Now liberals are giving advice about who Republicans should listen to. Sam Donaldson of ABC news, that great bastion of conservatism, recently gave advice to Republicans not to listen to Sarah Palin or Glen Beck. According to him, that is why the Republicans lost the election in NY 23 congressional district, never once mentioning that the Republican candidate was more liberal then the Democrat and never once mentioning that if the Republicans would have had a primary as they normally do, Scozzafava would have never even made it to the ballot. The republicans lost the election because they backed the wrong horse Sam. Even if Palin and Beck would have never said a word about it, the results would have been the same. They lost that election in spite of Palin and Beck, not because of them. I have to wonder why they even considered backing her. She represented more Democrat views then Republican.

I was going to write a blog that imagines what the world today if the military was liberal. But considering the tragedy at Fort Hood on Friday I decided to leave it alone for now. This post is a tribute the brave men and women that died at the hands of a crack pot. There is no difference between him and the man that shot up a building the next day in Florida. I am not going to mention the names of either of them because they do not deserve the attention that the left-stream media is giving both of them.

My heart goes out to the families of the victims of the travesty. I salute the brave officer that stopped that clown even though she was wounded. You did great, get well soon. To my fellow brothers and sisters in arms, you showed the world what it means to be an American fighting man or woman. Unlike most of your counterparts in the civilian world, you did not run. You stopped to help the wounded and some of you did it under fire. It is people like you in the military that make me really proud to be an American. You showed the world what you are made of.

To the families and victims in the Florida travesty, my heart goes out to you as well. You are in my prayers.

It is pretty much accepted even among but a few of the loony left that the man that shot up the building in Florida was a nut job that blamed other people for his problems and decided to kill them. But why are they making excuses for the Fort Hood shooter? Here is a hint, he was Muslim and Muslims are a protected group, protected by the left. The other guy was a crazy white guy; if he had a religious preference it probably was Christian a non-protected group. And we all know how the left feels about Christians. Now I don't know if he did what he did because he was Muslim. There is some speculation that he did. But that is all it is, speculation. If he did it because he was a Muslim fanatic or not, he was still a nut case either way there is no excuse for it. Some in the left-stream media are blaming post traumatic stress for it. He never went to war! Yes he had to listen to the stories from the solders that returning from the war. But getting the stories second hand is not the same as experiencing it. If that was an excuse why are there not more army physiatrist shooting up people? Do you think he was the only one? I have heard reports that there are up to one million military members who claim to be Muslim. They are not shooting up the bases. This nutcase is not the victim. The people he shot are the victims.

It has been reported that he did not want to go to war to kill other Muslims. So what, in WWII German-Americans killed Germans and Italian-Americans killed Italians. No one put a gun to his head and made him join the Army and take the army's money to put him through medical school. He did it all on his own. We have been at war with Muslim-extremist since the first gulf war. Are they trying to tell us in the 18 years since he thought he could go his entire carrier without once being asked to go to war in the Mid East? Sorry, I just don't buy it. I understand he was trying to get out, which has not been confirmed yet that I have heard. The press does not realize when the military pays to put someone through school; they expect a commitment for a specific number of years. If they were not letting him out, it would have been because of that commitment. Because he was a doctor, he would not have been fighting. He would have been behind the lines not expected to be in combat unless the area he was in was attacked which would have been unlikely. So this whole not wanting to kill other Muslims is crap.

The left-stream media should be ashamed of themselves for trying to make excuses for this man, in doing so they diminish the real victims by his hand. The media is also diminishing the strength of our armed forces. These are not victims they can politicize. These are the strongest of our young people that deal with death and destruction for a living. And they do it to protect you. The people in the military are much stronger emotionally then those in the left-stream media are willing to give them credit for. They act like these are regular civilians; they are not, they are better, they were trained for things like this. As one solider put it, I feel betrayed by one of our own, we are suppose to be family. What makes this different is that the soldiers that died were not killed on some distant battle field but here on our own soil. I am not making light of the emotions that these brave people might feel right now. Nor do I make light of the emotional stress of soldiers returning from war that had actually experienced what the nut job only heard about. But the media is looking to blame anyone and everything on this except the man that committed this unforgivable act. I imagine they are looking for ways to make the Florida shooter the victim also. Blame Bush, he has been your scapegoat for the last 9 years.

I beg all of you; please do not use this incident as a reason to commit acts of violence against other Americans that happen to be Muslim. American Muslims are not the enemy.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

As an Americans we have a responsibility. Of course there are many responsibilities that we have as Americans, but none as important as passing on freedom to the next generation, as the previous generations has done for us. Every good parent wants their kids to have a life that was better than the life they had. Not only in matters of finances, but in quality of life. The less freedoms we have the worse our quality of life. Some people may want to have someone else make the decisions in their lives. But these are people that are very short sighted. People that cannot see or don't care about the problems that come along with having someone else make your decisions for you.

I really don't think that President Obama or the politicians in congress have the intention to take away any freedoms just for the sake of power. But I think they believe that some things are more important than personal freedom. What is best for the group is not always best for the individual. If security means a loss of freedom then so be it. If healthcare means a loss of freedom then so be it. If it means shutting down opposition so they can get their agendas passed then so be it. If it means bypassing the constitution or bill of right to get things done then so be it. If it means getting reelected then so be it. As president Obama said in a pre-election speech, the constitution is a failed document because there are some things he believes that are in violation of the constitution. After all, he spent his life around people that think, Marxism and socialism are good things. I think if he thought suspending the constitution to get his agenda through would work he would do it. And there would be people in congress that would back him up. Not many, even Loony left Democrats would see the danger, but there would be some. There would be many in the media and the internet that would agree with him. As the Great One Mark Levin says in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, "The constitution is the bedrock on which a living, evolving nation was built. It is, and must be, a timeless yet durable foundation that individuals can count on in a changing world. It is not perfect but the Framers made it more perfectible through the amendment process."

Was the war on Fox news an attempt to shut down the opposition? It sure seems like it. Fox is the only news agency that is in opposition to most if not all of his policies. I have to wonder if any of the Pro-Obama agencies even considered that maybe it could be them one day if they opposed the president or his policies. I have to believe they do. These people are not idiots. They are educated people who have a president they feel represents their views. But what if he made policies that contradicted their views? Would they still be the brave little soldiers and tow the party line as they are now? Have they figured out yet that this is not just an attack on an organization that opposes the president but attack on freedom of the press and ultimately freedom of speech?

In the minds of Marxist, socialist, communist, statists or whatever you want to call them, the end justifies the means even if some freedoms have to be lost. Freedom must be over rated in their minds. If a large organization like Fox news is not free to say what they think what chance does a regular Joe like me or you have? Considering that the administrations war on Fox has backfired in their faces and Fox has even better ratings than before, I wonder if there are any news agencies wishing the administration would start a war with them. MSNBC could use the ratings the most. They must be fuming that their mortal enemies at Fox have more people watching. Keep up the good work Fox.

I worry that some day in the future, I will have my grandkids on my knee and telling them how amazing America use to be. That there was a time that you could speak out against anyone including the government and not worry about reprisals. I would tell them that you could actually choose for yourself what you wanted to do with your life, where you wanted to go and what you wanted to buy. That we once has an economic system that had endless possibilities and created opportunities for the poorest of the poor to rise above their conditions and become more then they are and it all depended on the abilities, skills and desire of the individual. Not on the whims of the government. That there were no shortages of anything except what the government interventions caused. That the government use to be of the people, for the people, and by the people and the government worked for the people rather than the other way around. That you could work and enjoy the fruits of your own labors and spend more of your paycheck than the government took. That you could give to the less fortunate of your own free will and feel good about yourself and you decided how much and when rather than the government taking it from you and giving it to someone else. And that personal property was a staple of American life and not just an abstract thought.

Will this all come to pass? I don't know what the future holds, no one does. But if history is any indication we are on a dangerous path and it just might. I worry for the very freedoms of future generations. And I have a duty and responsibility as an American to fight to the last breath any person, policy, organization or even government what wants to create a world when my grandchildren or great-grandchildren may not be able to enjoy the any of the freedoms that I have enjoyed my entire life up to now. And that means all the freedoms, not a limited amount. I will not accept one freedom removed or even reduced. Those that are willing to give up any freedom for financial or personal security do not deserve the freedoms they have.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

We live in such a great country two Americans can disagree and still be called Americans. I respect your disagreement. Of course I disagree with your disagreement. Regan was a moderate when he was a Democrat, when he became a Republican he was a conservative. Back then, moderate Democrats were conservative. My father was one. John F. Kennedy was one. Modern conservativtism is based on Regan politics. Listen to some of his speeches. He believed in smaller Government lower taxes and capitalism. Conservatives are not extremist, we believe the same things the founding fathers believed that a small government is better regulated by the people. That the government should have limited powers and powers not granted to federal government goes to the states and the people. True conservatives are constitutional conservatives and hold the constitution as the highest power. True conservatives believe in capitalism. True conservatives believe America and the American people are exceptional. If that make me an extremist then so be it. I have something I believe is right and willing to fight for it. I will not apologize for it or for America.

A moderate is the middle of the road and not sure which way to turn. Independents are not necessarily independent because they are moderate. Most Independents I know are conservatives that are fed up with the republicans. I suspect that there are some independents that were also Democrats fed up with their party as well. They are more likely to vote for a Republican or a Conservative then a Democrat. The democrat party was taken over by liberals and has been leading a fight against the Conservatives for 20 years now. Conservatives are tired of sitting back and seeing them turning the country in a direction it was never meant to go. Do you think the Tea Party patriots are extremist? These are normal everyday small town average American people who are sick and tired of runaway government and runaway spending. They include conservatives, independents and in some cases Democrats. This is a true grass roots group. Not astro-turf group that Nancy Pelosi says they are.

It is funny and I mean scary funny not Ha-ha funny how democrats have extremist as the leaders in their party and in congress who think the constitution is a flawed document but have contempt for the moderates in their own party. Democrats call them Blue-dogs. But think the republicans should get rid of their so called extremist and become more moderate. They only want that so they can push the Republican Party around. With conservatives in the party, we push back.

The left in the media just doesn't get it. Leave it to Democrats to get the wrong message. They have been for years. They are calling Dede Scozzafava who was running as a republican in the New York 23 district a moderate republican and that we the conservatives are purging the Republican party of moderates. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is Scozzafava was a liberal who should have been running as a Democrat. The fact is, the Republican Party is made up of mostly moderates and conservatives. But yet she backed a Democrat after she dropped out of the race. Why is that? Since there are more moderates and conservatives in the Republican Party shouldn't she have backed the conservative if she really believed in the Republican message? Conservatives are purging the liberals out of the Republican Party because we do not want to be represented by a liberal. If we wanted that we would vote Democrat. Democrats are the liberal party. Scozzafava is a liberal not a moderate that is why she had no chance of winning as a Republican. Any self identified liberal was going to vote for either her or the Democrat anyway. In any race if you have a liberal Republican and a conservative, the conservative will win every time. Only liberals will vote for the Republican, moderates may because the candidate is a Republican. The only time it is going to hurt, is when a conservative runs against a conservative Republican. It seems the National Republican Party is getting away from indorsing conservative Republicans unless they are the only running against a Democrat. Scozzafava is a RINO. She voted 90% of the time with Democrats.

In the liberal mindset, up is down, black is white and the world is saved now what Obama is in the White House. They have even gone so far as to call Ronald Regan, the father of modern conservatism a liberal. MSNBC's (Of course) O'Donnell said on a recent program "If Governor Reagan was out there now, Pawlenty couldn't support Governor Reagan because Governor Reagan was a tax increaser. This is a different era. This is the Palin era. You can't support a liberal like Ronald Reagan now." A liberal like Ronald Reagan really? Is he so stupid he doesn't remember the tax cuts that Regan put into place as president? Conservatives identify with Ronald Regan not liberals. These people are idiots. They are calling liberal Republicans as moderates. Senator Specter was a liberal that is why he went to the Democratic Party. If he was a moderate or conservative he would have stayed a Republican. He was a true RINO. He was only a Republican because he would have never been elected as a democrat. And he is not on the list of Blue Dog Democrats.

The Republican Party didn't get the message either. Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party. If they don't want the conservatives then the conservative party is going to get bigger and bigger and the Republicans will find themselves as the third party. In 2006 after the Democrats won power in congress they declared the conservative movement dead. We are sending a message of just how wrong they were.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

My last post was about how Obama lied when he said this bill is to encourage competition in the healthcare field when in reality it is about a massive government take over. Well I have been doing some reading of the health care bill. I have not read it all yet. It is hard to go thru. I was never trained in government double talk or lawyers speak and this bill is full of it. I will eventually read all of it if they do not change it again. I have picked out a few things I noticed that I was worried about on my last blog, specifically the part about the Obamacrare forcing out private industry health insurance companies. In it I talked about how eventually it would force insurance companies out of business by lowering the price of health care to the point that no company could compete. And I must apologize to anyone that read my blog that I was wrong. Yes I admit I was wrong.

I really thought that they would use the free market system against the insurance companies and force them out of business. But I did not give Pelosi and company enough credit. I thought they were trying to back door the free market. They are breaking it down! Page 94 Section 202C of the bill prohibits the sale of policies by private insurance companies in 2013, effectively forcing everyone to eventually purchase only government insurance. In other words, we lose or freedom of choice. Because our benevolent government knows what is best for all of us. It is going to happen much faster than I thought. Using the free market system to create a government monopoly would take several years. This is only four years away. This will not create competition; this will in effect eliminate competition by government mandate, another Obama lie.

Another troubling part of the bill is Page 110 Section 22E  requires federal funds to fund abortions through the government plan. I could have sworn he said we would not be funding abortions with taxpayer money. Oh no, Obama lied. That has never happened.

Being a parent and grandparent this one really bothers me. Page 1183 section 1904 requires $750 million of federal funds for a new entitlement program that offers Knowledge of realistic expectations of age appropriate child behavior and skills for parents to interact with their kids. I did not see the details of this new "program", but is it just me or does this one scare you. I have been around long enough to recognize political double talk. What this sounds like is a program to tell parents how to raise their kids. Being in a bill it does not sound like they are going to make suggestions on how to raise your kids or helpful hints to raise your kids but to tell you how to raise your kids. In that section it does not mention any penalties if there are any, but that does not mean there will not be penalties. Considering most of the people that wrote this bill are screaming socialist liberal nut jobs, does that mean that their ideas of child raising is the way we will be told to raise our children. What happens I wonder, if we disagree and decide to raise our kids in the American founding fathers conservative way? Will I go to jail or suffer a big fine that I can't possibly pay? Some things are worth fighting for. Raising my kids in a way I see fit is one of those things.

Since this health care debate started, Republicans and conservatives have been saying health care reform can be accomplished without government takeover of one third of our economy and massive tax hikes. It can be accomplished by allowing health care companies to compete across state lines, the competition would bring down some of the cost. Another way would be to fix the failing Medicare system. One of the biggest drains on the industry and the one of the biggest causes of rising prices is Medicare and Medicaid. The government is slow at paying doctors and hospitals and in some cases do not pay them at all. This in turn is passed on to the consumer. Rather than fixing the ailing Medicare system they are taking $500 billion from it to pay for this monstrosity.

Another way to reform health care would be by passing tort reform. A great deal of the cost of healthcare is because doctors have to have expensive insurance to protect themselves from frivolous law suits. Doctors are forced to order test that are not be needed just to cover all the bases due to a fear they may get have to go to court for missing something or fear a lawyer would use the lack of a test as justification for a suit. Page 1432 Section 2531 provides incentives to states to enact new medical liability laws but only if such laws do not limit attorney fees or impose caps on damages. This one section tells me what the conservative talk show hosts have been saying about congress and the President being in the pockets of trial lawyers, especially the part about not limiting attorney fees.

I don't believe the Democrats when they say this will be deficit neutral or would not mean higher taxes. If they are going to lower the premiums and cover tens of millions of people who can't pay, how are they possibly going to pay for it without a tax hike? Taking $500 billion from Medicare just made the Medicare system worse than ever before. Now prices are really going to skyrocket. Either they will have to raise taxes or add to our massive growing deficit. When was the last time a government program actually cost what congress originally said it would. They told us the income tax would never be over 10%. Is it at 10% now? In the 1960's they told us Medicare would cost no more than 20 billion a year, what does it cost now? The fiscal 2009 budget for Medicare is $415 Billion according the Department of Health and Human Services.

My hope against hope is that if this bill is passed, in 2013 when the takeover starts, there will be a new president and new people in congress. Any law congress creates they can amend or remove. I don't expect it to change if the same people are in power. It will just get worse. But we have a chance to kick the bums out. In a few short hours I will be going to the polls for a local election. I plan on voting for conservatives first but if there is no conservative then a republican provided he/she is not a liberal republican like in New York State. If that is the case then I will write in my own candidate as long as they are not democrat. We can send Washington and the National Republican party a message because they watch the local elections closely, especially in the current political climate with the midterm elections only a year away.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

One of the things that bother me about the government involvement in health care is they insist that it is going to increase competition in the market place among the health care providers. They know this is a lie, and anyone with even the most basic understanding of the free market economics understand it is a lie. The government and President Obama are under the assumption that you and I are morons and know nothing about economics. Or they do not understand economics and really believe what they are saying and want you to believe them even though you know economics does not work that way when one party has an unfair advantage.

For a limited time, having the public option may spark competition to the point of where health care companies are competing with the government option to bring down premiums and more benefits. But what happens when the strongest of the health care companies are able to compete and can bring their prices down and benefits up to the government level? More people will choose the health care company and less will use the public option. So the government brings their prices down even further and adds more benefits to bring more people to them. This is the way the free market system works. But it does have a limit. The free market companies can only lower prices and improve benefits so far before they start losing money. They can only provide the benefits that they have the money to pay for. They cannot give them away for free or they go out of business. The government does not have to worry about this because they have an unlimited amount of cash to spend on providing the care in the form of your taxes. If they need more money to pay for it they just raise your taxes and it is taken care of.

So for a little while, the free market companies will lower prices and increase benefits to compete with the government, and the government will keep lowering prices and increasing benefits until there is no longer any competition. This is what they are counting on. They are using the free market against itself which is what all good little Marxist are taught to do. Eventually there will be only one organization providing health care, and then the single payer system will come into being. Then the government's powers take over. They will be able to tell doctors who they can treat and what they can do. They will be able to control every aspect of the health care system, from doctors and hospitals to drugs and medical equipment because the government will hold the purse strings. They will do what the government says if they want to get paid. Eventually the system will become so bogged down with bureaucratic paperwork it will take months just to see your doctor. You will no longer have choices. You will go where you are told and do what you are told.

Once this is in place it will be virtually impossible to end it no matter how bad it is because there will be too many people dependant on this system, regardless of how bad it is. The Democrats know that and will use it as talking points against their opponents to ensure their power. They demonize doctors and healthcare companies that oppose the public option and people are falling for it. Do you really believe that a politician from another part of the country cares more about you then your own doctor? Do you believe that a politician cares more about you then a company that relies on you to survive?

It is funny how the very people who complain the loudest about monopolies have no problem creating one if it meets their needs and wants. They have also set their sights on big oil and coal to drive them out of business by using cap and trade (tax) and then they will control those industries also. The American economic system that has produced so much and has benefited the world better than any system ever is on its way out unless we the American people do something to stop that while we still can. Eventually we will not be able to stop it. All the power will rest with the Federal Government and not the people.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

I knew it was going to happen! It is bad enough that the American tax payer is paying for bad business decisions with banks and Auto companies and we are paying for inefficient and wasteful forms of energy like ethanol and morally reprehensible organizations like ACORN and public money to pay grants to people who think art is an upside down cross in a jar of urine. Now journalists think they should be subsidized. I knew the more the socialist were using our tax dollars to support things that should be supported by the free market or individual gifts the more people would show up with their hands out. It is human nature. The more you give the more they take.

There is a story about a man that was doing well but not rich. He walked to his bus stop to catch his bus to work one day and an elderly man approached him and offered him ten dollars. The man said "What is this for?" The elderly man just said because I want to. The man thanked him and said "I think you need this more than me." But the elderly man insisted. The man's bus was coming and he was in a hurry to catch it so he took it from the elderly man and said thank you. The next day the elderly man was back insisting the he take the money and once again the he turned it down and then accepted it after much insisting by the elderly man. This went on day after day for the rest of the week. Eventually the man thought it was easier to just accept the money and thank him then argue with him. This exchange took place for the next six weeks, every day the elderly man giving him ten dollars and the man thanking him. Then one day the elderly man didn't show up. The man got angry and said "where is that old man with my ten dollars, I am going to miss my bus."

What is the morel of this story, at first the man did not want the money, he had his own and knew the elderly man needed it more. But as time went on, he began to get use to the exchange and even thought of it as his money although he did nothing to earn it except show up. This is the mentality of Americans today. And liberals are more than happy to give away other people's money. The more they give, the more people expect it rather than providing for themselves. And that my friends are what the Democrats are counting on, to make the populace so dependent on their social programs that their power is assured. They will stay in power by making the people too afraid of voting for someone else out of fear of losing their benefits.

Now the Washington post reports that the co-founders of Free Press, John Nichols of the liberal publication, the Nation and Robert McChesney, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, suggested it's time for the government to provide for the poor independent journalists to "spawn" so-called independent media. Nichols and McChesney say "We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis," Nichols and McChesney. "The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media." They don't want a government bailout of newspapers, although I can see that on the horizon, considering who is in power now. Instead they want subsidies for independent Journalist that uses digital outlets.

These two mutton heads are trending on dangerous ground. First you have the problem of who gets the funding only independent journalist or all of those that use the internet to report the news? Every news paper, television, and radio outlet that has sites on the internet will want a share of the pie. The government's involvement would increase their influence over members of the press and specifically those that are getting government money. Then there is the problem of who gets the money, everyone, or only those that support the administration's policies? Considering the current administration, that is a very viable question. There is the temptation by every government official to move the press in a way that benefits them and hurts their opponents. It is being done today, and the officials don't have to give a dime to any news agency. Journalist are doing it all on their own for free. Imagine if the threat of losing their government funding was part of the equation! Any journalist with an ounce of integrity would not only condemn this action, but condemn the journalist that would even suggest it. Imagine a less than honorable journalist sitting at his/her computer, worried about writing what they really felt because they were afraid of the government taking away their money. Yea, that would be fair and balanced journalism!

Mr. Nichols and Mr. McChesney may think now because of who is currently in the White House is who they want in office so they would never write anything bad about them so they are not afraid of the consequences. But what if President Obama does something they don't like. Are they such morons that they think the people that surround Obama would not take steps? Look at what they are doing to Fox News for no other reason than Fox does not support him or his administration or his policies. What is going to happen when your ideals conflict with his? OK, let's say you are so in love with Obama, like the rest of the liberal media that you would never write anything that was contradicting to the President or his policies. What about congress? Do you support every effort every Democrat makes? There are several Democrats as well as Republicans that are being investigated for ethics violations. Would you write about that or would you swallow your pride and dignity and pass it up or would you write about it. But what about when a new conservative administration comes in, and it will happen eventually, that is not very responsive to the liberal press? Or do you think conservatives are dead and there is no chance of that happening? Are you willing to take that chance? Do you really want them to have a thumb on your check book and your journalistic integrity? Do you think freedom of the press and the constitution would really protect you from an administration that didn't want you to write anything bad about them?

Clearly Mr. Nicols and Mr. McChesney have not thought this out all the way. Either that or they are blooming idiots. I don't think they are idiots. I think they are a couple of guys that are willing to trade a paycheck for their pride, dignity and journalistic integrity. I think that they either don't care or have not thought of the long term consequences of the government involved in providing funds for journalist. It would be bad for the country as a whole and be devastating to the profession. As for me, I would rather starve then not be able to write my blogs the way I see fit. But then again, I am not a journalist or a liberal and my freedom to write what I want is not in danger, at least not yet.

Who is the next group with their hands out? Your guess is as good as mine. I imagine it will be the group with the best lobbyist. But you can bet it will not be in the best interest of the American people, only for the people with their hands out.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

I guess it depends on which side you are on. According to a lead cover story in Newsweek Anna Quindlen wrote how the constitution "Checks and Balances" are making it harder for Obama to pass the healthcare bill. Aw, let's have a pity party for the liberals. Considering tens of millions of people would rather not have the national health care. For those of us that like our health care it is a good thing.

She explained that she's "saddled" by the "incremental" constitutional structure, but she fretted:

"This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system, a nation built on revolution, then engineered so the revolutionary can rarely take hold."

 This is not a revolution; this is just bad decision making by people who want to create a nanny state to keep the power they have so the people will continue to vote for them out of fear the other party(s) will take the benefits away. The revolution was in the 1930's when Roosevelt ignored the constitution and created a government that extended their power beyound the authority given to them in the constitution.

"Checks and balances: that's how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary. And it's also meant to safeguard the rights of the individual...But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't."

Thank GOD for checks and balances. This partisan civil war as she puts it is Americans, voicing their opinions. Thank god our country gives us the right and responsibility to debate anything and everything. No matter who is in power, they will always think that their programs are the best and without the ability to be partisan everything would be passed or shoved down on us the first time. If there is anything good about this health care war, it is making the Democrats think about what they are doing. Otherwise the first draft of the bill would have been rammed onto us without any public debate.

Where do you give up the checks and balances? It seems to me the only way for it to work is for it to apply to everything the government wants to do. God forbid a government that is unconstrained. I think she is trying to make the point that because of our checks and balances, the president is having a hard time getting the bill passed. The problem lies within the Democratic Party. Not being able to constrain the people in their own party. The Democrats have enough votes to pass anything they see fit. It is their own party that is keeping this from passing. It would seem there are some good Americans in the Democratic Party that are not Marxist liberals. I am willing to bet, she would only want those checks and balances taken down when Democrats are in power. But you can bet she would want them to apply for any republican administration or congress. It is a good thing too. The way things are going right now, I have a better feeling about a Republican congress in 2010 and maybe even president in 2012 then I did ten months ago.

To Ms. Or Miss, or Mrs. Quindlen or whatever you want to be called, giving up our safeguards of a government that is no longer of the people is not worth the cost of any socialist program. Any person in this great republic that is willing to give up their liberties and freedoms for safety and security does not deserve the liberties and freedom they have. A lot of blood was spilled bringing you those freedoms and protections. But is seems that for some it was in vain.

Don't get me wrong I am not taking anything away from the dependants of military members. They have it rough too. I can't tell you how much it means to know your family is supporting you. I know it is tough on spouses that have to raise the kids, pay the bills and take care of all the problems alone while we are on deployment. My wife and kids had to deal with four deployments. I thank god every day that they were strong enough to put up with it. It was hard for them I know, but no harder than a single mom whose deadbeat husband takes off and leaves her and the kids to fend for themselves. Most of us would keep just enough to buy necessity items and maybe some gifts for our families and a beer or two when we pulled into port. The rest was sent home. Direct deposit is a great thing. I don't know that I would have stayed in if not for my wife. I was having some problems with the little support we were getting from then President Clinton and she reminded me of my duties and responsibilities and why I needed to stay to the end.

Regardless of what you may think of President Obama's politics, as a commander-in-chief he falls short. In the 10 months he has been president he has shown me little in the way of being any good at this job. Maybe it is because he has absolutely no experience with the military or fighting a war. Maybe it is because he just doesn't care. Maybe it is because he is getting bad advice from his advisers and handlers there at Moveon.org. Maybe it is because being a good Commander-in-chief would make him look bad as a Nobel Prize winner. Maybe he is waiting for the midterm election because he feels doing what he has to do to win would be bad for the Democrats. Any way you cut it, at this aspect of his job he stinks.

Every day he waivers and makes non-decisions more American soldiers die. What is he waiting for? He already has the reports from his commanders on station. Is he waiting for the enemy to give up? Now there is a report that some of the UN forces may be pulling out. I have to wonder if this is because they do not feel America is going to be any help. That Obama is a weakling that has no stomach for war. I am feeling that myself. Remember that little incident where an American merchant ship captain was being held hostage a few months back. I have a buddy on one of the ships that were there and he told me, the commander on station made the decision for the seals to take out the pirates because the president was too wishy-washy and taking too much time. It maybe that President Obama, gave authority to the commander on station to make the call. That would have been the right thing for him to do. But we will never know for sure, President Obama got the credit from the press, and that will be the end of it.

If he is going to continue to play politics with the lives of brave Americans and make them fight a war they can't win because of  liberal stupidity, and I never thought I would say this, he need to pull our troops out. The lives of these great Americans are not worth his grandiose views of a new world order. Those people are there because they believe they are doing what is right. And they are right, but let them fight to win. This is Vietnam all over again. It was because of politics that so many brave men died in that jungle. Maybe Ted Kennedy was right, it is a quagmire. But not for the reason he thought, but because the Democrat and the president's political life is more important. There is no reason for not making a decision, when not doing so is costing so much. He makes his generals wait days and even weeks before he will even talk to them. I know the president is a busy man and has quite a few plates on his table, but maybe some of those plates can wait until he sits down and focuses on the job he has to do. Even the President who started this whole nanny state socialist idea dedicated America to winning the war. Of course I am talking about President Roosevelt, A socialist's wet dream. At least he was committed to winning and did what he needed to do.

Yea, Yea, I know it was a much bigger war. But does that mean that the soldiers fighting this war deserve any less? I never felt we should pull the troops out when Bush was President because I felt he was giving it everything he had and he wanted to win. Congress and the press made it hard for him but he did it anyway. I hope to GOD I am wrong, but if this is the way Obama is going to execute the war for the next four years, then our troops have no chance of winning and they should be pulled out as soon as possible. I don't want this to turn into another Vietnam, I want them to win. But I don't want them to die so Obama looks good to people outside our own country. His Nobel Prize is a joke.

Obama apologized to the world for America although he did not speak for me. Now I want to apologize to all the men and women that wear the United States Military Uniform and all our brave allies on station fighting alongside of us. On behalf of the majority of the American people, I apologize that I cannot do more for you, that I cannot convince President Obama to fight this war to win, that I cannot stop the leftist advisers he has to keep from interfering between him and his commanders on the ground and that I am too old to join you in the fight there, so I promise I will do what I can to continue the fight from here. If I could I would be standing shoulder to shoulder with you. You have my support and I will do what I can to watch your back. Words may be the only way I can, but until they shut me down, I will continue this fight until you are safe at home with your families. Thank you for your service to your country and may GOD bless you and protect you.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

I am happily surprised to see that maybe, just maybe the leftist media is getting it. This war that the administration has declared on Fox is not really about just Fox. It is a warning to the other media outlets also, don't cross us. Maybe the left understands this is an attack of freedom of the press and to some extent freedom of speech.

Recently the white house announced it was offering Kenneth Feinberg the "Pay Czar" for interviews. All media outlets are invited except for Fox of course. The five member network pool that covers the White House shares the cost and daily coverage. Fox has been a member since 1997.

The press pool is compromised of the five major TV networks and includes CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

An example of this history is former President Carter and North Korea who promised not to build nuclear bombs. Bill Clinton had to go back and get a similar promise. Today North Korea is firing missiles towards Japan and pointing them in the direction of the west, making threats to land one on American soil. Carter spent 448 days negotiating with a corrupt Iran government that he helped put in power and that mocked him in public the entire time. It was not until Regan who they knew would use force to get the American hostages back that on the same day as Regan’s inauguration finally released the hostages. President Carter also negotiated a peace with Israel and Palestine, a peace that was broken soon after, a peace that was negotiated again by President Clinton and again was broken.

Carter should have learned from World War One and World War Two that when someone wants a war, talk is cheap unless there is strength to back up the talk. Talk gives the warring parties’ time to make and execute their plans. At the end of WWI President Woodrow Wilson signed The Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations was created in hopes that the world would have a place to air their differences and the result would be no more war. Sound familiar? The Treaty of Versailles made Germany wholly responsible for the war and all the destruction the war caused. The German people were devastated, angry, and humiliated that they would have to pay for a war that was a result of the Government and not the people. This led rise to a leader that promised that Germany would once again regain its place in the world. He used the Jewish people of Germany as scapegoats as to the problems of Germany. When the League of Nations tried to convince Hitler that the Jewish people were protected under the “rights of man”, Hitler pulled Germany out of the League. I am not defending Hitler; he was a mad man and a devil. Had I been alive then, I would have been one of the people fighting that mad man along side of other members of my family. Sometimes I do fill like I fought that war thru stories told by my father and uncles. But I digress, Hitler rose to power because it was in Germanys self interest to have a strong figure like him to lead them.

One of the terms of the Versailles Treaty was that the Rhineland would have to be given up by Germany. This land was previously part of Germany and in 1936 Hitler’s army cross a bridge in to the Rhineland. The League of Nations started an aggressive letter writing campaign to condemn his actions. This of course did not deter Hitler in the least as it will not deter a Middle Eastern or Asian despot for perusing nuclear weapons if they feel it is in their best interest unless there is a threat force behind it or at the very least a belief that there is strength behind the words. Even though America has the strongest military in the world, countries like North Korea and Iran know that the current administration has very little will to use it. There for any negotiations or threats mean very little. Back to Hitler, the harshly worded letter writing by the League of Nations emboldened Hitler to continue his campaign because no action was taken. Soon after that Hitler annexed Austria, claiming it was part of Germany. Again nothing was done except speeches and letter writing. The following April, Hitler formulated a plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Upon hearing this Neville Chamberlin, who at the time was the Prime Minister of England, went to negotiate with Hitler. He sold out Czechoslovakia for cooperation with Germany. One man in England, Winston Churchill, spoke out against Hitler because he understood who and what this monster Hitler was from the moment he rose to power. For this he was mocked and branded as a godless warmonger by of course liberals. History tell us who was right and who was wrong. Hitler then invaded Poland and World War Two had begun. No less than 50 million people had died and the world lay in ruin.

After the war ended, documents made available to the Allies from the German High Command stated that had the western powers even attempted an action to stop Hitler from entering the Rhineland he would have turned his troops around and Hitler would have been deposed. Now this is not saying that Japan would have still not started the war and attacked Pearl Harbor. But the idea that Japan would have not had Germany as an ally might have deterred them. America and other countries would have been fighting a war on one front rather than two and Japan would not have lasted long. How many lives could have been saved if it was not for the good feelings of and high moral attitude that over rides commons sense and real world politics that seem to be the trademark of the liberal. Why did the end of WWII not bring about WWIII? It is not because of the formation of the United Nations. The League of Nations did not stop WWII. It was not because of any world leader. It was because rather than humiliating and destroying Japan and Germany, we pumped billions of dollars into rebuilding those countries. At that time the world leaders understood the mistakes made after “The War to End All Wars” and learned from history. They would not about to make the same mistakes.

President Obama sold out Czechoslovakia and Poland by pulling the defense missile shield from that area. He tried spinning it as replacing it with more up to date equipment but we all know, and Russia knows that will never happen. I am not comparing Obama to Hitler. Hitler was a monster; Obama may be a liberal, but he is not a monster. Rather I am comparing Obama with Neville Chamberlin who also sold out our allies for diplomacy and cooperation, the same allies as Chamberlin. He used the up to date equipment as an excuse to compromise to the Russians. The Russians agreed to the sanctions for Iran and then withdrew their agreement after the President’s announcement stating that sanctions would be premature.

Why would the Russians care about Iran? It is in their self interest to do so. If any kind of nuclear war was started in the Middle East, by Iran, Israel or some self-loathing suicide bomber terrorist with a suitcase nuclear device, the oil in the Middle East would be useless and the world would have to turn to Russia or America for their oil. Russia knows that even in the face of a worldwide shortage of oil, the environmentalist here in the U.S. would still have enough power thru our liberal congress to stop any drilling of oil. Who would we go to then? We would turn to Russia, and Hugo Chavez and enemies of America to supply oil we could very well provide our selves. The shift of power would be dramatic. It seems today that America is the only country that overrides its own self interest for some misguided noble ideas that is direct opposition to the real world. If this statement was not true, we would be drilling for our own oil.

Why then do people like President Obama, Clinton and Carter not learn from history? I believe the answer is very simple. They believe as liberals tend to do that they can change what history has taught us. Things will be different because they with their superior intelligence and enlightenment can change 30,000 years of human evolution. I believe the human animal is a flawed creature, basically good and honest but prone to bouts of evil. When evil rears its ugly head we must be prepared to fight that evil. Evil will not be contained with words or harshly worded letters. Actions speak louder than words. We must be ready to act to defend all we believe is good. Words only without action or the threat of action are useless. We must also recognize evil when we see it. It would seem our president and most of congress does not see evil, rather misunderstood people. Hollywood liberal celebrities are also know for seeing the world upside down, right is wrong and evil is good. Our president encourages our enemies and disrespects our friends. To the far left, guys like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadof Iran are heroes to be revered. Hollywood publicly displays their affection for these men wile demonizing real heroes and friends of America.

Because of his far leftist liberal and evens socialist ideals, Obama has been wrong with our foreign policy. He was on the wrong side after the Iran fake elections; he should have been supporting the people that wanted to bring down that government, he was wrong about Honduras. That country legally impeached their president according to their constitution but he was on the side of the leftist president who was deposed. That would be like some other country interfering if our congress legally impeached one of our presidents. He sold out the Check republic to bow down to Russia and if he didn’t know that Russia would go back on their word he should not be president. He went around the world apologizing for America, He supports Hugo Chavez that somehow convinced his congress to keep him in power and who thru government thuggery, pretty much shut down freedom of the press in that country.  Of course seeing what is playing out in the media the last couple of weeks it would seem that Obama is attempting the same thing. The only opposition media is Fox news. It is also the only media outlet the Obama administration has declared war on. I wonder what would happen to MSNBC and CNN if they decided to stop supporting the Obama agenda.

While negotiation and diplomacy are preferable to war and it may sometimes work, it is not always the only answer. Sometimes just the show of strength can stop a war or an aggression. Sometimes war is the only answer. As in the case with Iraq, 12 years of sanctions and harshly stated speeches did no good. If George W. Bush had not gone to war with Husain, eventually we or one of our allies would have been forced into a war this that country. In the mean time many more people in Iraq would have died from their own government and many terrorist would have gone thru the training camps and only heaven knows how many people would have died at the hands of terrorist. I am not going to debate the merits of going to war with Iraq. Iran is now on the verge of being the enemy that will bring death and destruction to much of the world. The point is negotiation, diplomacy and sanctions were worthless with Iraq because they believe the west was weak and would not do anything about it. For 12 years they were right. Still there are people that believe you keep trying rather than go to war. In the mean time, how much death could have been prevented? How many atrocities are enough before you say the time for talk is over and take action. In the case of our left-leaning friends there is never a time to give up on negotiations and act on war. They are also the same type of people that allowed World War II to happen and fifty million deaths are the result. Regardless weather we acted sooner with Germany or not, there would still have been deaths, but had the world realized at the start that talk without action or threat of action accomplishes nothing, maybe just maybe, the war would have never happened or ended before Hitler had a chance to build his war machine and the deaths caused would have been miniscule compared to the deaths that actually happened. Even one death is a tragedy, but causing great multitudes of death because of an ideal or lack of action is criminal. Japan has a saying, “Take no action is an action”. If America stands around negotiating when we could be stopping atrocities, we are responsible for the deaths that are cause by our non-action. History shows us at least in the case of World War Two and Iraq that liberalism is not a deterrent to war and the so called war-mongers are the ones that stop or prevent it.

“Liberalism does the exact opposite of its stated intent”. Jim Quinn

“Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. George Santayana.

Fair winds and following seas.

Sailor Ray

Two weeks and the attacks on Rush Limbaugh still continue. Now a war has been declared on Fox News by the White House. This is old news I know. The liberals have been attacking conservative talk radio for years now and the conservative principle in general. It hasn't worked up to this point. Fox is still getting higher ratings than any other media outlet. Glen Beck still gets higher ratings then Keith Oberman. Rush has more listeners than ever thanks to this war on conservatism. And make no mistake; this is a war on conservatism. Targeting people like Rush and Glen Beck puts a face to it. Targeting Fox puts a face on a corporation. We know how much the liberals love to hate corporations.

The liberals are making all kind of excuses for why Rush and Fox have such high ratings. None of the excuses was that people wanted to listen to talk radio, or that the people that listen to rush and other conservative's radio show host are conservatives and want to hear a conservative talker. The most pathetic excuse so far is from CNN's Carol Costello on Monday's American Morning. She brought on a liberal psychiatrist, and the key here is liberal psychiatrist, Dr. Gail Saltz who concluded that Rush has such a big audience because Rush in her words, "is operating like the bully, and if you're on the playground...you want to be...under the bully's wing and go along with him and get...some power by proxy". In other words people who listen to Rush like bullies and support bullies or are afraid on getting picked on by the bully. One problem with her conclusion is as I see it conservatives are the kind of people that stand up to bullies and are willing to fight them if necessary. Liberals on the other hand, if they are not the bully, are the ones to run from the bully or try to talk it out. You stop a bully by standing up to the bully. Running away or trying to talk it out with the bully just encourages them to continue their bully ways. Costello said Dr. Saltz pointed out, and I agree with her, are conservative talkers attract the kind of people who like strong aggressive messages. Although I doubt she meant that as a positive thing. Liberals have been bulling America for 40 years and now conservatives are fighting back, and liberals don't like it. We are no longer the silent majority.

If Rush is a bully then what is Keith Oberman? His hate and vitriol for anything or anyone conservative puts Rush to shame. He is a hate monger in the highest degree. The only difference is he is a liberal who slobbers over the current administration. The fact that Glen Beck and Rush get higher ratings than him must make his face red with anger and it shows in his performance. And let's not forget that fat slob on MSNBC whose name escapes me right now but is not worthy of my time to look it up, screams at the top of his lungs on television that the Republicans want you dead. But it is ok because he is a screaming whiny liberal too.

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Obama senior advisor David Axelrod complained about Fox news. They were discussing White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's war against Fox News. Axelrod told the ABC host that other news organizations should not take Fox News seriously. This is fine coming from a politician. But the other news agencies have to compete with Fox News. They loose and they go down. It would be a grave mistake in the free market if other news organizations did not take Fox News seriously. I don't believe for a second that the administration does not take Fox seriously. If they didn't they would ignore Fox, not start a war with them. Axelrod also said to Stephanopoulos, "The only argument that Anita was making is that they're not really a news station, if you watch even it's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news, it's pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. And we're not going to treat them that way. We're going to appear on their shows and participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view." Point of view, the other media agencies don't have a point of view? Either Axelrod is a moron or he thinks we are. The only difference between Fox and the other media outlets is which way they point. But there's the rub, the point of view is ok if it supports the administration. It is a mistake to declare war on any media outlet. It may blow up in their face. This is reminiscent of Nixon's enemy list.

Watch out, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and all other media. If this can happen to Fox, it can happen to you too if you cross this administration. Opposing view points were once the staple of the American free press. Now it seems there are people in this administration that wants to remove that staple. Right now the attacks are on the television, radio and print media. It will not stop there unless something is done. The next logical step is the internet, and eventually personal free speech. Our first amendment rights are being attacked. If opposition is silenced "for the good of the people" it will stop being a war of words and people will pick up arms. Americans, conservative and liberal alike will not take it. It is not just a war on freedom of the press; it is also a war on free speech. The administration is quickly finding out us conservatives are not the sheep they took us for and we will not go gently into that good night.

Once again the left is redefining words in the English language to fit their own political agenda. They misrepresent words to use in describing the conservative movement and people in the movement as their only defense. If they had to use the true meaning of words they would lose any argument and it would be turned on them. Time after time I have heard the left use the term Fascist to describe conservatives and conservative talk show host in particular. Not only from the left stream media, but I have also seen it quite a few times describing my views in my blogs. Recently on the highly rated (I am being sarcastic) "Joy Behar Show" on CNN HLN her and a liberal guest, (that would be the only kind on her show), were talking about the latest flap with conservative talk show hosts Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The word Fascist came up quite a few times and it made me realize that the left is just throwing out a word they don't know the meaning of but they know is bad. If they did know the meaning, they would not use it because it describes the left more than the right. I decided to look up the word "Fascist" to see what old Dan Webster thinks it means. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the definition of the word Fascist is:

Main Entry: fas·cism

Pronunciation: \'fa-?shi-z?m also
'fa-?si-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

Date: 1921

1
often capitalized
: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

— fas·cist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective
often capitalized

— fas·cis·tic \fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-\ adjective
often capitalized

— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(?-)le\ adverb
often capitalized

Let's break this down.

1. "A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual", to a conservative the United States of America is a country of 300 million individuals that make up America. A conservative believes all people should be treated equally without regard to race, thus allowing them to rise or fall in keeping with their commitment to hard work, dedication, self reliance and personal responsibility. The left on the other hand believes if you are a white conservative, you are a racist period. Just ask Janeane Garofalo. She is funnier when talking about serious political issues then when she is performing her comedy act. These people are on the left not the right. The left promotes groupism whether is it race, national origin, or union affiliation. I would hate to see America be only conservative. It would be boring and there would be no debates except maybe on the degrees of conservatism. Having open debates that allow opposing opinions on both sides and keep both sides honest or at least not let the other side get away with being dishonest like the recent flap by MSNBC about the fake racist remarks by a conservative talk show host. The left on the other hand would love for all of America to liberal or progressive which is basically the same thing.When you promote the group above the individual, the individual becomes expendable. The individual is not needed if you have more individuals to take his place. The individual can exist without the group, but the group cannot exist without the individual(s)
2. "and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader", not I or anybody I know thinks the left wants a dictator and conservatives would take to the street with our guns if a dictator tried to take power, however the conservative movement is against a centralized autocratic government and any kind of government that is too large and causes more distress on its citizens then it helps in the form of taxes and regulations. The more taxes and regulations, the more distress. Socialism is only one step behind a dictator in that a group of people are making decisions rather than one person. The next step is communism. Neither socialism nor communism is any better than a dictatorship. A representative republic based on rule of law is the best to encorgae people to be everything they want to be. Freedom is great and I will fight to the death to preserve it. Those of us on the right think it is better to die a free man then to live in tyranny.
3. "severe economic and social regimentation", one word describes severe economic regimentation, "anti-capitalism". The hero of the left is a self-proclaimed communist and anti-capitalist. The conservative movement is about fighting economic and social regimentation. We want the government out of the free market and allow it to perform like it has for over 200 years. The recent economic troubles were not because capitalism failed; it was because of the forced injection of socialism and too much government involvement in the free market. And it started with former President Carter and his housing bill. A couple hundred million Americans pursuing their own dreams and own self interest and making their own business decisions, rising and falling as a result of those decisions is better for any country and certainly better for America, then a group of fat politicians whose main interest is to get reelected thus maintaining their power. Michael Moore, Bill Aryes and the rest of the hate America and blame capitalism are on the left, not the right. It is the leftist in congress that allow leftist environmental groups to cause the ruination and destruction of an entire valley of farmers because they can't get the water they need to produce their crops because of a half inch fish. The current leftist in government with help by people like Michael Moore, believe government is the answer to all our problems. Conservatives believe government is the cause of most of our problems and the people are the answer to all our problems. If only we had a strong leader to guide us. I am afraid that will not happen for at least the next four years, possible the next eight years. Two words describe severe social regimentation, Communism or Socialism. These two ideals are at the heart of social regimentation. Do and say what we want, when we want it and there will be severe punishment for speaking out. Just as the Obama administration is doing at this very moment with Fox News. They are playing a dangerous game with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They have not lashed out at other news agencies because they are the press core of the Obama administration and the leftist government. Watch out left-stream media, if they do it to one voice of opposition they could do it to you if you cross them. As it stands right now, if there was a state run news agency in the Obama administration it would be MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC.

4.  "and forcible suppression of opposition", are you kidding me. It is the left that wants to shut down Limbaugh, Beck and other conservative talk shows because they get higher ratings and are the opposition. It is the left on college campuses that interrupt a conservative speaking by shouting them down and trying to shut down a collage new paper that was conservative. It is the left trying to pass a bill that would shut down talk radio. It is the left that wants to control the internet and the speech with it. It is the leftist in the current administration that has declared war on a conservative new agency and destroys freedom of the press. It is the left that thinks freedom of speech is only for them and tells lies and slanderous quotes to force people to stop watching Fox. But it backfires on them. Foxe's ratings are even higher than before. It is the left that tells lies and tried to down play impact of the tea party movement.

The real fascists are guys like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro of Cuba and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and the traitorous Hollywood celebrities and politicos on the left that support them. Not conservative talk show host whose crimes are to disagree with the left, you would never see a conservative taking advantage of a photo opportunity with any of these guys. Men like this represent everything that is bad and wrong with the world. Because conservatives are the opposition they are the fascist. The left does not like competition.

One other term the left likes throwing around without thinking about its meaning is racism. Once again According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the definition of the word racism is:

Main Entry: rac·ism

Pronunciation: \'ra-?si-z?m also -?shi-\

Function: noun

Date: 1933

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

This use to be the definition of racism, now thanks to the left the definition of racism is anyone who disagrees with our black president. It doesn't matter that you disagree with his politics or his ideology or his policies. If you disagree with him you are a racist. This is because he is a Marxist that is on the left. He surrounds himself with Marxist and we are racist for not agreeing with him. If this man were a conservative, he would be called an Uncle Tom. Condoleezza Rice was called mammy, referring to the African American actress that won an Oscar for best supporting actress in the movie "Gone with the wind" because she is a conservative who worked for a Republican president. You see to the left, it isn't really about skin color. It is about ideology. A black conservative is not the same as a black liberal. They consider a black liberal inherently superior to a black conservative. This is the very definition of racism. The people that promote racism the most are people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson just to name two. They are invested in keeping racism alive because without it they are irrelevant. These people are on the left not the right. The Democrats promote racism by constantly handing out programs that keep people from achieving and rising above their current situation. The more people are dependent on social programs and the Democratic Party to keep and expand such programs the more they are assured to be kept in power. Because then the people who are dependent on the social programs will be afraid of losing them if anyone else is elected.

The left has for the past 30 years successfully hid their shameful past by attempting to put the racism label on the republicans who are seen as the voice of the conservatives. The truth of the matter is the Republicans were formed to fight slavery around the time of the civil war. The democrats were formed to defend and extend it. The democrats fought back after the civil war with poll taxes because they knew freed slaves would not be able to pay the tax and it kept them from being able to vote. The civil rights act was created and passed by Republicans. The Democrats fought against it. It was Democrats that stood in the school yards to keep black kids from attending white schools. The KKK was formed by Democrats and for 40 years, the former head of the KKK was the senior democrat in congress. It has never been reported of a republican member of the KKK. But the Democrats and the left does not want that information out. Imagine the exit from the Democrat party if blacks and other minorities heard and believed this information? But this is not history that will be taught in any history book anywhere in America except maybe in some places in the south.

The left has redefined the racist term. The lefties in the Seattle School district have officially said that you can only be a racist if you are white. Any minority using hate speech at the white race is not a racist because the way minorities have suffered at the hands of the whites. This is the hypocrisy of the left. Rater then teach that we all need to live together and promote harmony, and that racism in any form is evil, they prefer to look the other way when racial divides are promoted by some group or other on the left. Of course it would be different if it was say, an African American organization that believed in conservative ideas. Then they also would be racist. But people like the officials in the Seattle School district think all minorities are on the left so they can get away with it.

When the definitions of these words fascist and racist are diminished by definitions that were not ever meant to be, then we will not recognize when real fascism and racism rear its ugly head. Then the Jewish people will once again have to fight from being thrown into death camps and being exterminated, and we on the right will be right behind them. Because when evil does take its place on the world stage, and it will, it will be the right fighting it with all we have and the left defending and bowing down to it. The left will not recognize tyranny until it is too late, if they do at all and hurt our ability to fight it.

If we on the right were really the fascist that Joy Behar likes to call us, and face it, she is calling anyone on the right fascist. She is just using the conservative talk show host a way to vent her anger and give conservatism a face. We would have control of the congress, the office of President and the press and would never let it go, even by free elections. And she would be out of a job or in prison. I just have one question for Joy, when does disagreeing with anyone else in America make you a fascist? Isn't that what freedom of speech all about? Or is that only for the left when a Republican is the President.

Fair winds and following seas,

Sailor Ray

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a nonbeliever, he doesn’t go to church or pray. A liberal wants all churches and prayers to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.