News from Ken Bennett

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 12, 2012

Phoenix – Looking for a great way to get involved in the state’s Capitol Museum, starting with the Centennial? The Arizona Capitol Museum store at the Arizona Capitol Museum is actively seeking high energy personable assistants. As a valuable member of the museum staff, you’ll provide many services to our guests and help us prepare for the state’s Centennial year.

Volunteers help customers select items and gifts from our inventory, ring up sales, create and maintain merchandise displays; staff the store when the Manager is not available.

Store Volunteers may occasionally be called upon to assemble gift baskets and large special orders for VIPs and help at author signings and other special events both on site and away from the Capitol Museum.

Volunteers also promote the store, museum and special events to visitors and customers.

Requirements:

• A positive and upbeat personality for providing excellent customer service.
• Computer literate, or experience with computerized cash registers.
• Excellent communication skills.
• Dependable, accountable and trustworthy.
• Professional appearance.
• Ability to stand for extended periods of time and some lifting of light items.
• Available at least one day per week, at least 4 hours.

Currently the Capitol Museum Store is looking for volunteers to donate time on Mondays (and other weekdays) between the hours of 9:30am and 4:00pm through March of 2012.

An application can be downloaded at: http://www.lib.az.us/museum/volunteer.aspx or contact the Capitol Museum Volunteer Manager at 602-926-3731 or volunteer@lists.lib.az.us.

###

INVITES YOU TO ATTEND

Sharia Law:  What We Need To Know

PRESENTED BY AL FADI

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011
Time: 10:00 am – 12:00 noon
Location: The Scottsdale Bible Church  Room E-210
Address: 7601 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Al Fadi is a former Wahabbi Muslim from Saudi Arabia.  He is the researcher, editor, writer, and translator for numerous ministries, including “Answering Islam” and runs an outreach center called; the Center for Islamic Research & Awareness. The center focus is to bring awareness regarding Islam, to build bridges with Muslims, and to provide expert input on issues related to Sharia Law and Democracy.

Al is the editor, co-author and contributor of “The Qur’an Dilemma” (both English & Arabic versions) – a critical analysis book of the Qur’an. He is also the director of TheQuran.com Group (www.theQuran.com) which desires to assist both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to learn more about the main source of Islamic teachings, the Qur’an, to research it, to critically analyze it, and to better comprehend its contents without the traditional religious and cultural barriers designed to indoctrinate and encapsulate the minds of many truth seekers.

Al has a Masters in Engineering and is currently working on completing his M.Div. in Biblical Communications. He is an invited teacher/lecturer on Islam and related Islamic study topics. He is an invited guest speaker and trainer at numerous churches and mission agencies on the topic of Islam & Evangelism to Muslims. As a former devout Muslim, he is an expert on the teaching and challenges of Islam. In addition, Al is an invited guest/expert on numerous Arabic evangelical Satellite TV and Radio shows on the topics of Islam and the Middle East.

Refreshments will be served

Cost: $10 per person

Go to www.arizonamainstreamproject.org to make payment by credit card.  If making payment at the door, please RSVP to Susan Leeper at 480-998-5022 or susan@arizonamainstreamproject.org

Veterans Day as observed in the United States is related to Armistice Day in Europe. Today on November 11, the date of the signing of the cease fire in 1918, signed at 5 am but in effect on the 11th hour of the 11th day, is recalled by the French as a remembrance of loss and the wanton destruction of war.

Igniting across the global, spread transcontinentally through the colonial holdings of the warring nations, World War I  was fought most brutally on French and Belgium soil, with battlefield casualties of a magnitude that human beings are almost incapable of comprehending. At the First Battle of the Marne in 1914, the French incurred 250,000 losses, with German losses estimated at the same magnitude, or close to 500,000 men at arms consumed during one major engagement, and that was only the beginning. (1)

It was the “War to End All Wars,” a stunning loss of 1.4 million French soldiers alone, 10.5% of the French male population, with overall combat-related deaths and crippling injury exceeding ten million.  Americans, with victory achieved, but appalled at the squalor and horror of the trenches and observing the scenes of years of destruction, brushed the dust and grime off their uniforms and went home, muttering “another European War.”

French schoolbooks teach the horror of the war, and focus on the massive mortality amongst the generation of men who fought it. They detail to each new generation of children the suffering and the severe hardships of the populations which fled their homes and towns, running to be clear of the bombardments and combat. The lingering spiritual toll has been a cynical dismissal of purpose: the Europeans and especially the French ask if there is anything worth fighting for to justify loss of human life.

That Europe, especially France, Belgium and Britain, was shell-shocked by this war cannot be understated in order to understand the mindset behind how they have conducted their national defense and foreign policy since. This cynicism was the base on which appeasement was embraced over standing firm for principles, and its folly was soon exposed.

But Armistice wasn’t peace. It was more promise than delivery, more hope than reality, as fighting and battlefield dying continued after the famous 11th hour declaration of secession of hostilities.

 “There followed in early 1919 the Paris Peace Conference of victorious nations and the resulting Treaty of Versailles. Germany was stripped of territories and ordered to pay huge war reparations. Its military forces were restricted and it was forced to admit full guilt for the war. An international League of Nations was established to resolve future conflicts. The exultant Allied leaders went home, satisfied that they had achieved a great diplomatic triumph. But had they?
When the fighting stopped, not one Allied soldier on the Western front stood on one square foot of German territory. The four years of fighting on the Western Front had occurred solely in Belgium and France (Holland was neutral in the First World War). Germany had surrendered while her troops were still occupying foreign territory. To most Germans, this seemed incredible.

A nondescript German corporal, recovering from poison gas wounds, was enraged. Civilians back home had obviously betrayed the country. That corporal’s name was Adolf Hitler. More would be heard from him in coming years.” (2)

Recovering from his wounds on the other side of the border in France, a young American officer, one of a handful of survivors of a deadly engagement, and hating the man-eating trenches and the death they represented, took back a different lesson as he stood on the abandoned battlefields, and sternly surveyed the desolate scene. When he was asked why he was still surveying the French countryside as everyone was packing to leave, he replied, with an uncanny sense of unfinished business,  “The next war is going to be right here and I am going to be in it.”

General George Patton summed up the national character which formed him: “America loves a winner. America will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise a coward; Americans play to win.”

The cultures of these two wounded veterans of World War I, the War to End All Wars, met square-on at that great battlefield of Europe, two decades later.

 Hitler was in reach of being the most powerful emperor ever to have breathed the air of Europe, but led by clear-eyed men of purpose like Patton, derided by Hitler as “soft, weak, lazy and fat,” Americans surged across North Africa, poured ashore in Italy and charged through the countryside of the beaten and capitulated French, relieved the cornered and isolated British and shattered the seemingly unstoppable war machines of the socialist Hitler, the fascist Mussolini, then crushed them all and then turned their grim resolve to the imperialistic Tojo, who stood astride the battered and conquered nations of Asia, his juggernaut poised to overwhelm Australia.  

After Hitler demanded he needed Czechsolvakia and Austria, the Europeans  gave up  entire nations in exchange  for signed documents of peace,  and got war anyway.  Emboldened by that example, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor,  expecting the same response, that the United States would also sign for peace.    Americans didn’t need President Roosevelt to tell them it was war, they already knew it and they knew what had to be done.   Imperial Japan had made a mortal mistake, thinking Americans were just like Europeans, lacking in a vision of eternal truths of right and wrong, good and evil.  The sleeping tiger had been awakened.   One nation infused with  sense of greater purpose, that this was evil and men were called to fight it, freely left security,  headed knowingly into danger and halted the onslaught.

American soldiers, farm boys, cabbies, waiters, sons of carpenters and bankers, brick layers and doctors, were the ones who threw open the gates of the smoke-shrouded death camps, and beheld a vision of hell, then set their jaws and gritted their teeth and showed the world the proof of the cruelty and depravity of the fascist state, and marched the people through so they could not claim they “didn’t know.”

In this case, the pen was not mightier than the sword.  And when the pens finally came out, the American sword made sure the aggreements would be honored.

In contrast to the anguished sorrow of an empty loss and faith in signatures on a paper that didn’t translate on the battlefield, our Veterans Day observances for the sacrifices of our fighting men are grave and solemn, but still retain a sense of a greater purpose to life than simply surviving. Our memorials and remembrances retain a pride, placing the sacrifices of every fallen soldier and veteran who carried his wounds through his life into the framework of a greater and eternal purpose.

America transported her soldiers to foreign lands, the best we had – the prime of our young men – to stand beside our allies, upended a brutal stalemate and ended two wars. War is everything the pacifists proclaim, even worse as they have not seen with their own eyes what soldiers have seen, but it is no peace to capitulate to evil. That’s just surrender; a bended knee to evil is the path to desolation, despair and destruction.

Was it worth it in human costs for Americans to leave their homes and fight on foreign fields?

No one can image without a shudder of horror what Europe and the world would be like today had Hitler and his counterpart Tojo triumphed.  And heeding the mistake made in 1919 of leaving too soon, Americans in 1945 stayed to provide security, stability, food, shelter and helped a devastated Europe and Asia develop democratic governance, holding firm for decades until the last of the empires collapsed, the Soviet Union.  

Yes, it was worth it.  By the Word of God, not a soul who should be saved is lost. There is a purpose; good is worth fighting for.  Peace is a curious thing. It has to be fought for and protected.

“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died.

Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”

 - General George S. Patton, Jr

As we remember those who served before you, for all our men and women in uniform today who worked hard while people slept, who took on challenges and accepted discipline and risk, deployed far from our life of ease, thank you and God bless you for your service to our nation. 

*****

 1) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ww1/11-11-11.htm
2) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Armistice+left+unfinished/5684793/story.html#ixzz1dOVk1AQw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF5PBuPCd0A&feature=related

Inadequate Peace:
http://www.greatwar.nl/versailles/versail-summary.html  http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/treatyofversailles/p/overtofvers.htm  

http://www.military-quotes.com/Patton.htm

We have a serious problem in the Pima County Republican Party, and it consists largely of registered Republicans behaving like democrats. I use the word “democrats” with a small “d” intentionally, because I am not referring to card-carrying members of the Democratic Party (though that comparison would work well too) but instead to the ancient form and theory of government that is democracy. Democracy’s premise, as we all know, is that every citizen participate full-time in the administration of government, which itself depends upon the input of every citizen for the settlement of every issue.

Contrary to popular opinion, America is not a democracy. Hopefully, it never will be, because democracies don’t work. They never have, which is why Aristotle called democracy a corrupt form of government. America is, and was intentionally established to be, a republic, one made different from any republic that had previously existed by its unique combination of extension, mixed government, checks and balances, and separation of powers.

The two political parties that comprise our two party system today are named for the political philosophies they are supposed to most closely resemble. Republicans, in their policies, carriage, and character, are supposed to reflect the principles, values, and characteristics of republicanism. Democrats are likewise expected to reflect those of democracy. Ann Coulter, in her new book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, compares the two by their revolutionary roots. Republicans, she says, cherish and follow after the legacy of the American Revolution, while Democrats cherish and follow after the legacy of the French Revolution. The hallmarks of one: thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent, and responsible written argument; the hallmarks of the other: impassioned, emotional, lawless, and irresponsible mob action. This is a truth that history readily supports. It is a truth that is cause for alarm today in the Pima GOP. Too many Pima Republicans have donned their “I am the Mob” t-shirts and begun to take the statement seriously.

Abraham Lincoln, the illustrious father of the Republican Party and timeless champion of freedom, gave a speech in 1838 to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield that each of us needs read today and reread tomorrow and the next day. He called it “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In that address Lincoln lamented the rising wave of mob behavior that was sweeping the country at the time, and he decried the effects of lawlessness and unbridled passion on the political institutions of our nation. He described mobs that gave too much weight to their own opinions and prejudices, who were rising up to lynch, burn, and attack whomever they felt had done wrong. He described mobs that, by abandoning reason and caution to the hateful, violent winds undermined the very law, government, and society they professed to protect.

He warned that three terrible things would occur if such behavior persisted: that innocents would be consumed by the fires built for the guilty, that all popular attachment to or regard for the government would wash away with the tide, and that good people would be alienated from the political institutions that needed their blood, sweat, and tears.

This is what we are coming to in the Pima Republican Party. A mob has sprung up among us, one that glorifies, exalts, and rallies around the principles of democracy and the legacy of the French Revolution: motivated by resentment and bitterness, throwing off reason and respect, figuratively hunting the head of their own elected leader out of some cannablisitic desire to dismantle their Republican Party and run it like an absurd democracy.

Abraham Lincoln cried out against mob rule. He vehemently denounced the lynching and burning and killing, and he would be as much against what is happening in this county today as he was against that. The secret meetings, furtive petitions, back-stabbing, and discreet betrayals, all are persistent, divisive actions based on a rejection of the fundamental characteristic of republicanism: representation. Put away the checks and balances, separation of powers, mixed government, extension, etc. and republicanism is no different from democracy. Its difference depends, fundamentally, on the principle of REPRESENTATION. This value is the very heart and soul of our history, our legacy, and our enduring form of government. As Republicans, it is essential to what we should hold dear. As lovers of the Constitution and heirs to its political ideology, it should be the solid cornerstone of our platforms and our goals.

This mob has rejected that very principle. They rage against being represented at all. In doing so they have rejected republicanism. Perhaps they should hand in their resignations today. In the meantime, they are tearing this Party apart. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselved be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide,” Lincoln said. The head-hunters amongst us are currently authoring our Party’s suicide. They are consuming innocents in their fire, disgracing the name of Republicanism, and driving away the individuals we need most.

They should think long and hard on the words of him who knew best the danger of the house divided:

“When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake.”

I don’t mind that some of these defectors call me and the others who share my convictions “wanna-be revolutionaries.” I can be quite proud of that title, as long as they understand that I am taking my cues from the American Revolution, and not the French one.

Priscilla Racke

“wanna-be revolutionary” and proud Brian Miller supporter

“Unrestrained freedom is anarchy. Restrained only by force and arms, is despotism; self-restrained is Republicanism. Wherever there is wanting the intelligence and virtue requisite for the latter, Republicanism expires.” – Edmund Fairfield, July 4th, 1853

I know we like to think of the GOP as the party of law and order.

However, we are also the party of Barry Goldwater and, especially in Arizona, we have also to maintain the western spirit of republicanism – individualism and opposition to government growth.

At the 1964 RNC national convention, Barry Goldwater delivered the speech “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice“.

We must maintain the Rebel spirit, the Spirit of 1776, rebellion against government, such as our forefathers did who slept on the frozen ground at Valley Forge and then went off to fight the greatest military force of all time.

Yes, we are the party of law and order, but only supporting those laws that minimize government, lower taxes, lower spending and prevent crime against other people where there is an aggrieved party.

The wussie Republicans of today say that speeding 11 mph over the limit and getting a photo radar ticket is ok, because we are the party of law and order.  Phooey on them.  If there were an aggrieved party other than the State, then ok.  If the driving were reckless and endangering others, I’d agree.  But, for example, speeding alone is no reason to bring down the hammer of the State onto otherwise law abiding citizens.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.  Remember that or go join your Tory bretheren and let posterity remember that you were not my countryman.

Here’s a litty ditty posted at BACKWOODS HOME MAGAZINE.  “Become a FREEDOM OUTLAW”!  YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHAW.  Let Arizona return to its rabid individualistic roots upon which it was founded!

“Freedom Outlaw.” The term came up here a few days ago. It’ll arise again and again on this blog.

If you’ve been hanging out in my vicinity for a few years, you probably know what I mean by it. If not, you might be puzzled or even offended by the notion that people who believe in freedom are (or should be) criminals. Thought I’d stop this morning and define some terms.

So this is mostly for people who haven’t heard it all before.

A Freedom Outlaw is (loosely) somebody who cares so much about freedom that he or she will go after it regardless of any laws or regulations blocking the way. Will go after it personally. Not petition for it. Not write letters for it. Not vote for it. But GO for it.

Also, a Freedom Outlaw has panache. Think Robin Hood. Think V. Think (not to be self-promotional here, but …) of the swashbuckling fellow on the cover of this book.

Does a Freedom Outlaw really have to be a criminal? Well … yes and no. If the thought of being a criminal offends you, I can only say, “Get over it.” As Kent McManigal states so well, every, single one of us is already a criminal. We violate obscure laws from the time we open our eyes in the morning till the moment we fall exhausted into bed. Three Felonies a Day according to Harvey Silverglate. And the more innocent we are in our hearts when we commit those “crimes,” the riper we are for the plucking by corrupt prosecutors and regulators.

Heck, we probably violate laws, federal or state, even as we snooze. Maybe our PJs flout fireproofing regulations. Perhaps our snoring is regulated somewhere as noise pollution. Maybe our dreams are filled with acts of subversion.

But the simple fact is that we are already criminals, each and every one of us, even if we do our utmost to be “law-abiding citizens.”

There are simply too many laws to abide.

So we might as well embrace and enjoy what we are.

<more>

clip about John McCain opposing efforts to bring home POWs taken from the film Missing, Presumed Dead: The  Search for America’s POWs

There is a longstanding story of POWs in Viet Nam, even ones who have returned home and are living today in the US, who were betrayed and forgotten.  

In a recent article written by Ron Unz, former publisher and owner of American Conservative monthly magazine:

Vietnamese refused to return their American POWs unless the U.S. government agreed to pay reparations. Nixon signed a document promising to do exactly that, but the Vietnamese, being cautious, kept many of the POWs back until the money was delivered. Then Congress refused to authorize the funds because “America doesn’t lose wars.” Nixon and later U.S. leaders never acknowledged the fate of these captives lest the American people become outraged. And as the years and decades went by, and various schemes to ransom or rescue the POWs were considered and rejected, their continued existence became a major liability to numerous powerful political figures, whose reputations would have been destroyed if any of the prisoners ever returned and told his story to the American people. So none of them ever came home.

John McCain is one of those politicians whose reputations would have been destroyed by the late return of POWs from Viet Nam after, as Congressman and Senator from Arizona, he opposed efforts to work with veterans groups and the Vietnamese to bring home US vets.

Additional testimony regarding John McCain’s actions detrimental to the POW/MIA movement and efforts to bring vets home, along with testimony of witnesses that John McCain produced 22 (some say 32) propaganda films on behalf of the North Vietnamese and against US interests (since sealed and classified by the federal government), can be found in a documentary entitled:

Missing, Presumed Dead: The Search for America’s POWs

If you have some time, read “Was Rambo Right?”, by Ron Unz and get a hold of a copy of Missing, Presumed Dead: The Search for America’s POWs.

Thomas Jefferson:
“On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– (The Writings of Jefferson” 15:449)

“Towards the preservation of your government … it is requisite … that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.
One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”
— George Washington (1796)

“I regard it (the Constitution) as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benign Providence; it almost appears a “Divine interposition in our behalf … the hand that destroys our Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.”

– (The Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 1, p. 404)

Here’s a quote from the latest issue of Newsweek in which Grant Woods suggests driving a stake through the heart of JD Hayworth.

“The idea that a man like John McCain has to deal with a Bozo like J.?D. Hayworth is really offensive,” says former state attorney general Grant Woods. “To have just a caricature of the opportunistic, bombastic politician throwing grenades at him at this stage of his career is really a sad commentary. Someone needs to drive a wooden stake through this guy’s heart.”

Incidentally, I did a word search of the Newsweek article and found no reference to Grant Woods joking about the comment – contrary to how the Phoenix New Times reported on their blog – “Woods joked…”

And yes, maybe political newcomers may see this as one paid consultant beating on another paid consultant but the fact of the matter is that this battle between cultural conservatives and RINOs has been going on a long time here in Arizona and it will always be deep, personal and a battle for the soul of the party.

Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.

While we’re on the subject of needless celebrations maybe it’s time we resurrect one of the ancient celebrations and replace Black History Month with it. The Romans had some exciting ones to pick from and none of them have yet been ruined by Liberals. We could have it in February and best of all, all Americans could participate—not just the preferred few.

Article from the Wall Street Journal Forum by Eddie Sessions: 

“I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself.

There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself is “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author. His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S.. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital.

How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the anti-thesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole.

And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984′s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters. Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe , having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions. Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party.

It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues. Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.”

The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot. He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America .. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration, or he naively seeks to wish away the truth. Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life. When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review.

He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden. We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?”

The question then is, who is the “voice” behind the dummy?  Who’s lap is he sitting on?  I can only refer to the Bible on that count, “… by their fruits you shall know them.”

According to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation will use the occasion to “punch the arrogance” – a revolutionary term for Western powers – “in a way that will leave them stunned”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8507085.stm

Arizona Democrat Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, brow furrowed over “Senior issues” so she needs “citizen input” to help her craft legislation but reassuring that  her stated priority focus is “ to create jobs”, while with her other hand blithely supporting an evisceration of the private U.S. Health care sector and higher taxes, both of which will measurably harm our Senior’s quality of life, and cripple private enterprise which has always been the largest creator in the aggregate of jobs in the nation, replied to a constituent’s question regarding this Iranian threat during Tuesday’s telephone Town Hall with a vague, she’s concerned, but she hasn’t “been very impressed with ‘body scanners’.”

There has been no discernable comment from former Arizona governor now Homeland Security Democrat Janet Napolitano either, which isn’t surprising given her agency failed abysmally to intercept the Christmas bomber, but given that, one would expect more sensitivity from her to informing the public regarding “Man-Made Disaster Posturing with Attitude.”

Iran has been breathing not veiled, but public threats of acting on hostile intentions for weeks. But where is the rhetoric of a President and a Congress that has the authority to declare war, whose sworn duty, whose number ONE responsibility to the American People is national defense? Ann Kirkpatrick commented after a question that she supports the military, BUT she expects the military has to accept taking cuts and doing more with less, just like everyone else; a position solidly in line with the current Administration.

How is this position tenable when the Revolutionary Iranian Regime has declared for over two decades that America is their enemy and is blatantly proceeding with a nuclear weapons program? It’s not hard to believe; the regime is murdering and oppressing brutally its own citizens to keep itself in power, and has been long identified as the source of funding and a significant safe haven for terrorists over the years.

What does Iran have in mind? That is the job of our intelligence services. Do we know? Do we not know? Does the Democratic Party know? Kirkpatrick SHOULD be in the know as a member of the House Majority Party and given the committees she sits on, but an “ah-ah-ah ‘body scanners’ ” was not a credible informed answer to a serious Intel question, but perhaps her priorities are biased to domestic issues while she ignores the critical structural requirement which makes all national domestic activity possible: SECURITY from Foreign aggression.

It might not be prudent for the public to know what our intelligence knows – in order to thwart an attack on American interests anywhere in the world. The US Navy has been reported to have been dispatching ships to the region. With Iran part of the Axis of Evil – it could be in cahoots with the North Koreans to destabilize at the DMZ, it could be a strike against newly established Iraqi democratically elected Iraq; it could be an invading Iranian surge in Afghanistan, which shares a border with Iran. It could be collusion in concert with China to seize Democratic Taiwan, one of simultaneous aggressive moves to confound the United States and her allies. It could be a series of bombs, like the coordinated attacks on the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It could be attacks on civilians on commercial jets, on trains, in crowded markets, streets. It could be an assault and slaughter of a school held hostage as in Beslan or the door-to-door systematic slaughter in a barricaded neighborhood in Saudi Arabia, or city-wide attacks as in Mumbai a year ago. It could be a cyber attack that takes out a power grid, a banking system. It could be a nuclear detonation, a warhead launched to massacre.

It COULD be talk. But WHERE is the stern and unyielding counter rhetoric of the President of the United States, the Commander–In-Chief warning the radical Iranian Regime if they try ANYTHING, they will face the full wrath, the full-bore firepower of the United States military?

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush understood their duty in the face of threats and acts of war and spoke up hard and fast to DISCOURAGE tyrants and despots, to make them think twice, and when the despots who believed that America was too soft to care to defend itself and went ahead with acting on their threats, they were treated to a complete shock and awe of American military landing hard on their heads, making them rue during the few days they had left that they’d listened to the wrong advice. Saddam Hussein called in the US Ambassador prior to his invasion of Kuwait, to test the waters, to stir around the idea that Kuwait was really a wayward province of Iraq and should be restored to the fold. The US Ambassador didn’t react; her passive note-taking and mild response was interpreted by Saddam and his advisors to be a tacit statement that America would not intervene, so he implemented his invasion of the sovereign nation next door.

Fortunately for the Kuwaitis, the US Ambassador wasn’t representative of the American Administration which immediately and correctly translated Saddam’s diplomatic probing as an intention of engaging in open warfare to expand Saddam’s control over the region after his first failure at his invasion of Iran. Saddam was looking for American acquiescence before he made his decision. Had he received a strong reaction when he was fishing for one, he would have thought twice about invading Kuwait, and would have demurred for a more opportune time or abandoned his plans for regional dominance. He was after all, most obsessively concerned about his personal survival and personal comforts.

Where is the quick response of Theodore Roosevelt, who understood if even one American hostage was not defended, the world would perceive an easy target of any American abroad – “Pericardis alive or Rasuli DEAD!” or the angry promise of President Madison’s Commander, Stephen Decatur to the Muslim hostage-slave warfare racketeering of the North Barbary Coast despots, “If you wish to demand powder as tribute, then be prepared to receive ball with it!”

That Iran feels bold enough to start advertizing it is ready to strike against the West, is a plain sign that Iran is not worried about a credible American response. They perceive weakness and indecision, a lack of policy and understanding of the stakes. The Muslim kings of North Africa’s Mediterranean Coast, even after the lesson of American Super Frigates bringing war to their ports in 1801, judged a decade and a half later that America was weak after fighting the British folly of their three-pronged attack that made the War of 1812, and too feeble and war-weary to counter a renewed war of hostage and piracy against American merchant ships, so they snatched up another set of American merchant ships, needing “more American slaves.” The American Navy, immediately dispatched by Madison arrived, not war –weary, but “battle-hardened” and ready to finish the threat once and for all, breaking 300 years of institutionalized piracy and slavery that was the hallmark of the Barbary Coast.
The radical Iranians detected this weakness with Carter and overran the United States Embassy in Tehran, and held the Embassy staff hostage, by all international accords, an Act of War. Carter did not heed the experience and the successful actions of the presidents Jefferson, Madison and Theodore Roosevelt before him, and by that squandered American prestige and strength by negotiating as if it was a bank hold-up and a police matter, not a job for the US military. Carter’s inability to deal with the Iranian Revolutionaries, one of whom is now the current president of Iran, Mamoud Ahmedinejad, cost him re-election, and is considered by terrorist experts to be the catalyst for emboldening Radical Islamofascism.

Yet, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, speaking for the Obama Administration, talks of “dialogue” and “a new relationship.” Iran, awash in oil, is a large, populous and oil-rich nation in the region, quite secure from invasion, just needs nuclear weapons – and has helpfully publicized with arrogant pride that the nukes are not for defensive matters, but offensive strikes, as it shoots, beats and imprisons its citizens – young men and women both who defiantly wave American Revolutionary banners in the faces of their reviled oppressors, “LIVE FREE OR DIE.” What has this administration done to support these brave Iranians, who have been inspired by our own Founding Fathers, whose massive street protests against the stolen election denied cover to the Obama Administration’s intention to meet face to face with the terrorist, hostage-taking Ahmedinejad?

But there is no rhetoric from our government to inform or lead The American People. There is no warning of reprisal. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What is it worth in human life and to the stability of this nation to have forced a hostile regime to back down, to reconsider? It is priceless. One cannot recover a single man, woman or child who has been slaughtered. Being first to the scene for clean-up is all one can do for ACCIDENTS, but it is a losing position for SELF-DEFENSE.

Where are our elected representatives, our senators and our President, the Commander-In-Chief, on this open threat to our national security, and which tests the credibility of our international relations, our national pride and stature which has over two hundred years of keeping American citizens safer than any other citizen in the world, declared for February 11, 2010?

Every politician from liberal democrat to conservative republican likes to wrap themselves in the flag and the constitution.  Do they really support it?

Article One, Section Eight of the constitution states: “Congress shall have power to … declare War”.  It does not state that the President shall have power to declare war.  Nor does it state that the Congress shall have the power to delegate its power to declare war to the President.

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  It does not state that the federal government has powers not expressly granted to it in the Constitution.  It does not state that the Congress or President can take powers not expressly granted to it if no one objects.

The Constitution plainly and clearly states what it means.  It was written at grammar school level English at the time it was written.

While all of us accord respect and gratitude to the military, especially veterans, for their service, anyone who has served recently, especially if they have fathers or grandfathers who have served, know that today’s military is not the same military it was 20 or 40 years ago.

Today’s military is a political force.  It is a globalist force.  It has been stalinized by the executive branch through purging experienced military leaders, replacing them with political lackeys at the Pentagon.

It’s primary purpose is no longer defense of the constitution or the constitution of this nation, in other words its people, but is used as an extension of foreign and domestic policy.  Do you believe that is constitutional in the spirit and intent of what the founding fathers would consider “constitutional”?

“…what all of us need to realize is, World War II was the last constitutionally fought war in which America has been engaged. The United Nations was created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our military forces have increasingly become the “peacekeeping” arm of that evil institution.”

“Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in South Korea, South Vietnam (including Laos and Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan–all for the benefit of the United Nations.”

“Ever since the United Nations was created, its interests have dominated the usage of US forces. In fact, our military today is quickly morphing into the tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World Order. To those with eyes to see, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not even being hidden anymore. Have you seen that new US Navy television commercial? It boldly proclaims, “The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For Good.”"

“This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order has changed (and is changing) our US military right before our eyes. It has taken the greatest and proudest independent fighting force in the world–one created to defend the people and property of the United States–and turned it into a global military policeman for evil Machiavellians at the UN.”

The above was written by the Constitution Party’s last candidate for president.  To dismiss it out of hand due to its source would be foolhardy, if indeed what is stated is factually accurate.

Sometimes an outsider’s perspective is a fresh reminder if one has deviated of one’s intended path.

Not Your Father’s Army
by Chuck Baldwin
February 5, 2010
Click here to read the rest of the article.

“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,”  John McCain

…better known as the famous McCain straight-talk line, “I was for it before I was against it and, I’ll be for it again once I’m re-elected.”

A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE WITH JOHN MCCAIN…

MIKE WALLACE: … let me ask you for some straight talk. Do you think that Senator Obama is a socialist?

MCCAIN: I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth. He said it himself, “We need to spread the wealth around.”

MIKE WALLACE: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism?

MCCAIN: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank.

… or how about this delightful gem;

LARRY KING: Senator, there was a part of the speech — I wonder if you enjoyed it — when he [the President] criticized the Supreme Court for overturning portions of McCain/Feingold, your treasured legislation. How did you react to that?

MCCAIN: Well, obviously, I agreed with the president.

… and here’s an excerpt from the outrageous ad’s he’s running in Arizona;

[Disconbobulated vaguely soothing and threatening voice:] Perhaps no battle in our lifetime is more vital than the one John McCain fights now: a battle to save America… John McCain leads the charge to slash government spending, bloated bureaucracies, and ridiculously unaffordable ideas like government-run health care.

[Senator McCain:] “President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America. I stand in his way everyday. If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it. I’ll keep fighting for … Arizona as long as I’m in the Senate.”

Here’s a fun challenge, dig into the past and lets find all those little McCainisms proving how often he changes his political stripes and how he’s NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

RETIRE MCCAIN 2010