Red State? Blues State? How about Purple State?

      We've all seen the red-state/blue-state electoral maps but do those images really portray how America really voted?  Check out this map which depicts the 2008 elections results at a county level:

 

This image really intrigues me.  As you can see there are pockets of people voting one way and it transitions into area's voting another way.  Most of the solid blue area's center around highly populated urban area's and the more red around the more rural area's. If you think about the contrasts between the parties this makes sense.  Liberal voters tend to congregate around area's that support their ideals and conservative voters towards areas that reflect theirs.  This goes right along with a normal human tendency of wanting to be around people that think like you do.  Pundits like to talk about transitioning the voter base towards their candidate but compare the image above with this one:

This is county level results for the 2004 election. Other than being a tad more red it's almost identical.  So where is this transitioning of the voter base? The two maps clearly indicate the same deep blue and red areas but its the change in the purple areas that reflect this transition.

     One thing I noticed was a blue area in southern Texas and central New Mexico.  These area's aren't normal liberal hangouts, they're not urban, their not tree-hugger hang-outs, so they had me wondering why these area's fell so heavily Democrat.  When I was discussing this phenomenon with my wife she reminded me that this area is mostly inhabited with lower income hispanics who normally vote for the Democrats.  This year the Republicans thought they would be able to swing this group thinking that their stance towards abortion would swing the Catholic vote.  As you can see they where not only wrong, the area actually increased for the Democrats.  This is just one example on how the Republicans misled themselves on what people though was important.  As with almost every election this is an indicator of why people vote one way versus the other, and the number one reason is their pocketbook.  If Republicans learned anything after this election I hope it's that we need to have a platform that attracts this type of voter.  Learn the lessons of Reagan and hold true to fiscal conservatism, this will do it every time.

      So what do these maps tell us?  First off you can tell that no matter who is the candidate and what is happening in the world you will not be able to swing the hard core Democrat or Republican.   Second, you must have a platform that appeals to the moderate but holds true to your own values.  Fiscal conservatism does this; it puts money into the workers pocket as well as protect corporations and small businesses; this in turn expands our economy thus generating more revenue. We are the most powerful nation in the world and it's about time we re-adopted the values that got us there. This is how we move the map more red, put the money back into the people pocket.  Not by giving it to them (such as with a stimulus package) but by real tangible prosperity that people can rely on.  In other words; don't give a hand-out, give a hand up. That's how you win elections.

More on redistribution

     Here's a very interesting article that tie's into what I discussed in my last post.  Please take a gander and let me know what you think.

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution 

     One question asked in the article is whether Senator Obama could say an oath stating he would "support and defend the constitution of the United States".  What a powerful question which indicates a profound doubt cast on this person.  What other person in the race could this be asked of?  Mr Obama's reputation and actions have brought about this question not political election-year wrangling.  The relationships or Mr Obama that I have outlined in previous posts, and several other that have come up recently, really makes this question a huge concern.  Can a "President Obama" take actions that would defend those very things that he's stated he disagrees with?  We're all wondering. Without knowing what that answer is, how can anyone truly support this person? 

Bailout Bill Voting Record

We all here about the votes in Washington but do you really know who voted which way? Recently we had a vote on the Wall Street bailout bill; something that I was against.  You might find it interesting who voted for or against the bill (I know I did).  Below are the results for Texas but you can check out the complete list at the Senate and House website.

Senate overall vote:  Yea - 74         Nay - 25          Not Voted - 1

• Cornyn (R-TX), Yea  
• Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

House overall vote: Yea - 263       Nay - 171

Yea:    Republican – 6         Democrat - 9

• Kevin Brady (R)
• Michael Conaway (R)
• Henry Cuellar (D)
• Chet Edwards (D)
• Charles Gonzalez (D)
• Kay Granger (R)
• Al Green (D)
• Ruben Hinojosa (D)
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D)
• Eddie Johnson (D)
• Solomon Ortiz (D)
• Silvestre Reyes (D)
• Pete Sessions (R)
• Lamar Smith (R)
• Mac Thornberry (R)

Nay:    Republican – 13       Democrat – 4

• Joe Barton (R)
• Michael Burgess (R)
• John Carter (R)
• John Culberson (R)
• Lloyd Doggett (D)
• Louie Gohmert (R)
• Gene Green (D)
• Ralph Hall (R)
• Jeb Hensarling (R)
• Sam Johnson (R)
• Nicholas Lampson (D)
• Kenny Marchant (R)
• Michael McCaul (R)
• Randy Neugebauer (R)
• Ron Paul (R)
• Ted Poe (R)
• Ciro Rodriguez (D)

Repeatedly in this blog I have urged you to be an educated voter.  While I do care which way you vote, when you vote I think you should be informed as to what your voting for.  Your vote is your decision but make that decision for the right reason.  Now in case you didn't figure it out I normally vote Republican but sometimes I vote outside of the party for various reasons.  This bill is one of those reasons.  I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who voted for this bill.  The bill pushes us closer to the precipice of socialism while I think we should be decreasing government involvement in our life.   We are a free market economy, we tout that philosophy around the world as the best way to be and punish those that disagree with us.  One of the prime tenets of a free market economy is that the value of the market is a direct reflection of the true value of it workers and businesses.  With us bailing out all these businesses we’re telling the world that our plan works “most” of the time but when it doesn't governments should step in.  Is this the message we want to tell the world?  Isn’t this what happens in a socialist society?  A strong government is an indicator of a strong economy but a government can’t create a strong economy, we do (the people).  I disagree with the doom and gloom forecasts that we were warned of.  I think we had some “chicken little” leaders who failed to correctly read the tea-leaves of markets.  Now we’re stuck with even more debt, even more government controls, and even more foreign influence in our country.  We should have let the market do what it was going to do and picked up the pieces when it was over.  That’s what we’ve done before and we were stronger because of it. 

If you agree with me then look at who voted for this socialist regulation and get them out of office.  Our country can recover but we need sound and strong leadership to do it, NOT the cowards who forced this crap onto us. 

Obama + Odinka + Ayers + Wright + ????

On my way home from work today I caught a snipit from Hannity regarding the ousting of writer Jerome Corsi from Kenya. Mr Corsi was in Kenya researching facts for his book "The Obama Nation" and apparently stepped on a few toes and was "asked" to leave. So what was the problem?  What was mr Corsi researching?  Well during the interview Mr Corsi went on to tell Sean that he was researching the connection between Senator Barack Obama and Mr Raila Odinga, the Prime Minister of Kenya.  Sounds legitimate enough right?  Well as usual once you peal the onion, things start getting a disconcerting.  Here is a Youtube video of a CNN broadcast regarding Mr Odinga:

The video explains fairly well that Mr Odinga reputation isn't the best in the world but that's the way things are in some parts of the world.  You have to ask yourself though, do we want that type of action here in the United States?  Check out Mr Odinga's own website: Don't worry to much with the rhetoric but look at what's written, doesn't this look eerily like Obama's campagn adds?  Change Change Change!  Mr Corsi told Sean Hannity that there where high level communications between Mr Odinga's 2007 campaign and Senator Obama's campaign.  I think it's probably so, the proof is all over both of their slogans and talking points.  So what else did Mr Obama learn from Odinga?  How about the aftermath when Odinga lost the election?  There's already talk of this possibility; after last nights debate James Carvel on CNN expressed this very concern.

Between the connection with ex-Weathermen Bill Ayers, wanna-be dictator Raila Odinga, and whacko preacher Jeremiah Wright; Barack Obama has some pretty radical friends. It makes me wonder who else is waiting in the wings.  What other radical group does Mr Obama have connections with?  In one of the debates Mr Obama told us that he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea with out preconditions.  Why would he do that when he knows these are self expressed enemy's of our country all of which seek the downfall of our country.  This country does not and should not conduct a foreign policy that legitimizes governments hellbent on our downfall.  But based on all these other associations Mr Obama has had in his life why wouldn't he also seek out the guidance of the rest of the worlds radicals. 

This is a track record that needs to be explored in Senator Obama.  His past actions and associations are indicators on how he will lead our country and with whom he will seek guidance on how to do it.  I've said this before and I will say it again.  Don't vote on passion, vote on facts.  Do the research on the person you want to vote for and let your conscience be your guide.

Is Posse Comitatus Dead?

I ran into a few articles today regarding an upcoming deployment of the 1st Infantry Division. Apparently their destination is the United States. This will be the first time since the Civil War that a military unit will be "deployed" within the U.S. borders with a mission other than training. Is this a conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? I'm sure not the person to say one way or another; that will be left up to the smart folks in the Justice Department. However; I do have an opinion on it.

What is the problem with deploying forces within the U.S.? Well there's the obvious reason that initiated the Act after the Civil War but those reasons aren't in existence in today's world. We have a standing police force that is well equipped to handle any civil disturbance if it was to rear it's ugly head. But what of the real mission of the Army defending the U.S.? Yes, folks that's why this is coming around. In today's world of terrorist imposed micro-conflicts, it's a smart idea to have a force ready to go in a moments notice to defend us if a terrorist was to try something here at home. Suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, and chemical and biological weapons can devastate our homeland while our Army is focused overseas. Wouldn't it be smart to have someone providing defense at home for these threats? The time of large standing forces threatening our country is pretty much over but that doesn't mean we're not threatened. We need to adapt our force to handle these new threats; threats that do exist, threats that we live with every day.

Police forces are there to enforce the law but are being asked to do more and more defense type of missions. Terrorists don't normally break laws until they blow something up so the pursuit of this enemy by the Police could be construed as a conflict. Yes, I know we have laws about planning terrorist acts but they're pretty broad and hard to enforce. Although these people have declared war on us, we still treat them as criminals and they're not, they are enemy forces in our country to bring down us. The ultimate goal of terrorist forces is the same as if we had an enemy countries army within our borders; the downfall of our way of life. Defending us against this type of threat IS the mission of the Army folks.

Posse Comitatus isn't dead folks. The law has evolved just is our country has evolved and does still have some relevance however the law does have two sides. While it does limit the involvement of the Army in criminal enforcement it also somewhat defines the role of the Police. So let's do what Posse Comitatus intended and let the Police do their job of enforcing our laws, and let the Army do it's job of defending the country.

What's my Palin name?

Yes, the Palins have a strange way of naming their children.  If I was named by the Palins my name would be:

Falter Locust Palin

If you want to find out what the Palins would have named you check out the blog. :)

Book Banning! Holy Crap it's Fahrenheit 451 all over!

So what is the temperature at which liberals burn?  Well it seems that it's pretty much whatever they want it to be.  In their latest attempt to bring down Sarah Palin, they've resulted to creationism. Creating lies that is; read on...

As I watched FOXnews this afternoon they had a few talking heads on to discuss the election. And, as usual, the discussion turns to how bad Gov Palin will be for the country and how her track record supports their point.  This time the brought up an event early on in the Governor's Mayoral stint in Wasilla when she asked a question of the city librarian concerning some books people had had "issues" with.  This story originally ran in the Anchorage Daily News on Sept 4th, 2008 and outlined events that had happened 12 years earlier.  The story tries to repeatedly find a connection between a discussion at a city council meeting between then Mayor Palin and the librarian and a supposed request from the Mayors office for the librarians resignation.  Well as I've said many times there's a lot more to this than what this left wing rag wants you to think.

After more research I found an article from a more conservative Blog regarding the incident. Michelle Malkin wrote an opposing article concerning the incident and it seems did a better job of putting the events in a more balanced light.  She even went so far as to post the list of the supposed planned books to be banned.  Here's the problem; some of the books on the list weren't even published at the time the events happened. Wow, how could that be?  I'm sure that ADN.com couldn't have been that gullible to be taken in like this.  Well they never actually posted the list, this was found out later on when some of the original sources where pressed a little harder. It seems the lists is from a group at the Florida Institute of Technology and has nothing what so ever to do with Governor Palin.  Yes it's a group against banning book but I don't think there's a FIT-Wasilla, AK connection.  

So what is the bottom line here?  I suspect that this all started because someone got their feelings hurt because she was asked to resign.  Then, the anti-McCain/Palin crowd latched onto it trying to twist it somehow to make the Republican candidate look like a jack-booted Nazi thug.  This is a tired tactic that doesn't work on the educated voter.  The writers use fear mongering to create a disingenuous account of events and their actions are downright despicable.  Shame on them.

No, Ray Bradbury's vision of the future isn't coming.  No, we don't have a new Hitler running in the election.  No Mrs. Palin isn't the anti-christ.  And no, the apocalypse isn't going to happen if the Republicans get elected.  So don't let the chicken-little liberal get away with this smear campaign; be an educated voter, do some research and make up your own mind.

Pork Invaders

Check out this McCain game:

And who says he's out of touch with America? Using an '80s video game to make a point! Brilliant!

Have fun with it but please go to his website and get the truth about the campaign.

Upcoming Election

Just in case ya'll are wondering, I'm voting for McCain this November. Why? Well for one I've been a Republican for a long time now but mostly because of his track record and some things he's done recently. McCain's track record speaks for itself; his service in the military, his service in the House, and his service in the Senate has all portrayed this fine American as the true leader he is. While Obama talks about needing "change" McCain exudes leadership in way Obama can only dream of. McCains TV add on the day of Obama's nomination congratulating him on reaching this point was profound. It shows McCains ability to put politics aside and do what's right. Was there any response like that from Obama on McCains nomination? No, only more tired democratic rhetoric. When it came to selecting a running mate Obama thought it was correct to choose an entrenched liberal Senator, McCain selected a fresh face. Look at Bidens stance and track record on the important issues of our times ad you'll see the same failed Democrat positions of the past. Granted Palin is a much more conservative Republican than McCain is but she has been fixing the problems in Alaska that mirror our nations problems. She brings to the plate new solutions to old problems, not the tried and failed Democrat solutions of Biden and Obama. So who is the better candidate? Who is showing leadership and not just talk? Who is really demonstrating an ability to facilitate change? You know my answer; do the research and make up your own mind. I welcome your responses.

The American Flag

I'm not sure where this came from or who wrote it but I thought it was nice.

I am the American Flag.  I have flown over every conflict since my inception into this world. I have seen the grassy fields of Gettysburg, the waters in the Pacific, the sands of Iraq, the skies over Yugoslavia, and the mountains of Afghanistan.  The mere sight of me invokes tears of joy, pride, and dedication to those who believe in what I stand for.  I also provoke fear into the heart of nations of those who oppose me.  I know no gender or race, and accept all who will accept me.  I am no God, but hold a bond over men and women who serve under me that is equal.  I have no voice, but people listen.  I cover a nation with hope and vision, and sadly blanket those who have given us the same.  Of all the nations and all the flags, none makes it’s presence known as I.  I am a leader among leaders.  I encompass the lives of friends and family, brothers and sisters, the living and the dead.  I will continue to give hope to those who do not understand, and meaning to those who do.  In return for all I can give, I ask for but one thing.  This I cannot tell you, it is something that only you will come to know.  I do ask that you be patient for I am young…and yet stern for I am old.  Proudly display me for all  the world to see, and look to me, and I will show you the past, the present, and the future.  I am committed to you, the children of my country.  I am the American Flag.

Manna from Heaven??

So how many of you out there actually think this rebate scheme the government is planning will do any good? My wife and I haven't really discussed what we're going to do with the money but with all our recurring bills I doubt if we're going to be buying anything with it. No, with tuition for two daughters, home upkeep expenses, and property taxes, we really can't afford to go out and spend extra money on anything. For most of the population we live on a payday to payday basis so when extra money comes along we use it to reduce our existing debt, not for to expand our wealth. So if my hypothesis is correct will this scheme really do what it's intended and promote growth in our economy? Makes one wonder... The last time I checked the government is supposed to act as a non-profit agency. If they have money to send out all these checks why do we still have a national debt? Have we been able to create this much extra money to be able to fund this boondoggle? I think not. I've heard the figures surrounding the cost of this plan and I know they're not enough to really make a difference but we're still incurring more debt every day due to Washington's spending habits. Instead of sending out all these checks and increasing our debt even more, why don't they actually try to pay off some of our debt? Wouldn't that help our economy? Our country is slowly eroding it's social benefits because of it's increasing inability to live with it's means. Increasing our debt won't help in that situation. I'm not a big fan of social programs due to their abuse but some really do make a difference in people lives. Increasing our debt will eventually require those programs to be cut even farther. So with all these issues why is the government doing this? The answer is that it's an election year. In reality this plan is no more than voter pandering; and it is some of the most despicable I've ever seen. And it's not just one side that's doing it. Both the Democrats and Republicans have their hands in this one so they can both take credit for it. They've advertised this as a plan to boost our economy but I suspect it will eventually have the opposite effect. What are they going to do next year when we're still in the same boat? How deep in debt will our government go to hide the truth about the economy from it's people. No this plan isn't the answer and has the potential of having some serious long term affect for all of us. I'm not an economist so I won't pretend to have all the answers but it seems to me that if we pay down this huge debt the country, as a whole, would be better off. A few years ago my wife and I where is a similar position; we owed a large amount of money to several agency's. This was mostly because our income level was fairly low and we needed some things just to get by. Due to some changes in my job we found ourselves with the ability to pay off most of our debt and have been able to keep it at bay since then. We still take out an occasional loan for big ticket items but for the most part we're living within our means. What a liberating feeling we've enjoyed since we've become financially free; I can only imagine what it would be like if our country was in this position. Incurring more debt isn't the answer, removing our debt is.

Want to make a change?

As I watch the market upheaval today I wonder why all this is happening. Lately there's been a lot of discussion in the world about increasing prices and the devaluing of money. What there isn't one simple solution to any of the worlds woes, one huge contributor is our own inability to accept change. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: How many of you remember your first car? I remember mine, it was a 1977 Chevrolet Chevette. The Chevette was one of Detroit's answers to our desires for cheaper transportation. It was overpriced, underpowered, and unrealistically small. In the 70s Detroit was still the king at making large comfortable cars so when they tried to downsize their efforts were lacking. The Chevette, Vega, Pinto, and Omni all pretty much sucked. You'd be hard pressed to find any of them on the road today but if you look around you'll still see LTDs, Caddies, muscle cars, and pick-ups built in that era still being driven. Why is that? Could it be that people actually like the look, the comfort, or the power these vehicles offered? I think so. Yes these are gas guzzlers but in reality their mileage isn't that much worse than a lot of the new cars coming out now. At it's prime my Chevette would get almost 20 mile per gallon, with a 12 gallon tank I could fill it up on about $10 bucks. Now I have a Honda Civic that gets about 20-25 MPG around the city and it costs me $25 to fill it up. But neither of these cars are comfortable doing a 3-4 hour drive. So what have I gained? Not much. Now my Honda isn't the only car I have in fact it's actually my daughters car now. I have a very nice pick-up, it's very comfortable, but it cost's me a lot to operate it. My wife have been looking at buying a replacement for her mini-van, we really don't need a car that big now but we do enjoy it's creature comforts. When I go out to buy this new vehicle will gas mileage be my #1 concern? No not really, I'll be looking for a comfortable car that I can drive around the country safely and comfortably. Good gas mileage will be a bonus but won't play much into my decision making. I thin that for the majority of the population that will probably ring true. So how does all this play into the markets? Well my theory is this; people don't purchase based on global concerns, people buy things based on their own needs. When I buy my next car I'm not going to fall prey to this malarkey about how I can save the planet if I buy a piece of crap car. I know that in the cooperate world it's all about how to make a profit. Right now corporations aren't seeing the benefit to their profits to create things that will help the global economy or environment. Detroit is still creating gas guzzlers because gas is the easiest way for them to make a profit. It's easy because it's a proven technology. They don't really have to do anything to convince me that there's a better option. If all the auto makers in the world suddenly said they would no longer build gas powered engines what do you think the out come would be? Well other than a collapse of the oil business that I think would be short-lived, they would have to sell something else right? Gee I wonder what that would be, we have car makers that have a demand but they don't make cars? Come on folks, we have existing technology they could use to make large comfortable cars we would be willing to buy. I saw a show the other day called "Future Cars". A manufacturer in Japan had created a car that looked like a mini RV. It had six wheels, all independently driven, and a huge interior that could seat 6. they said it would easily do 200 mph, but who want to go that fast. If this car was built in the 70s it would have had to have a huge engine in it but this car was electric. Now I'm not sure of the range but I do like the way this was going. A large powerful comfortable vehicle that all I have to do is plug it in to recharge it. Wow what a concept. And on top of it all, a 4 (ok 6) wheel drive. Put a bed and a lift kit on it and you've got a monster truck! Ok, probably not but it's got potential. So why isn't this car being driven? Oil, that's why. As I mentioned earlier, if we quit making gas driven vehicles the oil market would initially be hurt. I said I felt this would be short lived because the initial shock would cause a lot of gasoline centered oil companies would be hurt and even fail but there are a lot of other products that can be created with oil. At our current consumption our oil reserves aren't going to last much longer, maybe 100 years (I'm speculating of course). If the demand for oil was reduced by a drastic change in the gasoline market many of the small companies would fail but auto's aren't the only consumer of oil so a market would still be there. Also, it would take time for all of us to get these new cars so it would be a tapering effect at the worst. In the long run we would in reality be extending our reserves enough that technologies that couldn't be converted could be extended even farther into our future. Since less oil would need to be converted to gasoline, more would be available for conversion into jet fuel, diesel, and other fuels thus resulting into eventual lower costs for these products. If the cost of commercial transportation is decreased a ripple effect of lower prices for everything would result. So next time you decide to "go-green" and "reduce your carbon footprint" (whatever the hell that crap means). Think about if your actually making a real affect. One vehicle isn't going to make change, but a massive change to the vehicle market will. And I'm not talking about environmental change, that's a liberal sympathy ploy, no I'm talking about real change, more money in your pocketbook. And strengthening our pocketbooks strengthens our global economy.

Anti-War Attitude Explained

I heard a theory the other day that's made me do a lot of thinking about "anti-war". Did you know there's a huge anti-war movement in the United States? Or so the liberal media wants you to think. Yes there are a lot of people and groups out there wanting the war to stop but their on the fringe of society and can be easily rebuked. No, according to the media the majority of Americans are anti-war. What a load of hooey! Yes there's a large displeasure in the current state of the war (or at least the pre-surge era) but most people aren't anti war. Saying that you're anti-war means that you are a pacifist, someone how abhors conflict and feels that peace is the only just course. Do you really think that the majority of Americans are pacifists? I don't think so. America was founded by war, sustained by war, and will continue to proper because of war. To make a general statement that the majority of Americans are anti-war (pacifists) is an insult to me, you, and every person that has fought and died to get us where we are today. I really feel that most Americans feel frustrated with the way the war is going, that's okay. The average Joe has a hard time understanding why we've been at war for over 7 years and have no clear end in sight. We are the most powerful nation in the world but a ragtag bunch of criminals seems to be getting the upper hand. It's a slap in our face and doesn't reflect the strength of the America people want to be a part of. Mr. John Q. Public sees everyday the frustration of the U.S. Military as it's being portrayed by the news and has no other choice but to feel beaten and weak. Nobody likes that so they become, not anti-war, but anti-"getting our butts kicked". News organizations and people with an agenda feed on this attitude by asking vague or leading questions in public opinion poles then twisting the results to fit their point of view. It's a self perpetuating cycle, the more people say they're frustrated the more they hear how frustrated they are but they're words are being twisted so support real anti-war organizations. A perfect example of this is the Code Pink crowd. Expressing dissent based on frustrations does not mean you're anti-war, it just means you don't like how things are going. So stop supporting those that are twisting your words to make this nation seem divided. We must stand together to defeat this enemy, but it's okay to voice your opinion on how we do it. Be careful though, the enemy could be that pollster calling.

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Translation: "Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war." (Vegetius in De Re Militari) This is a very interesting comment that most pacifist fail to comprehend. War, although unwanted, is what happens when peace breaks down. If you have peace then guess what, at one time you had war. I know there will always be those that feel war should be avoided at all costs and to some point I agree, but to not prepare for war, that's opening yourself up to conquest. How many of us out there have not benefited at some level from war? The United States would still be British if it hadn't been for the Revolutionary War. For that matter we wouldn't have country's at all if we didn't have war. People tend to get wrapped up in the minutia of war and not the results. Yes the atrocities associated with destruction are horrible but the outcome may be worth it. In every war people are fighting for what they believe in, what they feel passionate about. We have wars because not everybody feels the same way about all things. True peace can only be achieved by the removal of free thought or the eradication of man. Anything else and the best we can hope for are long periods of peace. Peace can only be assured by strength. Sometimes your strength is restraint but many times you have to show the bully on the block that your serious. We use all means to prevent war, diplomacy, negotiations, treaty's, and yes, ignoring are all tactics we use to avoid conflict, but those tools are only useful if your enemy knows you'll take things to the next level. Empty or hollow threats have never and will never protect you, they're as transparent as air. Vegetius has it right but here's my take on it: Thrust peace on your enemy, or they will thrust theirs on you.

Baby killers?

For those of you in the non-American world; don't believe what your seeing on your local news. The US military isn't the baby killing murderer's they're portrayed as. Come on, do you honestly think this to be true? These are human beings that have volunteered to support they're country. Get a clue folks, educate yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a rule of thumb for you, if it sounds to convenient then it's probably not true. Instead of taking what you hear as the gospel do a little research and dig for the truth. When I'm overseas I watch Fox New, Sky News and CNN; this gives me a pretty clear and objective viewpoint to almost anything happening in the world. Try this next time you hear that we're "evil" so you can make up your own mind. Stop letting yourself be brainwashed by someone else agenda!

Immigration

I really don't know if immigration reform is needed in the country. On one hand we have all these people here illegally but on the other hand there here illegally because of the laws of the country. We Americans are a proud people, sometimes too proud though; these "illegals" do the jobs we don't want to do. I remember when we had a huge migrant worker population that consisted of people from all over the country. They did all the jobs most of us wouldn't, and did them dirt cheap. The problem was that they're pay was so low and they're living conditions so poor all the "do-gooders" felt it was they're mission to help them out. We still have migrant workers but now they're called illegal aliens but they're still doing the same job. Do you think these people will continue doing this type of labor once they're legal? Hell no! They going to demand health care, social security, and better pay; you know, all those things that we as citizens enjoy. As soon as you legalize them you open the gates to our benefits. Now I'm not saying to stop them either; as I said, we need these people, but the status-quo works fine right now. One thing I would change is to hold them more accountable for they're actions. Deportation for a crime should be an exception, not the rule. We may even think about increasing punishment for crimes for these people. In other words, toe the line or your going to pay! No, amnesty is the wrong thing to do; let them come in to work, but keep a tight leash on them. And if they screw up, hammer them HARD! No anchor babies, no second chances, and tax the hell out of them. Hey, here's a novel idea... Start an American Foreign Legion like the French have starting with all our able bodied illegals. That way next time we want to go into the world to nation-build; our boy's go in first to secure the place and then we can send them in to do the occupying afterwards. Think about the scapegoat potential with that one! Oh the liberals would have a field day with that one!!!

Thank god for the moderate!

What makes one group think they’re right, or think your wrong? No matter what you believe or what you do someone in the world thinks just the opposite. So who’s right and who’s wrong? We are living in a world being molded by extremists, is this bad? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it is reality though. If you go back and look at history extremists have made profound changes on the world that still affect us today. Martin Luther King, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, even Jesus could all be extremists in there own right. Is extremism bad, no not always but it sure isn’t accepted well. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement in the 60s took hold and today even mentioning his name bring reverence from both white and black people around the world. Genghis Khan brought the “Silk Road” to the west feeding the European culture for centuries. Alexander the Great laid the framework for the Roman Empire resulting in all they’re technological advancements. And lastly the life and teachings of Jesus still affects the lives of billions of people to this day. During they’re time they where all considered extremists, in these cases though these were extremists we’re all reaping the benefits of now. Are we living today with an extremist like this? Who is our next Alexander or King? Today people label anyone who opposes their point of view as an extremist. There are Radical Republican’s, Liberal Leftist, Creationists, Evolutionists, Muslim Extremists, and Christian Coalition. There are pacifists, war mongers, eco-warriors, and realists. No matter you believe people have created a label for it. If you where to ask any of these groups who’s right they’ll vehemently say they are (and in some cases kill you for questioning them). For the rest of us 98% of the population we fall somewhere in between all of these groups. I’m a Republican but I agree with the right to choose group, I’m a warrior but I really don’t like war, and I’m a Christian but I respect your right to practice whatever religion you want. You can look at yourself and probably same something similar. So I’m guessing that since 98% of the world in somewhere in the middle we must all be moderates to some degree (there I go again with a label). We live in a world of moderates reaping the benefits of, and having to fix the problems created by, extremists. Thank god for the moderate!

O Captain! My Captain!

I ran across this poem while my daughter was researching a project for school. It's pretty cool that someone thought highly enough of Lincoln this close to the time of his death to commemorate him like this. The reverence portrayed reminds me of how people are now starting to remember Ronald Regan's presidency. Read and enjoy!! __________________________________________________________________ (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) "O Captain! My Captain!" is a poem by Walt Whitman. It was written in homage to Abraham Lincoln after his assassination in 1865, and was first published the same year in an appendix attached to the latest version of Whitman's continually expanding anthology, Leaves of Grass. The poem consists of three stanzas, its layout appearing like a ship approaching its destination, and begins with the famous O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done; The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won; Full poem I. O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done; The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won; The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting, While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring. But O heart! heart! heart! O the bleeding drops of red! Where on the deck my Captain lies, Fallen cold and dead. II. O captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells; Rise up! For you the flag is flung, for you the bugle trills: For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths, for you the shores a-crowding: For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning. Here Captain! dear father! This arm beneath your head; It is some dream that on the deck, You've fallen cold and dead. III. My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still; My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will; The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done; From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won! Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells! But I with mournful tread, Walk the deck my Captain lies, Fallen cold and dead.

Tim for President

For those of you that don't know, a very good friend of mine (Tim Strickland) is running for president. He can use all the support you can give him. Please visit his web page to get more insight into his political ideas.