Greater Bluffton Republican Club

A blog for Blufftonians and their neighbors to post opinions, meetings, events, worthy articles, occasional jokes, and in general be the place to go to know what's going on in our club as well as the Sun City, Hilton Head, and Beaufort County Republican Clubs.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Photo by Leo Cummins

Michael Miller speaking to the Greater Bluffton Republican Club, Monday, July 11 at the waterfront home of Bill and Nancy Roe in Bluffton. Mike shared his insights on national politics, gleaned from his experience in Washington and on statewide campaigns in Ohio. Also discussed was the need to build the county party to encourage participation by younger and newer county residents. Club members were also invited to read and comment on Mike's web page compilation of news and opinion: Mike's America.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Durbin slanders his own country

Another great column by Mark Steyn. Here are a few excerpts:

Durbin slanders his own country: "Throughout the last campaign season, senior Democrats had a standard line in their speeches, usually delivered with righteous anger, about how 'nobody has a right to question my patriotism!' Given that nobody was questioning their patriotism, it seemed an odd thing to harp on about. But, aware of their touchiness on the subject, I hasten to add that in what follows I am not questioning Dick Durbin's patriotism, at least not for the first couple of paragraphs. Instead, I'll begin by questioning his sanity.
...

Had Durbin said, "Why, these atrocities are so terrible you would almost believe it was an account of the activities of my distinguished colleague Robert C. Byrd's fellow Klansmen," that would have been a little closer to the ballpark but still way out.
...

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

"America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world's good will for America at alarming rates."

So, until Guantanamo, America was "viewed as a leader in human rights"? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America's "war for oil." Not in 2002, when the "human rights" lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler's plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. "anti-racism" conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to "apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity." If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world's anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week

Ask Me If I Care

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Patton
To: The Duff Family
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re your commentary
Thanks for your reply. It has taken me two weeks to do it, but I have read every one of the nearly one thousand e-mail messages I received about these two columns ("Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran" and "Jimmy Crack Corn, Part Two: Readers Respond").

Because of this overwhelming response (99 percent of it positive), I am unable to answer each of you personally. Please forgive this stock reply.

Many of you mentioned that you would like to see my work in your local paper. I am currently published in papers all over the country, but it is hit and miss. I would encourage each of you to contact the editor of your local paper and urge him/her to carry my columns each week. Feel free to forward these two columns and my e-mail address to them.

Also, if you feel particularly passionate about it, go to www.Creators.com and contact them about syndicating my work so that every paper in the country has the opportunity to carry me.

I have attached the two columns, as well as my latest piece, for those of you who would like to forward them to others. Meanwhile, to those who read them on www.GOPUSA.com or elsewhere on the web, if you are not already on my personal e-mail list and would like to be, please let me know.

Thanks again,

Doug Patton
____________________________________________

Ask Me if I Care About ‘Mishandling’ of Koran
By Doug Patton
June 6, 2005

First, Newsweek pulled a Dan Rather on us, running a fabricated story just because they wanted it to be true. They told the world that an American guard at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center had ripped pages from a prisoner’s Koran and flushed it down a toilet. As a result, innocent people died when practitioners of Islam rioted in protest in Afghanistan.

Oops, said Newsweek, it seems we can’t back up our story. Oh well, it’s probably true; we just can’t prove it. (Isn’t it convenient for Newsweek that the media now have “Deep Throat” to talk about so they can revel in their glory days and divert our attention from their criminal negligence.)

The lie heard round the world about the flushed Koran has caused convulsions in the Bush Administration and forced the Pentagon to launch an investigation of unfounded allegations contained in an unsubstantiated story. The results of said investigation are now in, and it seems there are at least five incidents of “mishandling” of the Koran at Gitmo.

Well, guess what? I DON’T CARE!

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning death that day, or didn’t they?

And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was “desecrated” when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don’t. I don’t care at all.

I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I’ll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I’ll care when the cowardly so-called “insurgents” in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I’ll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

I’ll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek’s lies did a few weeks ago.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled,” you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don’t care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled “Koran” and other times “Quran.” Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and — you guessed it — I don’t care!
________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor for conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations at the federal, state and local levels. His weekly column can be read in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including www.GOPUSA.com. Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.
________________________________________________________

Jimmy Crack Corn, Part Two: Readers Respond
By Doug Patton
June 13, 2005

In four years of writing a weekly column, I have never been buried in such an avalanche of e-mail thanking me for an opinion.

Judging from the hundreds of responses (99.99 percent of them supportive of my position), “Ask Me if I Care About ‘Mishandling’ of Koran” touched a nerve like nothing I have ever written. They ran the gamut from the crude to the sad to the angry. And while I certainly would have guessed there was a lot of “I don’t care” sentiment out there, I could never have anticipated the sheer number of responses. Without revealing anyone’s identity, I would like to share some of them.

The most common theme running through the letters was that I had articulated exactly what they were thinking and feeling. “I don’t care” became almost a rallying cry.

A woman identifying herself simply as Leona wrote: “If I could give you a standing ovation, I would! Instead, I sent it to every stinking liberal I know that says we have no business being in Iraq and we are mistreating the Iraqi prisoners...To that I say: GIVE ME A BREAK! THIS IS WAR NOT A TEA PARTY!”

A man named Ron wrote: “I wish this e-mail to travel world wide. I absolutely, unequivocally cannot say strong enough these same thoughts! THANK YOU!”

A few well-intentioned (but obviously deluded) individuals wrote that I would have their vote if I ran for president (proving once and for all the incredible dearth of leaders).

A woman describing herself as a “retired military wife” wrote, “Bless you for saying all the things that we Americans would love to shout to the world! Just think of the millions you have reached. I am so grateful.”

Vietnam Veterans knew the frustration of being disrespected after laying their lives on the line. One who served in that thankless war wrote: “You said the same thing I’ve been saying for sometime now. You are right; I don’t care! Keep up the good work.” He signed it simply, “A retired Marine & Viet Nam Vet.”

It was especially humbling to receive praise from members of the Greatest Generation. Those who fought in World War II know what it takes to win a war. They remember because they know that losing is an unacceptable option. Some of these seniors were service men themselves during WWII. One identified himself as “French by birth, Canadian by choice,” and signed his letter “Ex-French bomber pilot, trained by the U.S. Air Corps, 1944-45.” He simply wrote, “I remember!”

Another said, “Doug, just to let you know that there are untold numbers of us who feel just as you do, only we can't say it as eloquently. Thanks from all us ‘old vets.’”

Another woman wrote: “I am 85 so I probably won’t see what is ultimately happening to this country, but I fear for my grown son and daughters and their children and my great grandchildren. You carry the name of a man deeply admired during the war…He could very well have uttered the same words.”

I was honored by the many letters from those currently serving in uniform all around the world. One particularly poignant letter came from a serviceman who has seen action in Iraq. Lamenting the loss of life on 9/11, he wrote: “My job is to keep America and her people safe, and I will not fail in that again. Every morning when I rise out of my bed the Towers fall again to remind me of the consequences if I should.”

Men, women, old, young, every nationality, service men and women, veterans of America’s last four wars, from every profession and walk of life, and from every corner of the earth, the letters came.

A handful of America-hating misfits called me names and spouted hateful rhetoric. Guess what. I don’t care.
________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor for conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations at the federal, state and local levels. His weekly column can be read in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including www.GOPUSA.com. Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.
________________________________________________________

The Real Enemies of America
By Doug Patton
June 20, 2005
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
- John F. Kennedy
Contrast that statement, made 44 years ago during JFK’s inaugural address, with the whining, anti-American claptrap coming from the leaders of the former president’s party today.
Indeed, based on his hawkish defense of America against communism during his 1,000-day tenure, the nation’s 35th president would be ashamed if he could hear the likes of Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), DNC Chair Howard Dean and JFK’s own brother, Ted, as they spew their disrespect for the nation’s brave men in uniform and give aid and comfort to our sworn enemies.
Reid called President Bush a “loser.” Ted Kennedy has said that Saddam’s death camp at Abu Ghraib was “open under new management, American management.” And Howard Dean has made so many stupid, outrageous comments since taking the helm of the rudderless Democratic Party, it is hard to know where to start.
Last week, it was Durbin’s turn. As the second ranking Democrat in the United States Senate, the senior senator from Illinois told the world (including our enemies, foreign and domestic) that making detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention center uncomfortable was tantamount to the treatment administered to prisoners by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Let us talk for a moment about that analogy.
In his remarks, Durbin read a list of some of the interrogation tactics used on terrorists caught trying to kill our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan. These tactics included turning the air conditioning up and down to create extremes of temperature, chaining the prisoners to the floor in a fetal position and blaring loud rap music at them. While the latter may border on torture to those who appreciate real music, the idea that such mild procedures would have been used in the Nazi death camps, the Soviet gulags or the killing fields of Cambodia is ridiculous.
Sen. Durbin should ask his senate colleague, John McCain, if his POW cell in North Vietnam had air conditioning. Chained to the floor? Please. McCain can’t lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair because they were broken so many times by his captors. Loud rap music? What horrible treatment. I’m surprised they haven’t all cracked under the pressure and told us everything we want to know.
Here is what McCain had to say to Tim Russert on Sunday’s Meet the Press: “Dick Durbin should be required to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's ‘Gulag Archipelago’ and I think that he may have a better understanding that there’s no comparison whatsoever. And it does a great disservice to the majority of men and women who are serving in Guantanamo who are doing the job that they’re told to do and they’re doing it in a humane fashion. To tar the American servicemen and women with a brush that applies to the gulag or the killing fields is a great disservice to the men and women in the military who are serving honorably down there.”
The terrorists in Gitmo are being treated far better than they have a right to be treated. Their culturally prepared food (untouched by “infidel” hands) is superior to anything our own soldiers are eating in the field. Read the comments of a worried wife describing the hardships her husband is experiencing without complaint in Iraq:
“He served over nine months in desolate areas of Iraq where the rats and spiders had more favorable living conditions. He patrolled the camp in 160-degree heat in “full battle rattle” and slept at night in a tent with twenty men and one box fan. Their latrines consisted of a bucket and what he described as ‘sandpaper.’ In the middle of the night, he and his buddies would be startled awake by the sound of distant and not-so-distant machine gunfire. We scrape by on military pay, but I measure our wealth by his dedication to his values, his country and his family. I guess that makes us one of the richest families in the world.”
Those are values the enemies of America like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin will never understand.
_______________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist and who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor for conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations at the federal, state and local levels. His weekly column can be read in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including www.GOPUSA.com. Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.
________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: The Duff Family
To: dpatton@neonramp.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:47 PM
Subject: Re your commentary
Sir:
I agree with every politically incorrect word. Thank you for such a well written piece.
Regards,
Dawn G. Duff

Bluffton, South Carolina

From member Arthur Segal

This interesting information from member Art Segal. Does anyone remember hearing about this??
GOD BLESS THE REPUBLICAN. WHO CLAIMS THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING THE RIGHT THING? ITS JUST THAT THE MEDIA DOESN'T REPORT THE GOOD WE DO, NOR THE BAD THEY DO! -Art
Finally Honored-- Bingham (the real Indiana Jones??)

Roosevelt administration and the Jews during WWII
Just a little more evidence of the dastardly behavior of the Democratic Roosevelt administration toward the Jews during WWII -----
A few months ago, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, under the direction of President G.W. Bush, gave a posthumous award for "constructive dissent" to Hiram (or Harry) Bingham,IV. For over fifty years, the State Department resisted any attempt to honor Bingham.
For them he was an insubordinate member of the US diplomatic service, a dangerous maverick who was eventually demoted. Now, after his death, he has been officially recognized as a hero.
Bingham came from an illustrious family. His father (on whom the fictional character Indiana Jones was based) was the archeologist who unearthed the Inca City of Machu Picchu, Peru in 1911. Harry entered the US diplomatic service and, in 1939, was posted to Marseilles, France as American Vice-consul.
The USA was then neutral and, not wishing to annoy Marshal Petain's puppet Vichy regime, President Roosevelt's government ordered its representatives in Marseilles not to grant visas to any Jews. Bingham found this policy immoral and, risking his career, did all in his power to undermine it.
In defiance of his bosses in Washington, he granted over 2,500 USA visas to Jewish and other refugees, including the artists Marc Chagall and Max Ernst and the family of the writer Thomas Mann.
He also sheltered Jews in his Marseilles home, and obtained forged identity papers to help Jews in their dangerous journeys across Europe. He worked with the French underground to smuggle Jews out of France into Franco's Spain or across the Mediterranean and even contributed to their expenses out of his own pocket.
In 1941, Washington lost patience with him. He was sent to Argentina, where later, he continued to annoy his superiors by reporting on the movements of Nazi war criminals.
Eventually, he was forced out of the American diplomatic service completely. Bingham died almost penniless in 1988.
Little was known of his extraordinary activities until his son found some letters in his belongings after his death.
He has now been honored by many groups and organizations including the United Nations and the State of Israel.
Our individual duty is to honor the memory of this brave, righteous and honorable man who, during his lifetime, was never recognized for the moral and courageous man he was.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

"9/11 Controlled Demolition Destroyed WTC"

UPI Hears... - (United Press International): "Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. "

Hey, um... Buddy.... did you see the video on CNN? Maybe you forgot because the Liberal Media made it not-cool to show the footage. The thing is... I remember the plane hitting the second tower because I was watching CNN. You have just single-handedly made yourself a laughing stock. I hope for these comments no one ever gives credence to anything you say ever again.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

From the O'Brians

We are in agreement with the writer. Only a united USA will win this war, not one where the Bush-haters will do or say anything to regain power despite the consequences. -- O'Briens

Comments, Please!

Pay Attention, You are Involved.......
The following was written by someone unknown to me.
Whoever forwarded it,
cut out the sender's (author's) name -- unfortunate
for not getting credit
for the insights.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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! ).



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's 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:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. 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.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only
for ourselves, but our
children, our grandchildren, our country and the
world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or
liberal and that includes
the Politicians and media of our country and the free
world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED
to read it. Our
"leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but
it is obvious to
anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must
UNITE!

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Doing the People's Business? Are We Happy Now?

Filibuster Alive and Well in U.S. Senate
Senate Democrats Filibuster Bolton Nomination

Even Americans with short attention spans or little interest in politics will recall the backslapping and self-congratulatory statements from the "gang of 14" Senators who brokered a deal earlier this week on President Bush's judicial nominations.

You may have seen the words of our own Senator Graham of South Carolina who had this to say about the deal:


"The American people won tonight. The Senate is back in business....With better communication and a spirit of putting the country ahead of ourselves, I believe we can avoid future filibusters. We are a nation at war which desperately needs a functioning Senate. Our men and women in harms way deserve Senators with personal courage and respect fo the institution. They are risking their lives to defend our freedom and those of us in the Senate should have the courage to put the welfare of the country ahead of our own personal political interests. That's the least we should do. "


Senator Graham has been very vocal about the need to keep the Senate working and the "deal" being key to preserving the working relationships necessary for the Senate to do the people's business.

Yet here we go again. After exhaustive hearings, repeated delays and an organized smear campaign against the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the United Nations, Democrats defeated a cloture vote that would have ended debate on Bolton and allowed a vote on his confirmation. Democrat Minority Leader Reid insisted that this was not a filibuster.

Yet, any succesful vote against cloture (which requires 60 votes to pass) means a filibuster is taking place. The definition here is even clearer than the "extraordinary circumstances" which the deal on judicial nominees would allow for filibusters.

So how did the "gang of 14", those who wanted the country to move ahead with important business vote on this filibuster? All the Republican members of that cabal voted for cloture and an end to the filibuster. Four of the Democrats voted to continue the filibuster, with Inouye not voting and only Landrieu and Pryor voting against the filibuster.

Another vote is scheduled for June 7. Once again, the people's business at this important time is being held hostage to a minority of Senate Democrats who offer the people little else but obstruction and delay.

In the office of Senator Graham, they've been getting so much heat from the voters of South Carolina, they had to bring in bags of ice and stack them like sand bags to deflect the ire of angy conservatives.

Monday, May 23, 2005

SC's "John McCain" Indeed!

Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters To be read: Senator Lindsey Graham Panders to the Liberal Democrats

I hate to see that our senior senator is a panderer. Liberals don't see this concession as you do, Senator Graham. You may see this as "working well with others." Harry Reid sees it this way:

"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message ... the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

You see, when you pander to the libdems, they see it as it is, them winning the fight. I will never vote for you again. If you run against a democrat, I won't vote for either of you. You have made me ashamed to call you my representative. Put the minority party in its place.

Saturday, May 21, 2005



In 1988, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the former Grand Wizard of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan, then Senate Majority Leader forced an end to a filibuster by the Minority. He ordered the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Republicans and physically place them on the Senate floor. Did this nuclear option destory the Senate? No...

Republicans have a choice: allow an increasingly shrill, bitter, highly partisan minority to overturn the will of the people as expressed in the past two elections or use the power of their majority to restore the Senate tradition of prohibiting filibusters on judicial nominees.

We voted for President Bush and expect him to nominate judges in line with OUR conservative views. We voted for senators and expect them to represent US by confirming those judges. Anyone who thinks that not implementing the constitutional power of the majority will encourage the Democrats to be nice to Republicans should we return to minority status (GOD FORBID...oops... sorry... I meant oh great earth mother) is fooling themselves.

Lindsey Graham: The "John McCain" of SC?

Fellow Graham Constituents:

I have sent the following letter to our Senator Graham. I am also sending it as an open letter to the Island Packet: letters@islandpacket.com and The State newspaper: stateeditor@thestate.com

I urge each of you who feels strongly about supporting President Bush and his constitutional authority to appoint judges to do the same.

From my personal exprience working for Senator Alphone D'Amato of New York, I would add that original, personal letters carry much greater weight than more numerous phone calls, email or form faxes.


The Honorable Lindsey Graham
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Graham:

You ran for office on a platform of supporting President Bush, including his constitutional authority to appoint judges to the federal bench.

I am alarmed by stories in the press suggesting you may be developing a compromise to appease Senate Democrats that would undermine the President and his constitutional power to appoint.

Even your opponent, Mr. Sanders, claimed to respect the President’s prerogative in this manner.

As you know, this fight over judicial nominations is merely a prelude to a confrontation over a nomination by President Bush to the Supreme Court. Appeasing Senate Democrats now will embolden them at that crucial time. Reports are that Democrats would promise not to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination unless there were “extraordinary circumstances.” With Senators like Boxer, Kennedy and Reid still struggling with the meaning of the word “is” you can imagine how easily they might redefine those circumstances.

Senator, I respect the work you are doing on behalf of our state. However, I would not want you to become known as the John McCain of South Carolina. I strongly urge you to fully support the President’s constitutional authority to nominate judges and perform your duty to advise and consent by voting FOR confirmation of the President’s appointees.

Michael Miller
Moss Creek

Ann Coulter: The Problem at Newsweak

AnnCoulter.com: "When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post � which owns Newsweek � decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate � and interesting! � than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge. "