, you are of a certain mind set, certain abilities, certain feelings. They know only they can help you be a full member of society, clearly you could not do this yourself.
Did you know that conservatives don’t care what color you are? All they care about is who you are and what you can do. They think you should be able to help yourself, regardless of what color God made you. They hire you for the job because you are the best candidate. They know you are the soul inside the body. They care about you, not your skin.
The KKK’s Imperial Lizard Tom Metzger, the Omnipresent Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Omnisouced Teddy Kennedy all have the very same message, “Blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Without the government holding whites back, blacks will never get ahead. Without special treatment they will always be second rate, with special treatment, they will get education and jobs they could not get on their own because they are second rate.”
Contrast that with President Bush’s attitude, “Hire the best.” Too bad for liberals that Condelezza Rice is black. They cannot believe she could be Secretary of State because, after all, she is, well, black. And, they all know blacks will never amount to anything without help from a liberal. They would like to help her, but they can’t really. After all, it is bad enough the poor thing is black, but she is conservative, don’t you know.
People mean what they say, oddly enough. Not always, but usually.
Did you know that liberals care what color you are? It is important to them that they can pigeonhole you in a category based on your external characteristics. They know if you are say, black, you are of a certain mind set, certain abilities, certain feelings. They know only they can help you be a full member of society, clearly you could not do this yourself.
Did you know that conservatives don’t care what color you are? All they care about is who you are and what you can do. They think you should be able to help yourself, regardless of what color God made you. They hire you for the job because you are the best candidate. They know you are the soul inside the body. They care about you, not your skin.
The KKK’s Imperial Lizard Tom Metzger, the Omnipresent Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Omnisouced Teddy Kennedy all have the very same message, “Blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Without the government holding whites back, blacks will never get ahead. Without special treatment they will always be second rate, with special treatment, they will get education and jobs they could not get on their own because they are second rate.”
Contrast that with President Bush’s attitude, “Hire the best.” Too bad for liberals that Condelezza Rice is black. They cannot believe she could be Secretary of State because, after all, she is, well, black. And, they all know blacks will never amount to anything without help from a liberal. They would like to help her, but they can’t really. After all, it is bad enough the poor thing is black, but she is conservative, don’t you know.
Friday, July 29, 2005
The Point of All This and That
Bumper Sticker:
Why do Republicans think my child is their choice?
Answer:
If it is a child, it is not a choice!
Recent quote from a liberal about abortion counseling:
We hope they would choose life (while of course pushing the abortion).
Point:
If one choice is life, the other is inarguably death. Death means murder.
Teenage girls can get abortions without parental notification, yet as of this date, they cannot get their ears pierced. That will change.
Teenager girls can go to a doctor, who can approve the “procedure.” After all, one must protect the privacy of the person involved. Protect the mother’s privacy, while murdering the innocent baby. Remember, the “procedure” is murder. The “medical decision” is being made by a “medical professional”, one qualified to make “medical decisions” in a manner which you and I are not capable.
The whole idea is to get people used to the idea that “medical decisions” should be made by medical professionals (doctors), not by patients or their family. Once that is accepted, forced “euthanasia” or the killing of those not in favor can go forward. If you doubt this, see what is happening in the UK right now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1452718/posts
Patients are being told they do “not have the right to demand any particular form of treatment …” The treatment they do not have the right to demand consists of food and water in this case.
Once all decisions can only be made by “medical professionals”, patients can be killed when they are no longer cost effective. If the statistics say you will not live long enough for your monthly insurance premium to pay back the needed “treatment”, you obviously do not need it.
The Hippocratic Oath is quickly being supplanted by the Hypocrite Oath.
Live while you can, medical treatment is near.
Why do Republicans think my child is their choice?
Answer:
If it is a child, it is not a choice!
Recent quote from a liberal about abortion counseling:
We hope they would choose life (while of course pushing the abortion).
Point:
If one choice is life, the other is inarguably death. Death means murder.
Teenage girls can get abortions without parental notification, yet as of this date, they cannot get their ears pierced. That will change.
Teenager girls can go to a doctor, who can approve the “procedure.” After all, one must protect the privacy of the person involved. Protect the mother’s privacy, while murdering the innocent baby. Remember, the “procedure” is murder. The “medical decision” is being made by a “medical professional”, one qualified to make “medical decisions” in a manner which you and I are not capable.
The whole idea is to get people used to the idea that “medical decisions” should be made by medical professionals (doctors), not by patients or their family. Once that is accepted, forced “euthanasia” or the killing of those not in favor can go forward. If you doubt this, see what is happening in the UK right now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1452718/posts
Patients are being told they do “not have the right to demand any particular form of treatment …” The treatment they do not have the right to demand consists of food and water in this case.
Once all decisions can only be made by “medical professionals”, patients can be killed when they are no longer cost effective. If the statistics say you will not live long enough for your monthly insurance premium to pay back the needed “treatment”, you obviously do not need it.
The Hippocratic Oath is quickly being supplanted by the Hypocrite Oath.
Live while you can, medical treatment is near.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Muslim Antidote
I have no idea who wrote this, but they are brilliant.
==
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001.
The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there
were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocation by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million
Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
Can we lose this war?
What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do,
will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better
know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights, we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans,
and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but
"humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize
this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population, of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
==
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001.
The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there
were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocation by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million
Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
Can we lose this war?
What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do,
will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better
know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights, we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans,
and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but
"humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize
this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population, of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Tom Tancredo and the Atomic Boys
The American people are very kind, loving, caring people. UNTIL YOU START A WAR WITH THEM. Once they finally figure out the fight is on, they will finish it.
Understand, to the vast majority of Americans alive in August 1945, there was no question about using atomic bombs on Japan. NONE WHATSOVER.
After 911, 90 percent of the American people were behind the President. If there is another similar event, the President will have no choice but to act decisively or be removed immediately. I doubt the impeachment process would take more than 24 hours.
Memo to potential enemies - If you do not like the way we end wars, don't start one with us.
Understand, to the vast majority of Americans alive in August 1945, there was no question about using atomic bombs on Japan. NONE WHATSOVER.
After 911, 90 percent of the American people were behind the President. If there is another similar event, the President will have no choice but to act decisively or be removed immediately. I doubt the impeachment process would take more than 24 hours.
Memo to potential enemies - If you do not like the way we end wars, don't start one with us.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
BRAC 2005
Whether by design or ignorance, this BRAC closure is start of the elimination of the Air National Guard.
The Air Force has long been uncomfortable with the ANG.
They do not like that the ANG has resources they cannot deploy at will without regard to political consequences. They do not like the well known fact that the Air Force did not win a Fighter Weapons meet known as Gunsmoke for over 15 years. The ANG had at least the top 3 places until they no longer had current generation aircraft. The Air Force is uncomfortable with the fact that ANG units consistently have better aircraft availability due to better maintenance. They do not like the fact that ANG units normally lead missions in both real like and exercises because of their far greater depth of experience.
They wish to ignore the fact that ANG units operate on roughly 38% of the budget of an active duty unit.
They did not like the ANG to be the cutting edge of the sword. Thus, the push a few years ago to change ANG fighter squadrons over to close air support, tankers and transports, missions long looked down on by Air Force leadership.
The 163 Air Refueling Wing at March Field is slated for stand down. This unit was the Air Force Fighter Mobility Squadron for five years while flying F-4C and F-4E aircraft. That means it was the first unit to leave the states in an emergency. For several years it was the only precision guided munitions capability the Air Force had. The Air Force brought the F-117 out of the black world to drop precision guided munitions in Panama for the invasion rather than use the 163 TFW. They missed by the way.
When the 163rd switched to KC-135 Air Refueling Tankers, they continued to lead the way. They re-wrote the Air Force’s Tanker Formation Flying Procedures in their first year. Their aircraft configuration standard was adopted Air Force wide. They commanded and flew more missions than any other tanker unit in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. They had the highest mission capable rate in the entire Air Force structure, flying 45 year old aircraft. They have consistently had the highest Operational Readiness Inspection ratings of any Air Forces unit, Active, Reserve or Air Guard.
This unit is being stood down in favor of an Air Force Reserve unit whose performance is near bottom.
Why?
The Air Force has far greater control over Reserve units.
The fact is the ANG is the Air Force their recruiter promised them and they just don’t like that at all.
The Air Force has long been uncomfortable with the ANG.
They do not like that the ANG has resources they cannot deploy at will without regard to political consequences. They do not like the well known fact that the Air Force did not win a Fighter Weapons meet known as Gunsmoke for over 15 years. The ANG had at least the top 3 places until they no longer had current generation aircraft. The Air Force is uncomfortable with the fact that ANG units consistently have better aircraft availability due to better maintenance. They do not like the fact that ANG units normally lead missions in both real like and exercises because of their far greater depth of experience.
They wish to ignore the fact that ANG units operate on roughly 38% of the budget of an active duty unit.
They did not like the ANG to be the cutting edge of the sword. Thus, the push a few years ago to change ANG fighter squadrons over to close air support, tankers and transports, missions long looked down on by Air Force leadership.
The 163 Air Refueling Wing at March Field is slated for stand down. This unit was the Air Force Fighter Mobility Squadron for five years while flying F-4C and F-4E aircraft. That means it was the first unit to leave the states in an emergency. For several years it was the only precision guided munitions capability the Air Force had. The Air Force brought the F-117 out of the black world to drop precision guided munitions in Panama for the invasion rather than use the 163 TFW. They missed by the way.
When the 163rd switched to KC-135 Air Refueling Tankers, they continued to lead the way. They re-wrote the Air Force’s Tanker Formation Flying Procedures in their first year. Their aircraft configuration standard was adopted Air Force wide. They commanded and flew more missions than any other tanker unit in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. They had the highest mission capable rate in the entire Air Force structure, flying 45 year old aircraft. They have consistently had the highest Operational Readiness Inspection ratings of any Air Forces unit, Active, Reserve or Air Guard.
This unit is being stood down in favor of an Air Force Reserve unit whose performance is near bottom.
Why?
The Air Force has far greater control over Reserve units.
The fact is the ANG is the Air Force their recruiter promised them and they just don’t like that at all.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The Extremist Fringe
If one listens to the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward “Bridge” Kennedy, President Bush’s judicial appointments are from the extreme right wing religious fringe of American society.
After all, unlike the judges Bridge would see appointed, they can and do read the Constitution of the United States; they believe judges are to judge cases based on the law, in conformity to the Constitution of the United States; they believe in the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion; they are practicing Christians or Jews, like 85 percent of America.
They are not homosexual activists, internationalist or anti-religious atheists.
One asks, “Who is the fringe?”
The answer is clear, the left wing of the Democratic party.
One might point out, a party like an airplane has two wings. It is bad form to put the cockpit on the left wingtip.
After all, unlike the judges Bridge would see appointed, they can and do read the Constitution of the United States; they believe judges are to judge cases based on the law, in conformity to the Constitution of the United States; they believe in the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion; they are practicing Christians or Jews, like 85 percent of America.
They are not homosexual activists, internationalist or anti-religious atheists.
One asks, “Who is the fringe?”
The answer is clear, the left wing of the Democratic party.
One might point out, a party like an airplane has two wings. It is bad form to put the cockpit on the left wingtip.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Bush Lied!
The Democratic mantra, repeated over and over.
While it may or may not be true there were WMDs in Iraq before the Coalition invasion, our intelligence services thought they were. President Clinton is on record as having thought WMDs were there. In fact, President Clinton was the author of the Regime Change Executive Order. The CIA, run by Clinton appointee George Tennant, believed they were there. In fact, they were so certain they pushed WMD as the lead reason for going to war. Politicians across the spectrum are on record as believing the WMDs were there and must be gotten rid of. Clearly they were there, Hussein had used them in the past. He appeared to think they were there, otherwise why would he have kept the inspectors out?
When we got to Iraq, we found little or nothing. Does that mean they were not there before? No. Well then, what does it mean? It means they weren’t there when we got there, nothing more, nothing less.
Did President Bush lie? It does not appear he lied. Was what he said correct, given the benefit of the customary 20/20 hindsight? Maybe not, maybe so. So far no one seems to know where the WMD went. President Bush clearly believed his intelligence people who told them the WMDs were there. If he knew they were not there, he would have also known they would not find any upon invasion and he would have a big public relations problem.
Why do we continually hear “Bush lied!”?
The reason is simple, those repeating their mantra have no idea what words mean. The last president is still trying to clarify the meaning of the word “IS”. They are trying desperately to gain traction on something, anything. Never get near a drowning person.
While it may or may not be true there were WMDs in Iraq before the Coalition invasion, our intelligence services thought they were. President Clinton is on record as having thought WMDs were there. In fact, President Clinton was the author of the Regime Change Executive Order. The CIA, run by Clinton appointee George Tennant, believed they were there. In fact, they were so certain they pushed WMD as the lead reason for going to war. Politicians across the spectrum are on record as believing the WMDs were there and must be gotten rid of. Clearly they were there, Hussein had used them in the past. He appeared to think they were there, otherwise why would he have kept the inspectors out?
When we got to Iraq, we found little or nothing. Does that mean they were not there before? No. Well then, what does it mean? It means they weren’t there when we got there, nothing more, nothing less.
Did President Bush lie? It does not appear he lied. Was what he said correct, given the benefit of the customary 20/20 hindsight? Maybe not, maybe so. So far no one seems to know where the WMD went. President Bush clearly believed his intelligence people who told them the WMDs were there. If he knew they were not there, he would have also known they would not find any upon invasion and he would have a big public relations problem.
Why do we continually hear “Bush lied!”?
The reason is simple, those repeating their mantra have no idea what words mean. The last president is still trying to clarify the meaning of the word “IS”. They are trying desperately to gain traction on something, anything. Never get near a drowning person.
Friday, June 03, 2005
4 June 1942 - The Battle of Midway - Turning Point in the Pacific
4 June 1942
In the Pacific near Midway Island, the western most island in the Hawaiian chain.
Two carrier forces meet in the pivotal battle of the war in the Pacific.
Four Japanese Fleet Carriers and three American Carriers. The fate of the near term, perhaps long term, war in the Pacific lies in the outcome of this battle.
"I feel we are all ready . . . . I actually believe that under these conditions we are the best in the world. My greatest hope I that we encounter a favorable tactical situation, but if we don't and the worst comes to the worst, I want each of us to do his utmost to destroy our enemies. If there is only one plane left to make a final run-in, I want that man to go in and get a hit. May God be with us all."
-- LCDR John C. Waldron, USN, Commanding Officer of USS HORNET's Torpedo Squadron 8, killed during Battle of Midway. Waldron's attack plan before the Battle of Midway, June 4, 1942. Morison, Vol. IV, p. 117.
CV- 8 USS Hornet
VF-8 (12 lost)
VB-8 (5 lost)
VS-8 (5 lost)
VT-8 -- 15 TBD, Lt. Cdr. John C. Waldron (Killed) (All lost)
Torpedo Eight lost all of her aircraft and only a single pilot survives.
CV-6 USS Enterprise
VF-6 (1 lost)
VB6 (11 lost)
VS-6 (9 lost)
VT-6 (11 lost)
Torpedo Six lost all but three aircraft and lost her commander.
CV-5 USS Yorktown (Sunk)
VF-3 (10 lost)
VB-3 (12 lost)
VS-3 (12 lost)
VT-3 (12 lost)
Torpedo Three lost all but one aircraft and lost her commander.
Marine Aircraft Group 22
VMF-221 (15 lost)
VMSB-241 (13 lost) including two commanders in one day
Detachment of 7th Army Air Force
B-26s, lost 2 or 4
B-17s lost 4 of 19
Experience is a quick, but brutal teacher.
The torpedo squadrons, first in, flying obsolescent TBDs using faulty tactics were decimated and did almost no damage. All three commanders lost their lives in the initial attack. While they did no significant damage to the Japanese force, they did tie up the Japanese and got them low while the dive bombers sank the four carriers.
We lost only Yorktown.
This was the turning point in the war. We had a plan to learn from each battle and fight a war of attrition, if needed. The Japanese did not. After our steep learning curve at Midway, we accelerated to Victory in the Pacific.
Our victory came at a tremendous cost, men like Waldron, Massey, Lindsey, Henderson and Norris gave their lives so we might be free, not safe.
http://www.usswashington.com/dl04ju42.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/gelernter060305.php3
In the Pacific near Midway Island, the western most island in the Hawaiian chain.
Two carrier forces meet in the pivotal battle of the war in the Pacific.
Four Japanese Fleet Carriers and three American Carriers. The fate of the near term, perhaps long term, war in the Pacific lies in the outcome of this battle.
"I feel we are all ready . . . . I actually believe that under these conditions we are the best in the world. My greatest hope I that we encounter a favorable tactical situation, but if we don't and the worst comes to the worst, I want each of us to do his utmost to destroy our enemies. If there is only one plane left to make a final run-in, I want that man to go in and get a hit. May God be with us all."
-- LCDR John C. Waldron, USN, Commanding Officer of USS HORNET's Torpedo Squadron 8, killed during Battle of Midway. Waldron's attack plan before the Battle of Midway, June 4, 1942. Morison, Vol. IV, p. 117.
CV- 8 USS Hornet
VF-8 (12 lost)
VB-8 (5 lost)
VS-8 (5 lost)
VT-8 -- 15 TBD, Lt. Cdr. John C. Waldron (Killed) (All lost)
Torpedo Eight lost all of her aircraft and only a single pilot survives.
CV-6 USS Enterprise
VF-6 (1 lost)
VB6 (11 lost)
VS-6 (9 lost)
VT-6 (11 lost)
Torpedo Six lost all but three aircraft and lost her commander.
CV-5 USS Yorktown (Sunk)
VF-3 (10 lost)
VB-3 (12 lost)
VS-3 (12 lost)
VT-3 (12 lost)
Torpedo Three lost all but one aircraft and lost her commander.
Marine Aircraft Group 22
VMF-221 (15 lost)
VMSB-241 (13 lost) including two commanders in one day
Detachment of 7th Army Air Force
B-26s, lost 2 or 4
B-17s lost 4 of 19
Experience is a quick, but brutal teacher.
The torpedo squadrons, first in, flying obsolescent TBDs using faulty tactics were decimated and did almost no damage. All three commanders lost their lives in the initial attack. While they did no significant damage to the Japanese force, they did tie up the Japanese and got them low while the dive bombers sank the four carriers.
We lost only Yorktown.
This was the turning point in the war. We had a plan to learn from each battle and fight a war of attrition, if needed. The Japanese did not. After our steep learning curve at Midway, we accelerated to Victory in the Pacific.
Our victory came at a tremendous cost, men like Waldron, Massey, Lindsey, Henderson and Norris gave their lives so we might be free, not safe.
http://www.usswashington.com/dl04ju42.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/gelernter060305.php3
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The Great Disconnect
First Directive – You must verify that a person is a legal resident of the United States and has the necessary paperwork allowing them to work in the country before you pay them to cut your grass.
Second Directive – The State may not ask a person about their legal residency status before they give them welfare, medical treatment, driver’s license or anything else.
Let me get this straight. I cannot pay an illegal alien to cut my grass. The State takes money from me at the point of a gun to pay illegal aliens.
I guess being the State has its privileges, doesn’t it?
I cannot pay for an illegal alien. So if they need money, they go to the State who can pay them, but only if they do not work.
Do you still wonder why we have a budget deficit?
Our government has a mental illness called liberalism.
Second Directive – The State may not ask a person about their legal residency status before they give them welfare, medical treatment, driver’s license or anything else.
Let me get this straight. I cannot pay an illegal alien to cut my grass. The State takes money from me at the point of a gun to pay illegal aliens.
I guess being the State has its privileges, doesn’t it?
I cannot pay for an illegal alien. So if they need money, they go to the State who can pay them, but only if they do not work.
Do you still wonder why we have a budget deficit?
Our government has a mental illness called liberalism.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Pat Tillman – American Hero – Friendly Fire
As we come up on Memorial Day, it is fitting to reflect on an American Hero, Ranger Pat Tillman.
Pat Tillman left a lucrative career as a ball player to defend his country. He did something millions of Americans before him did, he put his country before his personal being. He consciously gave his today so we might have a free tomorrow. Pat Tillman joined the Army and in the end became Ranger Tillman. Ranger Tillman lived in a world where having been a ball player was kind of cool, where being a Ranger was here, now and the only thing. He excelled because he had talent and heart.
Ranger Tillman was an American Hero because he did what heroes do, he put country before self.
Ranger Tillman gave his life for our country in Afghanistan on a hill whose name no one can pronounce. In the end, as so many American Heroes have done he gave more than his today, he gave all his tomorrows that we might have that free tomorrow. He died as a result of “friendly fire”, although I can tell you no one shooting at you is all that friendly. Friendly Fire; Blue on Blue, Fratricide. All words that mean the fog of war claimed another casualty. Even in today’s age of internet and instantaneous communications, the fog of war extends far from the battlefield. There was far more going on than the death of Ranger Tillman. Was his name used to help recruiting? Certainly. Did he mind? Certainly not. Does Blue on Blue imply homicide, as some have said? Clearly not. Is it investigated? To the extent possible. We want to make sure it does not happen again. We try to keep our people safe. Ranger Tillman loved his country and unlike the press, knew when she called.
Does the fact that he died of “friendly fire” mean Ranger Tillman was not a hero. No. The day Pat Tillman swore to “…uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” he became a hero.
Those who defend us are all heroes. Ordinary Joes, perhaps; but all heroes.
War is dangerous. War is horror. But, war is far from the worst thing. We grieve at the death any of our warrior family. Somehow it is worse when the death is at our hand. The fact that his death was by friendly fire changes not his heroic status. It is sad his family lost their son and brother. It is even sadder that his parents for whatever reason want to do other than honor the sacrifice of their son. He gave his life that this country might be free. He gave his life to make this a better world.
All gave some,
Some gave all.
God, Honor, Country – Now and Forever
Pat Tillman left a lucrative career as a ball player to defend his country. He did something millions of Americans before him did, he put his country before his personal being. He consciously gave his today so we might have a free tomorrow. Pat Tillman joined the Army and in the end became Ranger Tillman. Ranger Tillman lived in a world where having been a ball player was kind of cool, where being a Ranger was here, now and the only thing. He excelled because he had talent and heart.
Ranger Tillman was an American Hero because he did what heroes do, he put country before self.
Ranger Tillman gave his life for our country in Afghanistan on a hill whose name no one can pronounce. In the end, as so many American Heroes have done he gave more than his today, he gave all his tomorrows that we might have that free tomorrow. He died as a result of “friendly fire”, although I can tell you no one shooting at you is all that friendly. Friendly Fire; Blue on Blue, Fratricide. All words that mean the fog of war claimed another casualty. Even in today’s age of internet and instantaneous communications, the fog of war extends far from the battlefield. There was far more going on than the death of Ranger Tillman. Was his name used to help recruiting? Certainly. Did he mind? Certainly not. Does Blue on Blue imply homicide, as some have said? Clearly not. Is it investigated? To the extent possible. We want to make sure it does not happen again. We try to keep our people safe. Ranger Tillman loved his country and unlike the press, knew when she called.
Does the fact that he died of “friendly fire” mean Ranger Tillman was not a hero. No. The day Pat Tillman swore to “…uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” he became a hero.
Those who defend us are all heroes. Ordinary Joes, perhaps; but all heroes.
War is dangerous. War is horror. But, war is far from the worst thing. We grieve at the death any of our warrior family. Somehow it is worse when the death is at our hand. The fact that his death was by friendly fire changes not his heroic status. It is sad his family lost their son and brother. It is even sadder that his parents for whatever reason want to do other than honor the sacrifice of their son. He gave his life that this country might be free. He gave his life to make this a better world.
All gave some,
Some gave all.
God, Honor, Country – Now and Forever
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Did you ever wonder why?
Why is it that when politicians come to us for money, it is always for THE CHILDREN, POLICE, FIRE or the ROADS.
Why do they never ask for more money for their pay raises, new fancy buildings for them, art projects, welfare and the like?
The answer is simple, they always have enough money for their projects. The things the people actually want the government to do, those they know the people will allow the government to raise their taxes for.
People who vote for additional taxes and for government indebtedness deserve what they get. I do not.
Why do they never ask for more money for their pay raises, new fancy buildings for them, art projects, welfare and the like?
The answer is simple, they always have enough money for their projects. The things the people actually want the government to do, those they know the people will allow the government to raise their taxes for.
People who vote for additional taxes and for government indebtedness deserve what they get. I do not.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Illegal Immigration - Symptom, not Cause
Illegal immigration is much in the news today and it is BAD. But, perhaps not for the reasons put forward to date.
Any time a law exists and is ignored, all laws are less respected. Thus the 65 mph speed limit and illegal immigration both contribute to our higher than needed murder rate.
It is said the Federal Government cannot control our border. If that is true, then we need a new Federal Government; control of our borders one way or the other is the first priority of a national government. We need to control who is in our country for security reasons. It is patently obvious the Federal Government can control the borders, they just do not want to.
There was no problem with illegal immigration in the 1950s. Why? Economic conditions in Mexico were bad then. That is an easy guess, they have always been bad in that Third World country and always will be until they get a Constitutional Democratic Republic that recognizes property rights and civil rights.
The reason was there were no jobs here in the United States. The jobs were being done by Americans.
Today, there are many job openings that cannot be filled by Americans.
We do need immigrants to do jobs Americans will not do. That pretty much describes any job that pays less than $12.50 per hour, after taxes. But, you say, the Minimum Wage is too low, $6.25 per hour here in Kalifornia. No one can live on $6.25 an hour. No one works for Minimum Wage here. PERIOD.
I need help keeping my yard. I pay $10.00 per hour for yard help, CASH! To a needy person from the city? Not hardly, they do not have to work. The State takes money from me at the point of a gun and gives it to them; they call it Welfare. I call it robbery.
The problem is Welfare. Welfare pays about $25,000.00 a year ($12.50 per hour) here. There are tens of thousands of people in the county who do not have to work. They live on my money, yet they won't cut my grass. There are thousands on welfare whose grandparents were on welfare.
Eliminate welfare. If you want to give aid to children, sterilize both parents who spawned children they cannot take care of. Do not let them reproduce more unproductive leaches on productive members of society.
Isn't is odd that those who find no problem in murdering children via "The Right to Choose" cannot grasp the benefit of sterilizing those who will not work?
Eliminate welfare, secure the border, grant work visas to those who want them.
Any time a law exists and is ignored, all laws are less respected. Thus the 65 mph speed limit and illegal immigration both contribute to our higher than needed murder rate.
It is said the Federal Government cannot control our border. If that is true, then we need a new Federal Government; control of our borders one way or the other is the first priority of a national government. We need to control who is in our country for security reasons. It is patently obvious the Federal Government can control the borders, they just do not want to.
There was no problem with illegal immigration in the 1950s. Why? Economic conditions in Mexico were bad then. That is an easy guess, they have always been bad in that Third World country and always will be until they get a Constitutional Democratic Republic that recognizes property rights and civil rights.
The reason was there were no jobs here in the United States. The jobs were being done by Americans.
Today, there are many job openings that cannot be filled by Americans.
We do need immigrants to do jobs Americans will not do. That pretty much describes any job that pays less than $12.50 per hour, after taxes. But, you say, the Minimum Wage is too low, $6.25 per hour here in Kalifornia. No one can live on $6.25 an hour. No one works for Minimum Wage here. PERIOD.
I need help keeping my yard. I pay $10.00 per hour for yard help, CASH! To a needy person from the city? Not hardly, they do not have to work. The State takes money from me at the point of a gun and gives it to them; they call it Welfare. I call it robbery.
The problem is Welfare. Welfare pays about $25,000.00 a year ($12.50 per hour) here. There are tens of thousands of people in the county who do not have to work. They live on my money, yet they won't cut my grass. There are thousands on welfare whose grandparents were on welfare.
Eliminate welfare. If you want to give aid to children, sterilize both parents who spawned children they cannot take care of. Do not let them reproduce more unproductive leaches on productive members of society.
Isn't is odd that those who find no problem in murdering children via "The Right to Choose" cannot grasp the benefit of sterilizing those who will not work?
Eliminate welfare, secure the border, grant work visas to those who want them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
