I have to often wonder how Chris Matthews even has a job let alone his own show on MSNBC. He is a constant source of moronic babble. Sometimes I wonder if that tingle going up his leg was not the start of brain damage. At the end of last month Chrissie tingle had an interview with Ann Coulter. Normally I don’t spend even five minutes watching his show but because of Ann Coulter I thought I would hold my nose and watch. Most of it was boring liberal talking points over and over again and then he asked a question I could not believe. He asked what we could do as a country to make the Muslim Extremist like us. I was so astounded that he asked such a moronic question that I didn’t even here what Ann had to say I turned it off and poured myself a drink to clear my head.

I don’t know what Ann told him and to be honest I don’t care, so I thought I would give it a shot an tell him what I think we as a country have to do to make the Muslim extremist like us.

Well Chris, you don’t mind if I call you Chris do you? Calling you Mr. Matthews would be so degrading. Well Chris, there are many things we can do as a country to appease our Muslim friends. The very first thing we would have to do is pull every American solider from every country in the world and not interfere when they try to force their brand of religious slavery on unwilling people. The next thing we would need to do is to disband our entire military as they would like to put in their own black shirts.

We could then denounce our republic and tear up the constitution, especially that silly little amendment that talks about religious freedom and separation of church and state. After all, to a Muslim extremist the church is the state. Freedom of speech will be done with too as well as freedom of the press, we can’t have anyone disagreeing with Islam now can we?

Next I am afraid they would insist on disbanding the congress and Supreme Court and would also insist on installing a Muslim cleric as the supreme leader. The president would probably still be allowed, especially Obama since he is Muslim but would be nothing more than a puppet to the Supreme leader. Kind of like now.

One other thing we might do is get rid of all law enforcement and inelegance agencies and install Sari law as the law of the land. We might want to convert all Americans to Islam and behead those who refuse to. Oh and we also might want to take all gay men and women and perform daily hangings just like they do in Iran. You see Chris, Islam does not tolerate gays being in their society, or Jews or Christians for that matter. Of course we might want to cover our woman up as that is the Islamic way and we want them to be our friends’ right?

We could also burn to the ground every Christian church we see and kill all the evil Christian leaders. Well I think you know what they would want us to do with the Jews in America don’t you. I’ll give you a hint, it involves a mass grave.

So you see Chris, there are many things we can do to make our Muslim friends from across the seas like us, then maybe they would not want to kill us. Of course the republic of the United States of America would be gone, but then you would like that wouldn’t you. The problem is that there would be no more talk of socialism or communism or Marxism ether. You see only Islam and Sari law is the only system of government that will be tolerated in a Muslim society. Oh yea, and people like you of the western press, you would probably be put to the sword just as an example to the others to make sure the press reported only what the Supreme leader wanted reported.

The truth is Chris; we can’t make them like us. The only way is to become them. And that is not likely to happen, not in our lifetime or the next hundred lifetimes.

Fair winds and following seas

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil in the world. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see some of the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life being angry at myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to live to an ripe old age and die in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I want to feel like a cowboy. I carry a gun because should I be illegally attacked, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to protect themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime; they investigate the crime after it happens and then call in someone to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an butt whoopin'.

Author Unknown

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy

This was posted on MSNBC.com on May 11, 2010:

Muhammad cartoonist attacked during lecture

Police use pepper spray, batons to hold off angry crowd

By MALIN RISING

updated 3:04 p.m. ET, Tues., May 11, 2010

STOCKHOLM - A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday as angry protesters interrupted his university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during the lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

A video clip of the incident on the website of a Swedish newspaper showed police using pepper spray and batons to hold off an angry crowd shouting "God is great" in Arabic after Vilks was escorted out of the lecture hall.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body, but Tuesday's incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane," and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at Uppsala University.

Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as "complete chaos."

"A man ran up and threw himself over me. I was head-butted and my glasses were broken," Vilks said before hanging up for questioning by police.

Uppsala University spokeswoman Pernilla Bjork said Vilks was showing a provocative film with sexual content to the crowd when the attacker ran up and hit him in the face with his fists.

Muslim protests
The video posted on Uppsala Nya Tidning's site showed agitated police officers clashing with protesters at the front of the lecture hall. A female police officer uses pepper spray to subdue a young man. Another youngster is wrestled to the ground.

Uppsala police spokesman Tommy Karlsson said a man and woman in their 20s were detained on suspicion of using violence against police.

University officials said there had been a peaceful demonstration by Muslims outside the university before Vilks started to speak, and that about 250 people attended his lecture. Bjork said the university had been in contact with police and security guards before Vilks' lecture to ensure his safety.

"We think it is our task as a university to be able discusses difficult issues," she said. "We think it is very unfortunate that this has resulted in violence."

Vilks made his rough sketch more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

A Swedish newspaper printed the drawing, leading to further protests, and revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007.

I am surprised Mr. Vilks is still alive. I imagine there is a fatwa on his head. But our soldiers have killed or captured most of the good Muslim fighters and all that is left is the incompetent ones. So maybe that is why he is still alive.

Let's see if I get this right. On September 11, 2001 3000 people lost their lives and the leftist media worried about angry Americans taking out their anger on Muslims here at home and it never happened. Then a Muslim fanatic in a US Army uniform went berserk and killed 15 people at Fort Hood and the leftist worried that the American people would take out their anger on the Muslims here and it never happened. Then a would be martyr tried to take down an airliner on Christmas day but failed due to sheer incompetence and the left was worried that the American people would take out their anger on the Muslims here, then another incompetent would be bomber tried to blow up Times Square in New York and only did not because again of sheer incompetence. It is pretty pathetic that the only reason some people are alive is because the would-be killers were total screw ups. The leftist like Contessa Brewer were worried the American people would take out their anger and it never happened. But one cartoonist draws a picture making fun of Mohammad and millions of Muslims around the world commit acts of violence against people and property and the left is silent. They murder people who speak out against Islam and the left is silent. They murder people who convert from Muslim to Christian and the left is silent. They murder soldiers and the only reason the left isn't silent is to make excuses for him and worry the American people are going to get violent. When it comes to Muslims the left hears not evil, sees no evil, and speaks no evil just like monkeys except when it comes to their own countrymen. They live in a fantasy world where they want the Muslims to be the good guys and all the americans that do not agree with them as the enemy. Sorry people, reality is the exact opposite.

What hypocrites! Why are totally peaceful tax rallies with no signs of racism scorned by the left but a illegal alien rally turn to rock throwing and people arrested and they are mostly peaceful and never once is the violence shown except by members of the press on the right. The leftist in the media have yet to show any video of violence, racism or anything else that would degrade the Tea Parties but some people on the right prove the rallies in Arizona are not peaceful and are racist and they ignore it. Because it is the narrative of the left, that groups that protest left wing causes are always right and groups that protest right wing causes are always wrong. That is right out of the "Rules for radicals" playbook. Not to mention, the leftist Frankfort Schools critical theory.

Critical Theory is to criticize everything on the right and nothing on the left. I despise racism, and if I ever thought the tea parties were racist I would have nothing to do with them. I also despise race batters that claim racism when none exist. Yes I mean you Contessa brewer and you Keith Obermann. I also despise people who make a living off of racism and do everything they can to keep it going so they seem more relevant then they really are. People like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. This isn't the 60's anymore. If it was not for just these two people racism may have died out long ago. But the media gives then a podium to spew their hate and it keeps on going. If Dr. King would have lived longer, no one would even know who Jessie Jackson is. It was the death of Dr. King, who I admire greatly, that sent his star rising. If Dr. King were alive today, based on his speeches, I think he would be mad as hell at all the race baiting going on today especially by the leftist media.

The point is, the left are hypocrites when it comes to Muslims and racism in general. Tea parties are racist but the entire white MSNBC lineup is not. Imaging if MSNBC was a right wing news organization? But then again if they were, Keith Obermann and his ilk would never be able to get a job with them so we would be talking about some other organization. Muslims commit acts of violence and they look the other way or make excuses for them. But say one bad thing about a Muslim and you are a racist. They are not the only ones on the left, but they are the most vocal and don't even try to pretend some semblance of unbiased journalism anymore. Is it any wonder that MSNBC is last in ratings? Let's not forget about the angry white men that attend a black president's town hall meeting with guns, and then it turns out to be a black man with the guns supporting the angry white people. That is just flat out dishonest. And the person responsible for that outrage is still working there to this day. Things like that is the reason I hate MSNBC so much. Well that and Keith Obermann. Oh the rest of the leftist media makes me angry too, but nothing like MSNBC.

I am old enough now that I don't have to worry about what I say. I have freedom of speech and I am going to use it as a free man should and I don't care who I offend. There is no such thing as freedom from being offended. You want to take away my right to speak, and this includes Muslim extremist and anyone that believes in political correctness. Come and take it, you will have to kill me to shut me up.

At first I had to wonder why we are not seeing a lot about the things that are happening in Greece on the left-stream Media. I mean this is big news isn't it? An entire country going broke and having to be bailed out by the EU, What could be more news worthy then that? Ok I will give them the Time Square bomber story that they got totally wrong at first and made no attempt to apologize for it. That was more important at least to us Americans. Any time a Muslim extremist tries to blow up something in America I want to know about it. I thank God every day for incompetent terrorist because of our incompetent government that allows people like him to slip through.

Our homeland security chief keeps on saying the system works. Is the system relying on the incompetence of the terrorist? That is a pretty sad way to provide security for a country. I wonder how many innocent Americans have to die before this administration wakes up. How many people would be dead if the terrorist were more competent? According to the National review there have been more attempts on our country failed or impeded by law-enforcement just in the last year then the last 2 years or President Bush's administration. Could it be they see this president as a weak man that will not do anything significant if a terrorist does kill innocent Americans? It is one possibility. One thing I do know about Arabs, having spent some time in the Middle East is they respect strength much more then weakness and will use our own weakness against us. Someone told me the extremist respect our military because they are strong but are amazed that the same society that produces our warriors produce people like Obama and the leftist media. I can see where they would be confused.

President Obama does not censor my speech, at least not yet, so yes I am calling these people Muslim extremist and terrorist. Unlike the newest national security report that sees returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets, and tea party people as a bigger threat then Muslim extremist, and never once mentioning who the real enemy is.

But I digress, I have come to the conclusion that either the people that we rely on everyday to make our personal decision in life are complete morons or they don't want us to know what is going on overseas because it does not fit the narrative. The narrative being that the Muslim extremist are really nice people and that the people of America are so bad that we would take it out on every Muslim American we saw. Of course that didn't happen after the first Trade center bombing in the 90's, it didn't happen after the USS Cole, it didn't happen after 9/11, it didn't happen after the DC sniper, it didn't happen after the Fort Hood murders, it didn't happen after the Christmas day bomber. You would think they would see the pattern, but they are blinded by their own ideology. I don't think they are morons, except for most of the evening line up on MSNBC.

The truth is socialism is failing in Greece and they do not want us to know because for the last 30 years and especially since the love affair started between the MSM and Obama, how great socialism is. How much better America would be off with socialism. Now we see an entire country going down the tubes because of socialism and they are afraid that we will think the narrative they have been forcing on us for so long is wrong. Well those of us over 30 that are not complete idiots have seen that socialism has not worked in any country that it was applied and capitalism has worked for over 200 years are not going to change our minds just because it is fashionable to do so. They don't have that kind of control over us. Reality is stronger the fantasy. For those that are under 30 and have swallowed the socialism Kool-Aid believe people like Michael Moore that Cuba has a vibrant economy. But to be fair, Cuba is not really a socialist country, it is more a communist dictatorship. The under 30 crowed just has not had enough life experiences to see the reality of it yet. I am not sure what the excuse is for people over 30 that buy into it. Maybe they are just tired of working for a living and want the government to give them everything regardless of what it will do to the country in future years.

The media and the left in general, which is most of the media and the administration, does not want us to see what America will be like in the future if socialism is allowed to progress on its current path here in America. Capitalism is a self generating system. It produces the wealth to keep it going. Socialism by its very nature cannot be sustained on its own. It needs a constant influx of money from the producers to give to the non-producers. Eventually the non-producers will grow past the point that the producers can support and the money will stop or slow to a trickle. What happens then when it gets so bad that the government cannot pay for the social programs the people who use to be self reliant, now rely on? The result is what is happening today in Greece. The people that are burning banks and murdering bankers are not the people handing out the special privileges; they are the people relying on the social programs to live. You can't really blame them. Well yes you can, they are the ones that had their hands out to begin with. They are the people that allowed it to happen. They are the people that sucked dry their own economy without regard of the consequences.

The media is afraid we are going to realize that we are heading in that direction also. Guess what media, we knew that all along. The current administration and their cronies in congress are sucking dry this country. The difference between America and Greece is there are millions of us that will not let our country turn into another Greece. We will not be beholden to the EU or any other world government to bail us out when our country runs out of money. It is things like this that is what the tea parties and the patriot movement is all about. The left cannot find any logical arguments to counter our movement so they call us Racist where there is no sign of racism; they call us violent when there is no sign of violence. They have to degrade us or it makes them look like idiots. Guess what, it isn't working and you still look like idiots. Like little kids who whine and complain when they don't get their way. That is the way I see most liberals anyway, at least the ones in the media, Hollywood and Academia. The movement grows more and more regardless of the lies and will continue to grow and will only stop when the socialists, statists, and progressives no longer have the power.

Will America eventually end up like Greece? If we don't stop the agenda of the statist it will, but not if we the people have anything to say about it. And that is what worries us the most that we don't have anything to say about it. Then it will be time to take matters into our own hands but only as a last resort and I pray to god every day that it never comes to that because it will not be a second American revolution, it will be a second civil war.

American militias, are they terrorist or patriots? To left leaning persons who thinks everything on MSNBC is "real news", that is an easy question. They are terrorist period. But to those of us who like to think for ourselves and believe MSNBC is a bunch of self-serving liberal lunatics and idiots, we have to question the talking points of the left-stream media. Not necessarily saying they are wrong, but finding out for ourselves what the militia movement is really about. In the most recent failed attempt, again, of the left-stream media to demonize the Tea Party they are trying to tie the Tea Party movement in with the militia movement. Are there militia members that attend Tea Parties, more than likely there are? After all, the tea parties are about what most militia people believe smaller government, fewer taxes, less government in our everyday lives, and less government in our health care and business. But I have not seen a Tea Party where militias are attending as a group representing any militia. And I have not heard one word or seen any video of anyone representing the Tea Parties endorsing the militia movement as a whole or a group.

But what if they did, what are militias all about? You have already seen what MSNBC and others in the left stream media think of militias. Are they just giving bad press to an entire group because of some bad apples, or are they right about the American militia movement?

To honestly answer that question you have to forget all that you have heard from the media about militias, especially from the left but the right media is almost as responsible for misrepresentation of the militias and do your own research. Let's start with what a militia actually is. I know the history of the militia from the revolutionary war is one of the reasons we won our freedoms but there is more to it than that. First of all, unorganized militias are legal according the U.s. Code which is the law of the land. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > subsection 311 talks about the composition and classes of the militia. Section (a) states The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of militias are: the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. According to this, the unorganized militia is any able-bodied male over the age of 17 that is not part of the Armed forces or the National Guard. Now this law is not enforced. If it was every male under the age of 45 not part of a militia would be put in jail or fined. This law also blows out of the water the argument that right to bear arms is only for the militia since every male over the age of 17 is part of the militia.

This law does have a section for exemptions. Subsection 312 states: (a) the following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

The exemptions do not include anyone because of political beliefs. So in reality, everyone on the left and right that is not part of the Military or National Guard or can claim an exemption according to subsection 312 is breaking the law. Personally I think that people that are on the right have a better mindset to be part of a militia. I really don't want someone defending me that refuses to fire a gun or is willing to starve after weeks in the field because they refuse to eat meat. This is the law that gives the government the right to have the draft. In reality, every able bodied male that is a citizen of the United States is part of the unorganized militia whether they like it or not. So the real truth is, the members of the unorganized militias are the only ones not breaking the law.

That changes however when a group starts talking about overthrowing the government or about killing police or other Americans. At that point they are no longer a militia. They are a Para-military terrorist group. And most militia men would be willing to fight that group. The problem is the media likes to bunch all the militias around the country as Para-military terrorist groups. They can't or refuse to tell the difference between a Para-military terrorist group and the militia. Talk about profiling, they are profiling millions of Americans, but it is ok because the left is usually wrong about anything that has to do with war or the military. If the charges are true then the Michigan Militia is a Par-military terrorist group and not a real militia. Any group can call themselves a militia until they break the law, then they are no longer a militia. Real militia are just like the National Guard, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, the constitution or their respective states and to protect and defend their local communities in the event the National Guard and police are overwhelmed and not able to protect everyone and they do it within the confines of the law. Not just in time of war but during national disasters also like floods, and snow storms, as well as time when a lost child needs to be found and they need as many people on the search as possible. The militias want to be prepared for such events and that is what scares people. That the events they prepare for are not only national disasters but war. Someday it may come to the homeland. And if you think that will never happen you are only fooling yourself. Most people do not know that during WWII the Japanese actually did attack Alaska and it was the state unorganized militia that was later organized that fought them off.

In my quest for the truth, I have contacted some militias, not nationwide but here in my home state. There is more militia groups in any one state then people think there are. I have not joined any militia group, yet, or been to any meetings or trainings and I have not met anyone in person. I have talked to some individuals over the phone and the internet and on some web sites. Without exception I thought I was talking to a member of our regular military. Most are former military (thank god) and some are not. But they all told me the same thing. They are not anti-government, they believe in the American system of government albeit the government set up and intended by the founding fathers not a socialist government and they believe their job is to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies of the U.S. They believe just like any military unit they must be prepared for anything, even war if it comes down to it.

They not only train in weapons, but they also train in things like life saving, CPR, they have drills for search and rescue in case they are needed. One of the members put it this way, a well trained militia is like car insurance, it is something that is necessary, and it is required by law but it is also something you hope you never have to use. No real militia man wants to take up arms against their own country or have to fire on a fellow American. Anyone who professes anti-government or taking up arms against the government or fighting law enforcement is immediately kicked out and the groups use their contacts in other groups to make sure that individual does not join another militia. In some extreme cases where the members think this individual is a danger to the community he is turned into law enforcement. At that point it is up to the government to deal with the individual.

Training a well regulated and well disciplined militia is the key to having a backup plan in the event Americans armed forces and law-enforcement agencies are overwhelmed and need help. Just because the militia has not been needed by the government since WWII does not mean it will not be needed in the future. It seems to me that militia as they are intended to be are to assist the military, first responders and law-enforcement when needed. There are thousands of unorganized militias around the country, and grouping all of them as right wing extremist groups is the same thing as saying that all liberals are left wing extremist, Marxist and communist. Are there militia groups that are extremist that do not go along with the spirit of the militia, yes there are most likely. And the legitimate militias are doing their best to rid the militia community of these groups as best they can, but as long as the media portrays all militia groups as extremist right wingers (there are liberal that love their country and are part of militia also), that want to overthrow the government, Americas perception of the militia movement will not change.

There are some people that would say, if our military was overwhelmed the U.N. would step into help. Ask yourself this, who would you trust the most, a U.N. solider probably not from this country that has no interest in the American people or American freedom or a free American that is defending his home, family and country? I would go with the American every time. However the government may need the U.N. to come in and help because the military and law-enforcement would be overwhelmed if President Obama tries to put through the U.N. treaty to ban all gun because the treaty would overwrite the constitution. I don't think there would be many Americans happy with that treaty or would there be many that would comply like the sheep in England and Australia did. There would be some, but many would resist, especially coming from the U.N. As far as I am concerned, they should bulldoze the UN building in New York, stop all funding and kick all UN officials out of the country. Just stopping all the funding would cause the UN to go under. The U.S. is the largest donator to the U.N.

Most militia members are individuals that are independent and believe that it is every person's responsibility to take care of them. Self-reliance is a big part of what a militia man believes. Maybe that is why there is such a big push in government today to do away with the militia. Everyone knows there are some socialist in power, if you don't know you are not paying attention. A socialist does not want people to be self-reliant. They want people to rely on the government for more and more. That gives the government more control, more power and a constant stream of votes. A self-reliant person does not need the government therefore cannot be controlled and is not a sure vote.

What makes you so afraid of the militia other then the misinformation from the left-stream media? Is it the fact that there are armed men running around the countryside with guns? Those guns are there to protect you and your liberties. Is it that you are afraid that the militias might try to overthrow the government? Ask yourself this question, what is more likely, that an attempt to overthrow the government will come from left-wing hate America socialist groups or from pro-American love of country right wing groups.

The media tries to use the Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing as a reason for the danger of militia groups. They say he was part of a militia group. The truth is he tried to join the several militia groups and was denied membership. Even the government said he acted alone; at least it is their claim. Do you think if he was part of a militia group that the Clinton administration and the rest of the left-stream media would have for a second not given the militia group credit for the bombing. If there was a group that helped him it would have come from overseas, more likely from the Middle East. He did not represent any militia group in America. If any group if any of the legitimate militia groups would have gotten wind of what he was planning to do they would have turned him in. Whether the government would have listened to a militia group is another story for another time. Militia groups exist to protect the people, not to harm them.

There are four kinds of people, the sheep, the wolves, the sheepdogs and the sheepdogs among the sheep. The sheepdogs on the outside of the flock would be our military and law-enforcement, protecting the flock from the wolves. The sheepdogs among the sheep would be the militia to protect the sheep from any of the wolves that get past the sheepdogs on the outside of the flock. You would have different sheepdogs in different areas of the flock to protect those areas because the sheepdog on the outside cannot protect every area all the time.

For a long time, the sheepdogs among the flocks have not been needed because the sheepdogs on the outside have done such a great job. But isn't it better to know there are trained people out there that are willing to step up if ever the wolves do get past the outside sheepdogs? They are the ones you can count on when they are needed. Not the left wing good for nothing but talk media. If I had to rely on a media type that is only willing to talk to defend my freedom and a militia man that is willing to die to defend my freedom, I would go with the militia man every time.

Personally, if I knew of any militia group that was trying to overthrow the government, blow up any buildings or cause harm to the police or any other group of Americans on the left or right of the political spectrum, I would turn them in myself and do so with pride. Especially groups from outside the country that just want to hurt American and that include any religious groups like Muslim extremist. Anyone who has read my blogs understands I detest political correctness and I don't give a crap about President Obama's censorship of the federal government concerning Islam, or Islamic extremist or war on terror. It would also give me a lot of glee if it was a leftist environmental extremist group that likes to cause property damage in the name of the environment.

Once again, the left-steam media is showing their hypocrisy using a national tragedy. For over a year now the left and media has been attempting to belittle the Tea Party movement and bring it down. They have failed miserably. Rather than bring down the Tea party they have watched it grow and I am sure it must be terribly frustrating for them. They have used almost every trick in the Rules for Radicals book. Thanks to them, being called a racist while still bad means less than it did a year ago. It is like the little boy who cried wolf. If you call people racist day after day, especially when there is none to be found you diminish the term. People now see the media, especially MSNBC calling the Tea Party movement racist as just spoiled losers trying to use anything to stop the movement.

The American people didn't buy the racist crap by the left and the media so they switched tactics. The left in congress made up stories about being called racist names or getting spit on or having death threats against them and blamed the Tea Party movement for it. This also did not work, the American people know that members of congress get death threats on almost a daily basis and the only reason they harped on it so much after the health killer vote was to discredit the tea party. For some reason they (the left) think the majority of the American people are stupid and will believe any thing they say without proof. They should know better by know.

The newest attempt to discredit the Tea Party movement was brought on by of all people a former President, Bill Clinton. In 1995 a certified nut job named Timothy McVeigh decided he needed to send the government a message and blew up a federal building that also housed a day care in Oklahoma City. Former President Clinton is worried that the anti-government rhetoric coming from the Tea Party may lead to another McVeigh type attack. And the left-stream media and especially MSNBC are more than happy to pick up on that and use it for their own political talking points.

I get tired of hearing the word anti-government coming from the left where the Tea Party is concerned. The truth is 99.9% of the Tea Party members are anti-statist, anti-socialist, and anti-big government. They/we are pro-American government the way it was intended by the founding fathers. We think the American system of government is the best in the world. But Socialist, Marxist and Statist have taken over and are attempting to change our system of government, and that is what we are fighting. We no longer feel that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. As displayed by the unpopular health care votes in congress. But you see MSNBC especially and most of the left-stream media are statist. And that is one of the reasons they hate the Tea Party so much, since the Tea Party is anti-statist and the media is pro-statist. If the tea party was pro-statist they would be cheering for them. But then again if the tea party was pro-statist, they would not exist because they would have nothing to protest, the government would be working for them rather than against them.

The hypocrisy the media is now displaying is because they are attempting unsuccessfully, to tie in the tea party with the Oklahoma City bombing. Never has the media produced one frame of video of any Tea Party rally where any speaker was talking about taking up arms against the government. Never once, has any speaker talked about or condoned acts of violence against any government official or any government building. A couple of months ago they tried to tie the tea party into the nut job that flew a plane into the FBI building, that didn't work either. Remember that little incident last year at the Fort Hood army base where it was obviously to all but the most clueless that this was a radical-Islamic motivated act of terrorism
as he slaughtered 15 people in cold blood and we were told by the administration and the media to not jump to conclusions. That even though all the signs pointed to a Muslim extremist that he was not to be labeled that. And here is the hypocrisy, just before Major Hasan began his slaughter he shouted "Allahu Akbar", which is Arabic for "God is Great" and we are asked to not jump to conclusions but yet former President Clinton worries that a movement that sees the American duty of dissent against a government you feel is wrong has never condoned or incited any kind of violence and the media has no video to prove otherwise is liked to an act of terrorism by a man who was a confirmed white supremacist. White supremacy groups have nothing to do with any tea party.

But as Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, an organization that promotes constitutional government, economic freedom and traditional values, pointed out - the timing and advertising of this McVeigh special by MSNBC turns the tragic Oklahoma City attack into a "cheap political talking point" for opponents of grassroots political activism, including the Tea Party movement.

"These smears have been bubbling up for months in the mainstream media. Every fringe lunatic, every tragic killing is attributed to conservative ideas or boisterous media personalities. The evidence is clear that as the Tea Party message has taken hold, liberals are growing increasingly desperate and the tired slogans aren't sticking," Hanna said. "Instead of engaging the Tea Party movement on the issues of economic freedom, government intrusion, and individual fiscal responsibility, MSNBC's primetime star is turning one of the nation's great tragedies into a cheap political talking point."

I have never been one to give much credence to conspiracy theories except for one. Timothy McVeigh was an uneducated white supremacist that didn't have the brain power to plan, set up and executes a terrorist bombing like that without help. There was one or more witnesses' that said they saw McVeigh on the day of the bombing with someone else that looked to be of Middle Eastern dissent. I believe that evidence was suppressed and witnesses' bought off or threatened so that no further investigation would be perused. Did you notice that he was executed very quickly after he was found guilty? There are people on death row, that have been there for more than 20 years but he was executed very fast. I think it was because Clinton believed once he was dead that would be the end of it and he didn't want some investigative reporter that felt no love toward Clinton interviewing McVeigh years later and finding out things the Clinton administration did not want released to the public. Clinton didn't want to have to deal with a plot that was bigger than one nut job. But just as with the Kennedy shootings of the 60's, we will never find out the real truth.

The truth is the hypocrisy of the left, not just the media but the entire left, are part in parcel of the Marxist tenant that anything that supports the position of the left is always correct and anything that supports the opposing position regardless of the facts, is always wrong even if the position on the right was the left position at a previous point in time. Case in point the Fort Hood shootings. All the facts were that he was a Muslim extremist but to this day the administration and the left-stream media refuse to tie the shooter to Muslim extremists but they have no problem tying in the tea party to the Oklahoma City bombing even though there is absolutely no facts that would support their statements. But they are not above making up the facts to prove their point. I wonder what is next; all attempts at discrediting the tea party movements have failed, including the current one. What is next I wonder? They would have to catch a Tea Party member in the act of violence or getting on video promoting violence, that was not a plant of the left like in the most recent tea parties, but that is unlikely to happen. I can only imagine the hate and vitriol that will be thrown our way when the left is no longer in charge of congress and President Obama is not elected for a second term. Get ready for a war of words then. The left is too wimpy to really take up arms against us, so I am not worried about that. And word, mean nothing when coming from the left.

 Did you ever notice that people that have the least amount of skill and talent are the loudest ones that blame others for their lot in life? Ed Shultz of MSNBC has his own radio show; on AM radio of course has recently been complaining that it is time to bring back the fairness doctrine. I guess he feels if he is given the chance to get on FM radio like Rush or Beck he will become just as successful and rich as they are. I guess he does not like the fact that there are people in his field that he can’t hold a candle to and that is why they are very successful and rich and he is semi-successful and not rich. I doubt very much he would be poor in the terms that you and I think of poor. I bet he makes more money then 90 % of Americans, he just hates that someone that opposes his position on anything is more successful than he is, a true liberal. He still has not figured it out yet that he is on AM radio because he sucks. Granted he has more talent than me. He is on a major Liberal opinion station on TV and has his own radio show and I don’t but then again, I am not the one complaining about it. I chose my path and so did he. If he were to figure it out that people want to hear conservative talk radio and switch then he might get his own show on FM radio but to be honest, I have listen to him and he is not very good at it so I don’t think he would be successful even if he did switch to conservatism.  

But that is not likely. He is a screaming liberal if I had ever heard one. Saying things like he would vote 10 times if they let him to keep Scott Brown from taking Kennedy’s seat in the recent senate election does not help. Admitting that you would be a cheat to get your way is not the mark of a successful man or a very good person. There is one problem with the fairness doctrine as far as Ed Shultz is concerned. The fairness doctrine says you have to provide opposing points of view. So the radio station that had him would be required to have a conservative host. That would not be good for Shultz. Whoever the conservative host would be would probably have better ratings then him. He would still have to compete with conservative radio and he would lose. The radio stations would rather have all news or music than have to play that game so no one would win, except the people that think it would be better to have neither then just have conservative radio. The liberals just do not want to admit that the reason conservative talk radio is so popular is because it is what the majority of the people want to hear. If the liberals had their way there would be only liberal talk radio and then the industry of talk radio would be dead and there would be allot more music and news stations.

Radio stations that play only music or news would love to have more liberal talk radio on, because then more people would tune into the music stations rather than listen to liberals scream how bad they have it even though they have the power in government, academia and Hollywood. In my home town of Pittsburgh, PA there is a liberal talker on the same radio station as a conservative talker. The conservative talker is on during the hours of 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM, prime time people making their home commute time. The liberal talker is on after midnight. There is a reason for it. The liberal talker who had a better time slot at one time had terrible ratings. The conservative on the other hand gets great ratings and brings in more money in the form of advertizing because people tune in to the conservative show.

Talk radio, weather conservative or liberal but mostly conservative is a business. And just like any business, they are going to go with the one that makes them the most money. That happens to be at this time conservative talkers. There is no doubt that if everyone wanted to hear liberal talk radio, FM radio would be littered with liberal radio shows. Even in mostly liberal towns like San Francisco and Boston, conservative talk radio does well. Clear Channel which is one of the large corporations that own allot of the talk radio shows attempted to see if liberal talk radio would work and make them money so they replaced Glen Beck with Air America in Cleveland Ohio not know to be a conservative town. Needless to say, Beck is back in Cleveland and Air America is gone. They got very little ratings.

Liberal talk radio does some pretty stupid things like NPR (National Public Radio), a public relations arm of the Democrat Party is wholly funded by the government and private donations, because they could not survive in a competitive free market, just like the now defunked Air America, Recently NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney announced that the station would no longer refer to people in the abortion debate as "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Instead, the station will say "abortion rights advocates" and "abortion rights opponents," according to a memo circulated to NPR staff. NPR is engaging in political correctness to change the meaning of words to change the tone of the debate. The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” give some creditability to both sides of the argument. Liberals cannot have that.

Anyone who has read my previous blogs on political correctness knows that the political correctness is a product of Marxism and the mantra of the Marxist agenda is to discredit any argument that opposes the Marxist way of thinking regardless if it right or not. This is called Critical Theory where logic is separate from context. In other words, arguments for Marxism are logical and arguments against Marxism are not. Facts are irrelevant when the argument is against. Today we call it political correctness and it only supports one side of an argument. The terms “abortion rights advocates” sounds much better than “abortion rights opponents”. Well two can play at that game, from now on I am going to refer to different sides of the abortion debate as pro-rights of the unborn and anti-rights of the unborn. See I changed the meaning in favor of the pro-rights groups.

People like Ed Shultz and the folks at MSNBC have not figured out yet that America is a center right country. There are many more libertarians, conservatives and conservative democrats then there are screaming liberals. But then again maybe they do know that and they want to change it by putting liberals to replace the conservative talkers. What they haven’t figured out yet is government may be able to force radio stations to put on liberal talkers against their will but they cannot force the American people listen to them. The constitution says we have freedom of speech but there is no such thing as freedom to be heard. We still have the freedom of choice. That is why there is more than one station on the radio dial. If the entire dial was liberal talk radio, then radio would cease to exist because there will always be an on/off switch. When radio goes the way of public education and lowers the bar for people like Ed Shultz that is the day the quality of radio will be gone and that will be the end of radio and that will be such a shame. 

In 1879 Thomas Edison created the invention that would literally bring the human race out of the dark ages. The light bulb was born. No more smelly oil lanterns or dangerous candles in every room. It was nice while it lasted. A while ago the European Union outlawed incandescent 100 watt light bulbs, imposing fines of up to $70,000.00. Over the years, lower wattage light bulbs will be banned also. Similar legislation will start in 1012 in the U.S. So why ban one of the greatest inventions in human history?

Well the environmental wacko will tell you it is to save mother earth. But the truth is, it is designed to kick start the market for Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs or CFL's. I imagine Edison would have loved to have the government ban candles and oil for lighting to kick start the industry he just created. But he had to do things the hard way. The CFL's are pitched as saving electricity because they use less of it then the standard bulb. There are some things they do not tell you about CFL are because the powers that be do not want you to know about the negative aspects of using these bulbs, and then you might make the wrong choice in their eyes so they are going to take away your choice without you knowing the truth. But I am going to tell you what the negative aspects of CFL's are if they will not so you can make an informed choice, for at least as long as they give you a choice. You're welcome.

CFL's come with a load of problems. For starter they can take up to 4 minutes to warm up and work best if left on for 15 minutes. They cost up to 10 times more than an incandescent bulb. And while they are supposed to last 15 times longer than an incandescent, frequent on and off tends to decrease the life span. Have you ever walked into a room and turned the light on to look for something and then turn the light off when you left the room? Well now with the CFL's you will have to wait a couple of minuets until the bulb warms up and by then turn off the light. I think this will cause consumers to use more electricity or just as much because people will just leave the lights on rather than deal with the waiting for the bulb to warm up. Once the bulb is warmed up, the light is inferior to a comparable wattage incandescent light bulb.

Disposal is a problem also. With an incandescent you can toss the bulb in the recycle bin and be done with it because it is made of just glass and metal. The CFL's contain mercury. Mercury is the same thing used in the old style thermometers. Because mercury is a poison, you cannot just throw away or recycle a CFL bulb. There will have to be special recycle programs where you can get rid of your bulbs. Again most people will just chuck them in the trash and our landfills will be also contaminated with Mercury. Have you ever tried to twist a standard bulb out of the socket to have the bulb break? Hope this does not happen with CFL's. If you get cut by the glass there is a possibility that the mercury could kill you or at the very least make you very sick if you get enough mercury in your blood stream, mother earth first, human safety last.

Most CFL's can't be used in standard hanging light fixtures or closed fixtures because of their size and shape and can't be used in garage door fixtures or ceiling fans or any other fixtures that vibrate, so chalk up some more money to spend replacing your light fixtures.

Now do I expect that in time with innovation and ingenuity that is the trademark of the American people will bring prices down and most of the problems I have just explained fixed? Of course I do, I believe in the American people. But just like the case with alternative energy, the nanny state wants to push alternative forms of energy and make us do without the energy forms that have performed for hundreds of years. Rather than waiting for the alternative forms to progress to the point that they can replace our current forms of energy with little or no impact in our lives or in our economy. But they are like spoiled little children that can't wait for things to go their way; they want to force things on us based on junk science even though it makes more sense to work with both.

But like it or not, Edison's greatest invention will become illegal in 2012 in the United States, the result of regulators that want to control every aspect of our lives and tell us what we can and can't do, from smoking, to trans-fats to gambling has all been banned somewhere. For over 100 years, the light bulb was synonymous with genius and a good idea. Now it is just one more symbol of the nanny state.

Don't expect the nannies to quit anytime soon. I saw it with smoking. First it was not smoking at your desk, so we went to our little smoke rooms to not bother the non-smokers, then they said take it out side, so we brave the cold and wet to get our fix and then some businesses said not on our property. So we have to walk across the street or down the block just to grab a quick smoke. And some cities and states have banned smoking in restaurants. I did not have a problem with this because I don't like smoke with my meal either and I smoke. Then they said no smoking in bars attached to restaurants. Ok, makes sense kind of. Then they said no smoking in bars. This is when I realized it was getting out of hand. No smoking in bars? Some cities actually ban smoking on any city street and in some extreme cases ban smoking in your personal home. Yes that is right, if you are smoking in your own home and someone sees you smoking, you can be arrested. Those are an extreme case, but expect it to be everywhere some day. Nannies are the type of people that if you give them an inch they will take a mile.

New York banned trans-fats and now banning the use of salt. Salt! This is a mineral that we as humans cannot live without, just like Co2 that we need to breathe; they want to tell us how much salt we can use and how much CO2 we can create! Is there no end to the little old ladies that think they are always right and force their will on others? This is how I see the nanny state and all those who agree with them.

This is not about smoking but about how the nanny state starts with the small things and just keeps on going until they control every single aspect of your life and the word "CHOICE" will be one of those dirty little words that cannot be said in politically correct company. The incandescent light bulb was a revolution that lit our homes and businesses better then the inferior products we were using before. The nanny state is bringing us closer to sending us back in time by forcing us to use inferior products and ideas and it isn't because of mother earth it is for control.

A new Rasmussen poll has President Obama's approval rating at 42%. This is the lowest so far of this administration. It is true that President Bush's poll numbers were actually lower but here is the difference. President Bush's low poll numbers were at the end of his second term. President Obama's low poll numbers are in the first year of his administration.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that while Bush had Fox news on his side, most of the left-stream media, Hollywood and academia were against him. The opposite is true with President Obama. With Bush, even Fox at times was against some of his policies. So far our current president can do no wrong in the eyes of the media. They didn't even vent him when he was a candidate. They defend everything his does or says no matter how bad, and they have thrills running up their legs when he speaks. Academia is in love with our current president and Hollywood has almost as much love for him as they do for themselves, only a very brave few dare to speak out.

The media gives too much credit to the conservative talk shows. Yes they have millions of listeners (because it is what people want to hear), but you have to remember. We are talking about conservatives; most of the people that listen to these talk shows do so on the way to and from work or in the mornings while getting ready for work. It is not like there are millions of listeners sitting at home 16 hours a day listening to Rush, Hannity and Beck every day. Most of their followers are people like me that had listen to 20 or 30 years of both sides and had already made up our minds based on our life experiences. They just say what we already believe. Which is why there are so many liberals in academia, they know it is easier to poison the minds of the young before they have the life experience that would cause them to question the liberal agenda. It is much harder to convince me that capitalism is bad after making a good living in it for over 30 years then for a young person that does not understand all the negative impacts of a socialist system.

In a capitalist market, it is the company that gives the people what they want that prospers, hence Air America. They did not speak for the majority of the American people so they could not get the ratings or the advertizing. Who wants to spend good money on a radio program that has a low market? Well maybe those companies that target people who listen to Liberal talk radio. Air America survived as long as they did only because of government handouts and private donations. Conservative talk radio needs no handouts. They do pretty well in the free market. Which I guess is a good reason for bringing down the free market in the eyes of a progressive. The same thing is true with NPR. They are a liberal biased radio network so they can only survive on the handouts of the government and the goodness private donations.

Thank god for conservative talk radio and Fox, if it were not for them we would have no dissenting views against the progressive Marxist agendas and Americans would believe that the liberal and progressive way of thinking is the only way. They would believe that Marxism is a good thing. Where else would we get the other side of any issue? CBS? MSNBC? ABC? CNN? Hollywood? Even our collages only teach one side of the issues. But then again, I guess that is what liberals want. No dissenting views unless they are doing the dissenting. Was it not Hillary Clinton that said dissent is patriotic? Why does that change when liberals are in power? The biggest difference between a conservative and a Marxist is a conservative will do all they can including give their lives to make sure freedom of speech is for everyone, where as a Marxist thinks freedom of speech is reserved for people with what they believe is the correct opinion. To some, dissent cannot be tolerated. That is the Marxist way. If you believe in the Marxist way, you are not a conservative. Not all liberals are Marxist, but all Marxist are liberals. There is no such thing as a conservative Marxist, which would be a contradiction in terms.

If it were not for conservative talk radio and Fox news we would not have even had a debate on the Health care bill. It would have passed the first time. We would have never known what was in it because the left media was not going to tell us. They would not have vetted the bill at all and would have just accepted it as is. Even if the bill passes, at least we had a chance to express our views on the issue thanks to the conservative media; otherwise we would have never had the chance. If not for the conservative media the Tea Parties would have gotten zero news coverage and even if it did, it would have been looked at with the same distaste as it is now. Keith Obermann would still be able to vent his hate and vitriol on MSNBC for anything not like him but there would be no outlet to counter him. Not that it would be that hard.

I have to give my thanks to the internet too. The internet is one of the few venues where the conservative view point is just as powerful and as loud as any liberal view point. It has done quite allot to help the Tea Party gain in size and strength. At least we have one outlet that is not controlled by Marxist. Yet! But they are trying to change that. Look for changes in the way we use the internet in the future. Not all of them will be for the benefit of everyone. I wonder if I will still be able to express my views in my blogs 20 years from now. You can count on that if I am allowed or even if not allowed I will find a way. Marxism does not tolerate dissent, even for a blog like mine that no one reads.

 As an actor, Tom Hanks is one of the best. I have enjoyed many of his movies, I personally like his comedies better then the drama movies he has made, I prefer comedy movies. In spite of that my favorite move of his is the Green Mile where he plays a prison guard in charge of condemned men. That was a terrific movie. Although I have never met him and probably never will I am sure he is a really nice guy at least that is the way he is portrayed in most of his movies. But then again Hollywood is based in fantasy. I give him credit for his support of the troops and their families. Having said that, I have to take issue with his recent Time magazine interview in which he tries to compare the current war on terror with the war in the pacific.

I don’t know if the quote going around the news agencies today is the exact quote, I stopped reading Time magazine a long time ago, but here is the except making the rounds: “Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

I hope that his upcoming HBO special on the war in the pacific does not have this liberal bias, but in reality if he expresses this view in a national magazine then it is more than likely that is the view of his HBO special. Does he take into account that they attacked us as we slept? That underhanded trick should have been enough of a reason to go to war with them but I guess liberals like Mr. Hanks think we should have just reached out a bloody hand to compromise with Japan.  Was there some racism involved? Of course there was, Americans back then really did think of Japan as “yellow, slant-eyes” some people do today. Racism has existed since man first discovered there are other tribes around, and will continue until there are no more humans. This does not make it right, but it has always existed and always will exist. But we did not want to annihilate them because they were different.

The one thing that I believe was racist was the Japanese internment camps. This is somewhat surprising because liberals are suppose to be these benevolent super humans that could never do anything like that but yet F.D.R. was the one that ordered it and he was just as liberal as any liberal today. OK so it isn’t so surprising, liberals are just as human as any conservative and can make mistakes. To be honest, if this happened today I think conservatives would be marching right along with liberals to protest internment camps but not because of some social justice thing but because we believe you don’t lock up American citizen just because of their race or some preconceived notion that they would turn traitor for the motherland. We would be marching today if the government tried locking up American Muslims because they might turn traitor for their religion.

Before WWII, America enjoyed a good relationship with Japan. The Japanese Navy was instrumental in defeating the German Navy in WWI. Much of the technology and weapons that Japan had was due to open trade with America since the 1800’s.

The war with Japan was much more complicated than simple racial haltered. The truth is, Japan was taken over by a group of Japanese militarism and its creed of Bushido that had hijacked, violently so in many cases, the government and put an entire society on a fascistic footing. These Japanese believe in racial superiority and racial purity. In every case of a country Japan took over a Japanese official was in charge of the local populace because Japan did not believe the inferior races could possible rule themselves in the name of Japan. Japan was a small country that had very few if any natural resources. And in order to maintain the vision of Japanese superiority they needed the natural resources of other countries in Asia and took them by force. The Japanese saw the American fleet at Pearl Harbor as a threat to their conquest not to mention the shipping lanes to get the natural resources back to Japan. Japan took a gamble that devastating our fleet at Pearl Harbor would demoralize us as a nation and keep us out of the war. They underestimated us.

Japan had been at war with China for 10 years before they attacked us and treated the Chinese as second class citizen in their own country. Ask any Chinese historian how China was treated at the hands of the Japanese. They did the same thing in the Philippines, Korea, and other Pacific nations. America liberated all those countries and fought alongside them against imperial Japan. The Japanese military took few prisoners and those they did were beaten and starved. The Bataan death march was not made up. It was real and thousands of American POW’s as well as civilians died during that march. Japan did aline themselves with Italy and Germany in an attempt to take over the world. There was no way that America could sit back and let that happen.

I do agree with Mr. Hanks that there are similarities between the war in the pacific and the war on terror of today. Where we disagree is where the similarities are. The similarities are between the kamikaze pilots and soldiers of the Japanese army and suicide bombers of today. In both cases they believed that to die in battle was glorious and surrendering would bring shame to their families. But the Japanese soldiers were much more brave then the Islamic terrorist of today. There were few Japanese POW taken because they would be willing to die taking out as many American soldiers as they possible could, where as the extremist of today are not quite as fanatic about it. I think had the war in the pacific lasted as long as the war on terror, there would not have been as many Japanese POW’s as there are extremist prisoners today. There were many more German and Italian prisoners then Japanese because the German and Italian soldiers were not as committed to giving up their lives for their country as the Japanese were.

Americans today no more want to wipe out the Muslim people because they are different then we wanted to wipe out the Japanese people back then. The problem is the Muslim people today are doing about as much to remove the extremist element from their ranks as the Japanese people did. Most experts on WWII agree that had America not dropped both atomic bombs on Japan many more thousands or maybe even millions would have died then did from the two big blasts. Millions of leaflets were dropped from American planes warning the Japanese people to leave the big cities or convince their leaders to surrender because several towns were going to be devastated if Japan did not surrender. Had we not had the technology or the will to use the atomic bombs the American Navy would have been forced to blockade most if not all of Japans ports. The air force would have prevented Japan from getting any supplies from the air and hundreds of thousands of Japanese people if not millions would have died from starvation. Not to mention the civilians and soldiers of both the Japanese and American armies that would have died. Even after the first atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese they still did not surrender. It took a second devastating bomb for them to surrender.

If we really wanted to wipe them out, why then did the U.S. spend what would be in today terms trillions of dollars to rebuild Japan and get them back on their feet? Would it not have been better to take over that country? Who could have stopped us. America and the Soviet Union were the only countries that still had a strong military and Russia had no air force to speak of and really wasn’t worried about that part of the world. It would have been easy to wipe them out at that point. Their army and Navy had disbanded and been disarmed. The people were devastated. Instead we helped them to become the world class country through peace that they sought to be thru force.

I cannot say I am really that surprised by Mr. Hanks. After all he does live in the fantasy world of Hollywood. Hollywood is ruled by the liberal anti-American, blame America first liberals. Most of the people that hire and finance projects in Hollywood are screaming liberals, so even if he were to make a film showing history as it really was and without the liberal bigotry, he would have a hard time getting the money to make it or actors to work on it. The fact that there are any working actors and directors that do not share the liberal way of thinking is amazing. Hollywood has become the very thing liberals railed against during the McCarthy years and communism black list. Hollywood of today is the opposite side of the same bigoted coin as it was in the 1950’s. The more things change the more they stay the same.

I plan on watching the HBO special if I can because I want to see if his liberal bigotry will change what really happened 70 years ago.

I am so sick of the left using the military personnel as an excuse to promote their own agenda. If the military is anything they are anti-leftist. Oh I am sure there are some in the military that are left leaning liberals. They would be more center left if anything, kind of like the blue dog Democrats in congress. If they were the screaming whining far left liberals that are so prominent in government and media today they would be very unhappy being part of the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. I have no problem with them; they are doing a job that most Americans will not do. In the military we are all brothers regardless of political leanings.

The left when not complaining about recruitment of minorities and the uneducated in the military, they try to paint our soldiers and sailors as victims and unstable men and women on the verge of psychological meltdown. They do a great disservice to these brave men and women in uniform and give them very little credit.

The truth is, the military is more diverse then any company, organization, or government agency in the country maybe even in the world. And it is not true that only the poor and uneducated join. In order to become an officer you must have at least a four year degree unless you go through an officer program as an enlisted man and even then for most enlisted you have to get your degree before you can become an officer unless you hold a rank of E-8 or higher, then there are specific programs you can apply for. You cannot even join the military unless you have at least a GED or high school diploma. Military members can take collage courses at a great discount and in some cases for free. If a military member leaves the military after 4 or 6 years without a collage degree it was their choice. Even the men and women fighting the war have opportunities to get a degree. There is no excuse for not getting one unless they chose not to. And there are many enlisted personnel with college degrees who did not want to become officers.

As for the returning vets of the current wars committing acts of violence, when compared with the rest of the country in that age group (18-35) only about one-third of violent acts are among returning vets of both sexes. When removing women from the equation the amount is even less. The truth is retuning vets are 10 times less likely to commit acts of violence then non-vets for that age group. The focus is not on the vets that after seeing more real life death and destruction then most people of their age come back and lead normal lives. Instead it is focused on the small percentage that do. Should not the focus be on the 90% of non-vets that commit acts of violence? Do men and women who serve often suffer PTSD? Unfortunately yes, and these people should be helped better then they have been. But they are still a small percentage. The media seems to want to highlight them rather than the rest. When was the last time you saw a story of a marine back from several tours of duty in Iraq that now leads a normal happy life? It is not because there are none. But it does not fit the narrative. If it bleeds it leads, the mantra of American journalism. The percentage of personnel that come back from war and lead normal lives is a monument to their strength. But the media seem bent on only focusing on the weakness.

And then in April of 2009 you have the Homeland Security department of the Obama administration calling returning war vets potential domestic terrorist. How do you think that makes a vet feel that their own government is claiming they are the same as the very people they were fighting overseas? Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to veterans but only because of the flack she got from various veteran groups. She should have been fired soon after that. There is no doubt in my mind had she not been pressured into it there would not have been an apology. I wonder if they actually took returning vets off of the list, I doubt it.

Then there is the issue of political correctness in the military. Another aspect of left's nonsense. The left is good at ignoring unpleasant truths based in reality. Truths such as the fact that the Fort Hood shooter Army Major Nadial Hasan should not have been allowed to remain in the Army. Reports that have come out since that bleak November day in 2009 that the Army knew Major Hasan was a threat. A recent report concluded that the CIA knew of Major Hasan's contact with anti-American groups and nothing was done. Is there any doubt that if this man was white and contacted white supremacy groups that he would not have been kicked out? The Army knew of his activities also. Hasan was suppose to be giving a lecture at Walter Reed Medical Center three years ago about medical procedures; instead he gave a power point presentation about "The Koranic World View As It Relates To Muslims In The Military". In his presentation he said "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims". He concluded that "Department of Defense should allow Muslims Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." Some of his fellow offices complained but it fell on deaf ears due to the fear of political correctness that has infected even the military. The result of this cancer was 15 people shot dead by a deranged madman.

Defenders of political correctness said the back lash of such actions would be terrible. The truth is, after 9/11 there was no backlash, after the bombing of the USS Cole bombing there was no backlash, after the Christmas day attempted bombing there was no backlash. The defenders of PC want to paint the American people and especially the U.S. military as cretins that will lash out at anything. They under estimate the American people and the American military members and that will be their undoing. Any backlash comes from Muslims such as the terrible riots that occurred after the Netherlands news papers printed that drawing of Mohammad.

Today's military is an all volunteer force and the Muslim soldiers that are serving now knew when they joined that we are fighting a war against Muslim extremist since the 1980's when the Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown up. We have been fighting with them ever since. We have had a constant military presents in the Persian Gulf ever since Desert Storm.

PC is not only a cancer on our military and makes otherwise logical military men make illogical decisions but also creates situations in our society that gets people killed. One such case was with a 51 year old 5 foot 100 pound Fulton County sheriff's deputy that escorted alone a six foot 200 pound suspected rapist to a court room and he was unshackled. Common sense would tell you this is a bad idea. But it seems political correctness overrides common sense and ignores physical differences, the result is, the accused rapist overpowered the sheriff's deputy and almost killed her, took her gun and killed four other people before he was stopped, four more families without their loved ones because of political correctness.

Political correctness is a hallmark of the left but unfortunately people on the right engage in it too. Not so much because they believe it but because they don't want to be seen as racist or intolerant. Political correctness is being tolerant of some of the most intolerant people on the face of the earth and it gets people killed. But I guess to some, political correctness is more important than a single human life. Think of how many people would be alive today of a group of Muslim men with box cutters and one way tickets would have been stop at the airport on September 11, 2001. Can you imagine the fire storm in the media this would have kicked up? But the reality is, 3000 Americans would still be alive or at least maybe one of the planes would have made it to its destination safely without loss of life. But we will never know that to the unfortunate takeover of our culture by political correctness. The Marxist at the Frankfurt School would be proud. If you don't know what I am referring to on that last statement on the Frankfurt school see my next post on Political Correctness For The Weak Minded Part II coming soon.

Not too long ago the defender of freedom, liberty and the American way Keith Obermann of MSNBC asked on his left wing opinion program of the tea party in his most condescending attitude that is the trademark of Mr. Obermann, "Where are all the people of color"? Shortly after that, the people of the Dallas Texas Tea Party thru the miracle of UTube, brought to you by the wonders of capitalism, invited Mr. Obermann to attend the upcoming Dallas Tea Party on March 6^th. Mr. Obermann in a follow-up explained that he could not attend the Dallas tea party because his father was in intensive care. Ok Mr. Obermann I will give you this one and my prayers go out to you and your family hoping that your father gets better and lives a long and happy life. Having said that, there is not doubt in my mind that if it were not your father's failing health that keeps you from attending the tea party you would find some other reason not to attend because you know as well as the rest of us you would not be able to back up any of your hate filled statements about the tea party and you would have been made to look like the fool the rest of us see you as.

But Mr. Obermann is just one example of the bias and hate in the left stream media for anyone that does share their views. The most obvious so called "News" organization called MSNBC is the home of others who not only are biased but don't even try to hide it. Another defender of truth and justice (liberal truth and justice), Chris Matthews recently commented on one of his heroes of the 1960's Saul Alinsky. Back in December when doing a show on the problem the Democrats are having with getting the Health care bill passed said and I quote, "Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the `60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don`t like and it`s never perfect, you have to act in the end like there`s simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don`t get anything done. I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused." Watching his show more than once, I do so not because I like him but to see what the other side is saying, he must get confused quite often.

For those of you who do not know who Saul Alinsky is, he was in the 1960 a leftist/Marxist community organizer who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals" on how to use the American system against its self to bring down the American system of government and capitalism and to replace it with a Socialist/Marxist system. That of course is a simplistic view of the book but accurate none the less, beside I would rather not spend much time on him; he is not worth it other than knowing who the enemy is. And if you are a patriotic American who loves his/her country in spite of the current level of politics, Alinsky is your enemy.

Back in November 2010 before the historic Massachusetts election of Republican Scott Brown who as underdog won the senate seat of deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, the Blowhard Ed Shultz also of MSNBC said on his radio program that If they let him he would vote ten time to keep the Republicans from gaining what has been a decade's long democratic seat in the senate. This is a total disregard for the American electoral system. It seems that he only likes it when his side wins. Of course he would fight tooth and nail to keep anyone who has opposing views from doing the same thing. The rules are different for the liberals.

It seems that the people at MSNBC and other left wing media outlets take pages out of Rules for Radicals. The reason is because they cannot legitimately bring about their Marxist statist agenda at the polls and they know it. So they use fraud, half truth and plain old fashion lies to bring about their sniveling, oppressive, monolithic gray communist utopia right here in America.

Now this may seem trivial but you throw in the combined audiences of Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow and you are talking hundreds of people. So it is not a small deal.

Most people think that this left leaning media is a recent phenomenon, it isn't although never has it been so obvious. The consequences of this leftist way of thinking are more than just political even if that in it caused more harm than good. Allot of people have lost their lives because of this leftist media bias. Case in point, Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who like Chris Matthews hero Saul Alinsky thought that Marxism was pretty cool. Mr. Duranty was a New York Times reporter assigned to the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin. During his years as a reporter in the Soviet Union, he had the opportunity to report on the millions of deaths of the Russian private farmers because they would not give up their farms for the collective goods. Stalin starved these people and took over their farms. Mr. Duranty not only did not report on these deaths but denied that it was even happening. And when honest reporters for other news papers from around the world reported on it, he called them liars all under the banner of the New York Times.

Another example of the left leaning media biased was in the 1960's. The late Walter Cronkite was considered by most at the time to be the most trusted man in news. This man indirectly caused the death of millions of freedom loving South Vietnamese people. In 1969 the American military embarked on a military campaign called the Tet offensive. In military terms it was considered a victory for the U.S. Over 30,000 North Vietnamese troops died compared to 2500 Americans. It sent the North Vietnamese back to the jungles of Cambodia to lick their wounds and regroup.

This was the turning point of the war but not because the offensive was a success but because Walter Cronkite who was already against the war in his nightly news cast declared the Tet Offensive a great loss and announced to the American people that the Vietnam War could not be won. You have to remember back then there was only three national televised news programs ABC, NBC and CBS. Cronkite was America's favorite. No news caster of today has the following Walter Cronkite did due mostly because of the availability of not only network news but cable news and the internet.

Shortly after that President Johnson said if I have lost Walter Cronkite I have lost Middle America, and he was right. This started the downward slide of the popularity of the war and Johnson was forced to deescalate the war. President Nixon eventually was the one that pulled the troops out in 1975 but it was due to the unpopularity of the war. After the Americans left the North Vietnamese, having no one to stop them invaded South Vietnam and the communist purges started. By the time it was over millions of South Vietnamese were dead for nothing more then opposing a political idea. If you doubt this, watch the movie the killing fields which is the true story of the communist purge of Vietnam and Cambodia as seen by a reporter. But then as Stalin said of the Soviet Union purges, "If one person dies it is a tragedy, if millions of people die it is a statistic.

Walter Cronkite was a one worlder, he believed that Americans should give up their sovereignty to a one world Government. He never explained how freedom loving people of the west were to live with Islamic fanatics in the East. But that doesn't matter; you don't have to come up with solutions, just believe in it enough. The following clip is him making a speech at the Norman Cousin global Governance Award meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbBOnopr4iM&hl=en_US&fs=1

Our President who was never vented by the press and who has educational records, travel records, financial records sealed up tighter then a drum knows that the left stream media will continue to be his pets on leashes and the evil opposition that does not feel a tingle up their legs when he speaks will continue to question his politics and ideology. He knows that the left stream media will continue to support his programs no matter how oppressive or totalitarian they become because he knows as long as they have the same heros like Saul Alinsky like he does and journalistic integrity has not been practiced among the media since leftist/Marxist professors to over most of academia to include journalist schools.
But America is waking up. The Tea Parties are proof of that. The success of the Marxist agenda was in their stealth, us Americans not knowing we had lost our freedoms until it was too late but the idiot leftist journalist made that impossible. You see, Americans will be governed by consent but will not be ruled and that is the only way a Socialist/Marxist utopia could possible exist. Marxist do not govern, they rule. Marx, Alinsky, the left stream media and the rest of the Marxist from the Frankfurt school underestimate Americans for we will not go into that good night like good little Marxist we will fight to the end. Maybe that is what makes Keith Obermann so angry, god I hope so.

 

The comments expressed in this post are my opinions only and do not reflect the opinions of any group or organization but may closely resemble conservatives and the patriots of America.

Liberals believe that if only the right would come around to their side there would be this Marxist utopia. That would be impossible. The phrase Marxist utopia implies that everyone would be happy. But the only ones that would be happy are the Marxist in charge, those they give special favors to, those that think freedom is over rated, those that think individuals are not as important as the collective and those that don't have to work because everyone else is taking care of them. The other 99.99% of us would be very unhappy.

I have often wondered if Keith Obermann of MSNBC considered for even a micro-second that his hate filled, condescending, bully like rants are just one of the reasons MSNBC has such low ratings? The other four reasons are Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews , Morning Joe and the general staff at MSNBC not even trying to be objective anymore.

Hollywood has more millionaires then any one place in the country. Why then is their state going bankrupt? Why are there so many homeless in LA? Why are there so many living in poverty in California? It just goes to prove the hypocrisy of the left. There are many more rich people on the left in Hollywood then on the right. I got news for you Hollywood celebrities, doing 30 second social awareness commercials does nothing to fix the problem.

It is better to have all the people represented then only some of the people even if it divides us in the political process. No one party represents everyone. The Democrats speak for everyone no more than the Republicans do. If only one party ruled we would have a congressional dictatorship and this would not represent the people.

Capitalism provides for great achievements of the individual but also can provide for great evil. Socialism diminishes the achievements while doing nothing or little for the evil. It is the duty of the individual to promote individual achievement and discourage evil. This cannot be done thru socialism. If the collective voice is the only voice heard the individual is meaningless except as part of the collective. Personal responsibility and individualism is the best means to fight evil and advance achievement for the betterment of all mankind.

"If there were no guns there would no longer be any violent crime". This could only come from an uneducated child, a moron, someone who has lived in a cave their entire lives or an anti-gun liberal.

Your health care is your responsibility not the responsibility of your neighbor. I am not my brother's keeper and he is not mine.

The constitution of the United States is not a failed document and has priority over any person or office in the United States government including the president. All military personnel understand that orders by anyone from the President on down that are in contradiction to the constitution is an unlawful order and they have a duty and a responsibility to disobey and can be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for obeying such an order.

A year ago a group of Hollywood celebrities swore an oath to President Obama in a national commercial. Anyone who swears an oath to any individual deserves to be a slave. That is why we have a United States, so that no American has to be a slave to any man, king, or president.

I thank GOD every day that all the liberal pundits, government bureaucrats and President Obama were wrong about the pandemic of swine flu. The reason I say this is because imagine how many people would be dead if it was the great epidemic the media said it was going to be. And they call conservatives fear mongers. I guess it is ok to be a fear monger if it suits your propose. In any given year an average of about 35,000 people die from regular flu, tragically 11,000 died from swine flu this past year. Quite a few of them were children. According to a doctor friend of mine, the reason was this swine flu was much like the Hong Kong flu that happened in the late 70's. Most of us older folks were exposed to that one and built up immunities to it. The very young had not had a chance to build up immunities to this type of flu yet. That is why the medical establishment requested that children get immunized first.

Most people that get the flu just see it as a very bad cold and feel a day or two in bed and some cold medicine can get rid of it. Unfortunately because of this, some people, especially high risk people, get even sicker and die rather than go to the doctors. I myself have never felt the flu was worth a trip to the doctor at least for me.  That is why there are so many deaths from the regular flu.I did take my children when they were very young even after they had their flu shots.

Every year around flu time drug stores, doctor's offices, some grocery stores and quite a few employers offer flu shots. Some employers offer it free for their employees because they know the cost of lost work by sick employees far outweighs the cost of purchasing the vaccine. It is tragic that so many people die from the regular flu every year but I think the only way to prevent that is for the government to order every American to get their flu shots. I can see that kind of thing coming with the Government takeover of health care.

The Obama government wanted to show us that the government was coming to our rescue and could handle it better than the regular health care system so they took charge of distributing the swine flu vaccine. They told us it would be ready in September, and then they told us November. When they finally started giving out the flu there was not nearly enough to go around so there were more delays while we waited to the next batch to be produced and delivered. By the time the next batch came around the flu had already peaked and most of us had already been exposed to it and built up immunities so less of the vaccine was needed. Need the swine flu vaccine now. Almost any doctor's office or hospital has it now.

For the past 10 years or so the distribution of the vaccines for the flu were handled by private enterprise and there was always enough and when it was needed for the people that actually went and got flu shots. This time the government took over and at first you could only get the shots at health clinics. When was the last time you had to wait in line in the cold for four hours to get a flu shot? The problem was working Americans didn't have the time to wait four to five hours in line. Oh you could also go to most country clubs then too, don't have a membership? Oh well, too bad. Go wait in line. This is what we have to look forward to with Obama care.

Had the swine flu had been the epidemic that the Obama government and compliant press said it was millions of people could have died before they had the vaccine ready and in enough quantities for everyone. This was the test and they failed miserably. Why should I trust them with the rest of my health care if they couldn't get this one little part right? And make no mistake, the health insurance plan they are trying to ram down our gullets is just the first step of a takeover of the entire health care system and doctors will be government employees on fixed salaries. Do you think the salaries will be high enough to justify eight or more years of school and tens of thousands of dollars, and years of internship? 10 to 15 years from now there will be a serious shortage of doctors. Or maybe we will get lucky and a future congress after seeing how miserably the government health care system failed will be able to find a way around the part in the bill that says future congress cannot mess with the it and end it once and for all. I think they will find in the future that diminished health care for all is not better then great health care for most. You want to cover the uninsured fine, but leave my health care alone.