When I saw this, I was reminded of an incident in my childhood. I was about five years old, and my Dad (a Combat Infantry veteran of the Pacific campaign in WWII) was a member of the local Civil Defense unit. It must have been during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dad and his peers had gathered at the church to watch a training film on the nuclear threat and the response to it should an attack occur. Even the seriousness of the subject did not prevent my Dad from taking me with him, I went with him everywhere (even to work as he drove a gas tanker on local runs).

I still remember the scenes from that film today (although much is stock footage that has been shown over and over since), but mostly I remember the experience. I don't recall being particularly frightened by it, I was too young to know enough about it to be scared. But I do remember the faces and demeanor of the adults, and the effect the training had on them. To say the least, there was a seriousness of purpose about them.

Viewing the teaser about 33 Minutes, coupled with this video, puts me in a different frame of mind than the one I had in 1961. I am old enough now, and have seen enough of our enemies in various parts of the world - up close and personal- to know enough to be scared. And I am not ashamed to say it.

Originally published by Mike "gamecock" DeVine, in Examiner.com

Last August, Osama bin Laden’s former driver was sentenced to just five and a half years in prison for providing material support for Al Qaeda in the first trial of a terror suspect by a Special Military Commission (SMC) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Salim Hamdan, who could have received 30 years to life, appeared healthy in his open trial (see artist's depiction). Instead, he was acquitted of conspiracy by the six military officers that served as the jury, even though he chauffeured OBL after learning AQ was involved in terrorism.

Given the above, I was a bit surprised that J.C. Tuccille’s “Courts torn over Guantanamo torture” suggests that the first military tribunals convened since World War II lack credibility.

The Examiner.com column cites three legal rulings, two of which were resolved in favor of Gitmo detainees and an ACLU Freedom of Information Act fishing expedition as justification for concern.

One judge refused to instruct an SMC jury to accept a narrow definition of torture requested by the prosecution and another SMC judge threw out a confession due to “mental” torture.

President-Elect Obama may not have to grant terrorists “OJ trials” in the United States after all, even he still insists he will he will.

The rules are working, and even public defenders of accused criminals admit it. Some on the left seem to always seek opportunities to pass new laws when old ones are violated. Murder has been illegal since soon after Cain slew Abel, but we don't re-write murder laws after every homicide.

No, we prosecute defendants.

In the other case, the ACLU was denied access to unredacted transcripts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) of 14 prisoners now held at Gitmo who claim abuse and torture while in CIA custody. That ruling was correct on at least two grounds:

1) The prisoners can testify at their own trials concerning alleged mistreatment, and so, the information sought would be repetitive; and 2) The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the CSRT procedures and the right of the President, in accordance with millennia of war law, to determine the identity of enemies of the United States and to hold them until the cessation of hostilities, if captured.

One might argue, after the fact, that the Hamdan case was redundant given the power to detain even legal POWs, much less illegal enemy combatants like him, indefinitely until the war ends. One might also argue that only cases that seek to administer capital punishment need be tried.

But that ignores the increasing possibility, especially given the success of the Surge in Iraq, and the lack of any successful attacks on America soil since September 11, 2001, that we will win the war. In that event, we surely wouldn’t want to have to release terrorists guilty of war crimes up to and including Osama bin Laden, should he be captured. Hence, the need for military tribunals to protect us from war criminals.

One thing this War on Terror has re-affirmed is the history of the United States as unique in its humanity in the conduct of war. Unlike our enemies who kill and torture innocents as a matter of policy, the United States punishes its own for misconduct well short of traditional definitions of painful inflictions of permanent injury.

For instance, the members of the rogue National Guard unit that “degraded” inmates at Abu Ghraib, are themselves serving jail sentences. There is no evidence of systemic torture carried out by the United States armed forces.

We honor our veterans today, and especially here at the Charlotte Examiner, those from the Army at Fort Bragg and the Marines at Camp Lejune here in NC, that have been instrumental in keeping us safe since 911.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I find that I have swung 2 to 3 levels to the right on the political spectrum. I have passed beyond the "Libertarian" point of view. I have not yet reached the "Nationalism" level. I suppose I am right smack dab on the "Reactionary" line. Obviously this is of great concern to me. I do not desire to swing any further right.

I am compelled to fight (as all reactionaries will do) against the attack on our governing system. In a negative way most reactionaries of the past fought to hold on to a monarchy or aristocracy. Today I stand to fight for the survival of the American democratic republic,and the constitution.

I take a stand that, the United States is the best governing country in the world. I delight in the Lord that our founding Fathers sought and believed in the divine providence that ushered their venture to the new world. I delight that God in his glory established the new country to be a beacon of light unto the world, a city upon a hill.

It is a sad time now that communism has made an internal attack against the U.S. We should not forget that the Black Panther Party(new and old) is in fact a communist party. We should not forget that the Black Panther Party sent their members over to Vietnam to fight against our troops during the war. We should not take lightly, that Black Panther members hold seats in congress. That Bobby Rush can be a congressman to me is shameful.

Khalid Al Mansour helped fund Obama's (adult) Harvard education and he also mentored the leaders of the Black Panther Party of the 60's. Should not the Black Panther Party members and their affiliates be disqualified from public office for their previous acts of treason. It should not stand for an enemy or friend of the enemy of the U.S. to be commander in chief of the U.S. military or hold a position in public office.

The quest of a reactionary is to ignite a spark. A spark to fight in order to hold onto what we have been granted. To fight at all costs. I solicit the aid of those to my right side and to those on my left. I do not solicit aid unto myself. As King David could not wear Saul's armor neither can anyone suppose to know another individuals destiny. God knows, he formed you in your mothers womb. This we can know:

Are you a warrior? A mighty man of valour? - Fight with determination to win and be prepared to die.

Are you a writer? Write with a purpose and with persuasion. Keep the line of communication open.

Are you a judge? Judge righteously.

Are you a capitalist? Remember the afflicted and the poor and stretch your hand out to the needy.

Are you a Christian? Preach the truth. Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are you a watchman? Blow the trumpet. Sound the alarm when danger is near. Warn the people.

These are truths for all to bear, however, your unique position empowers you with unique persuasion and ability. Let God be glorified in all things.

The American church lies on it's porch like a neutered dog without passion. While Christians around the world are dying for Christ the American church is content to appease a civil society. It does not the speak the outrageous or radical ideas that Christ taught. Christ taught to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars,and unto God the things which belong to God. It seems as though most things are rendered unto Caesar and we forget what belongs to God.

Unfortunately America is feverishly adopting communism (anti-Christianity). I find as I become a reactionary Christian I can not contain an uncontrollable fire which burns within. I can not stop from speaking truths even if it incites war. Jesus did not change his message that he came to lead captivity captive and set the captives free. Jesus was indeed tried as an agitator against authorities because of messages such as this.

Did the apostles succumb to the civil societies desire for non-disruption of sinful woes? Or, did they go about the business of speaking truth in the face of lies, and everything that exalted itself above God and Christ his resurrected son?

In past years most of the gospel conversations I've had in the streets were a call to return to God, for many have fallen away. The swing of the political spectrum has prompted me now to proclaim the the message of hell, fire, and brimstone. Jesus Christ will return with a sword in his hand, and with great vengeance upon them that dwell upon the earth. Therefore, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. God forbid that we remain silent!

In an earlier post titled "We have not yet begun to fight". I meant to say; 57 million American fighters out number 3 million, million man marchers by 54 million.

Join the forces of 57 million Americans and counting.Capitalists won't surrender their capital, Militias won't surrender their guns, Christians won't surrender their faith, Speakers won't surrender their speech. A "rebel yell" or "a call to action" will not come from the command of a leader. It will come from the sound of the 1st attack made against any of these freedoms. Freedom wants you! 57 million american fighters out number 3 million - million man marchers by 54,000. Our fight is more fierce than a crowd of Acorn sign wavers.

When the liberals bashed Bush over OIF and OEF, even with Yellow Cake surfacing and transported secretly and safe fully out of Iraq to Canada, preceded by the Surge and time table controversy, I was up set at those who called President Bush a murder.

At odds with Bush’s policies on trucking as a result of enforcement of NAFTA, Illegal immigration, International Court retrying 51 convicted criminals/murders from Mexico due to treaty agreement, Custom Officers jailed, Attorney General conduct, while Obama may sweep house like Clinton did, and as well other issues relating to energy, environment and natural resources, privacy and reconstruction methods of Iraq, with millions homeless, Bush was still my President and the elected head of our nation by the majority.

As a sailor, solider, airman or SEAL serving in harms way; President Bush was there Commander-In-Chief at the beginning of OIF and OEF and will be until he leaves office.

Voicing an opinion is an Americans right, yet I’m not comfortable calling politician’s names or pursuing hate tactics in a march to exclaim the faults of our President.

If change doesn’t take hold, the American people can vote again as with other elected officials.

Presently our nation is leaning to the Democrat Party and liberals have there day. State propositions will affect American society, politics, energy, environment and natural resources.

Issues on National Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Georgia/Russia, Poland, North Korea, China, Africa, Europe, South America, etc., Gun Control, Abortion, United Nations, International agreements on the environment, economy, taxes addressed in the congress and senate by a Democrat Controlled forum will notably be aligned.

We can however hold Obama accountable and address our concerns about Senate and House Bills and Laws governing business practices over hauling banking procedures and the handling of mortgages to include an investigation into Wall Street.

In the up coming months we will witness the building of an executive branch of the government transformed in search of change that will rock our world.

As I’m quickened up into the mayhem of real change, I can only pray the direction our country heads will quicken the Kingdom Of God.

If Israel ever nukes Iran and Syria, preceded by an attack on Iran’s nuclear power plants, resulting in war between Iran and Israel, Syria joining Iran, Syria and Iran would be hit at the same time. Would America defend such and action? Millions dead as a result of self preservation and seven years to go if we abandoned Israel during which time our Lord would return. Are we in the end time or can Obama fix everything?

Will Americans stand by there President elect or bash him?

Can Obama unite the American people leaning to the left?

Will the economy be boosted through green jobs?

Will we loose the Iraq war?

Will Bin laden be captured?

Will we invade Pakistan to get bin laden?

Will Iran be allowed to have nukes?

Will Chavez be allowed to install ballistic missiles from Russia?

Will Israel be defended?

Will the Middle East policies of Obama solve issues of state sovereignty for Israel’s neighbors?

Will Supreme Court judges be replaced with more liberal judges?

Will we survive the future?

Below is the original version of my Letter to the Editor sent to my local paper nearly two weeks ago. They had me reduce it my eighty-three words and then (on the phone) confirmed they got it and all was good. Today was the last day of "Election Letters" to run in the paper. Of course, two Anti-McCain/Palin letters and one Anti-Republican letter ran along with some general local issue letters. NO anti-Obama or Pro-McCain letters ran.

I am posting this, because I believe so much in my points. That and the fact that WE'RE GONNA WIN!!

Dear Editor:

Leadership is measured and tested by many things. One’s reaction to a tough situation, forward thinking and action which others around you may disagree with or simply removing yourself from a situation when you know staying offers support to someone else’s wrong deeds. Senator Barack Obama has failed all of these tests.

Throughout his campaign and his career since Harvard and Columbia, he has never showed leadership of the kind Americans expect of their President. He voted “present” on tough Illinois Senate votes so he would leave no track record for an opponent to find. He talks of speaking out against the Iraq War as if he was Nelson Mandela taking on the apartheid government of South Africa. He did so from the safety of a State Senate office, from which he had to make no decision on whether to send troops like my brother to war.

Most importantly, rather than display leadership and intellectual honesty, he decided to stay as a member of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church for over twenty years. His anti-semitic and race-baiting sermons were wrong, divisive and not worthy of anyone’s support. As a man who graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, Senator Obama knew this. However, he saw the political viability of staying at Wright’s church because it offered what he wanted most… an entry into Chicago politics.

Over twenty years, Senator Obama probably heard a thousand sermons or more. It insults our intelligence for Senator Obama to say that he never heard any of these sermons and expect us to believe it. However, it worked. A few days after dispatching Hillary Clinton back to the Senate, Obama finally disassociated himself from Reverend Wright. Only after his victory, would he do the right thing.

Voters should remind themselves of Senator Obama’s leadership displays before voting. If he becomes President, we must support him and hope that he finds the leadership qualities necessary for the Oval Office. Based on his past, the Senator from Illinois is found wanting.

Sincerely,

ANONYMOUS

My politics

I recently joined a social networking group centered around an activity that tends to attract a lot of liberals. Someone started a discussion thread on politics, and more than one lefty jumped in with the usual talking points. I haven't so far seen anything from a conservative. Here's the entry I'm thinking about submitting.

1. War is a horrible, horrible thing. It’s a complete failure of the higher purposes of civilization. Unfortunately, there are things worse than war.

   a. The time to worry about the questions of “just” war is before the fighting begins. The time for worrying about the cost of the war is after the war has been fought. While troops are in the field, the only concern should be how to win. To my way of thinking, anything else is treason.

   b.I think that what we’re seeing in the Muslim world is their equivalent of the Protestant Reformation, and the only reason that the Western world is being attacked is because we represent where the reformers want to go. The reformation in the Christian world took centuries, and cost thousands of lives BEFORE modern weaponry. We can’t allow that to happen in the Muslim world. The war in Iraq was a way to short-circuit that reformation, and it appears to be working.

   c. I can't imagine a more racist act than leaving the Iraquis to the tender mercies of people who will send a retarded woman into a pet store with a bomb strapped to her chest. We have to finish what we started. We can argue about the rest of it later.

2. I’ve worked in the private sector, I’ve worked in the government, and I’ve worked on government projects as part of a contractor organization. Anyone who thinks the government can do anything better than the private sector is living in a fantasy world.

   a.Many people think that the profit motive corrupts, and the only way to keep an organization “honest” is have the government take it over. What they’re missing is that no matter how lofty the initial goals may be, any government organization will eventually degrade to the point where it’s only real mission is maintaining it’s own budget.

   b.The profit motive serves as a reality check on the organization. The fact that private-sector organizations need to keep bringing in revenue from voluntary customers (rather than taking it from unwilling taxpayers who have no choice about paying) more than makes up for the corrupting effect.

3. I believe in charity. I believe in helping those who need help. I DON’T believe that this should be handled by the government. If I don’t have a right say "yes" or "no", it’s stops being charity and starts being theft.
   

   a. If you have a cause you think should be funded, convincing a large portion of the population to voluntarily donate (rather than convincing a small number of politicians to steal it for you) is better for both the giver and the receiver. When you factor in the 50% inefficiency of government operations, you’ll probably come out better.

   b. Government social programs are NOT “entitlements”. The only person who’s “entitled” to the money I’ve earned is ME.

   c. There’s no such thing as “welfare rights”. No one has a “right” to the fruit of someone else’s labor.

   d. Health care is NOT a “right”. No one has a right to the fruit of someone else’s labor.

4. Corporate welfare is just as repugnant as personal welfare. I believe in letting corporations succeed or fail on their own. The role of the government in business should be in preventing the creation of businesses that are “too big to let fail”.
   

   a.If your company or industry needs money to make itself more competitive overseas, you should be talking to your banker, not your senator.

5. I believe that letting 30% or more of the voting population get away without paying federal income tax is a recipe for disaster. If it’s right for any taxpayer to bear the cost of government, then it’s right for all taxpayers to bear that cost. Representation without taxation is as much of an injustice to the taxpayers as taxation without representation.

   a. I think that the day we start letting the government decide how much income is “enough”, and who is more “deserving” of wealth than the person who created it, we stop being citizens and start being subjects.

   b. We should implement a “fair tax” scheme; tax consumption (and therefore wealth) rather than income via a national sales tax, and rebate everyone the equivalent of the tax on a “subsistence” living (with the rebate amount adjusted to inflation and not to tax rates)

   c. I think that corporate taxes are a complete waste of time. They cost jobs and raise costs. They give politicians the ability to impose an indirect tax on all of us without taking any heat for it.

6. I believe that “diversity” is another term for “cultural suicide”. If a culture isn’t confident enough of it’s own values to expect immigrants to adapt to them, then it doesn’t deserve to exist (and in the long run, it won’t).
   

   a. Assimilation was the engine that created the unique and immensely successful American culture. “Diversity Training” is an idiotic attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken.

   b. If you want to speak your native language at home, dress your daughter like a beekeeper, and raise your kids to be citizens of the “old country” (the one you left because it sucked), that’s your right. Just don’t expect to live the American Dream, and don’t expect it for your kids.

   c. I don’t care where you came from, you don’t have the right to demand that the rest of us adapt the workplace to your culture. If you can’t abide by the rules that everyone else has to follow, then go get a job where you can.

   d. Can someone please explain to me how it is that six months of immersion education is considered enough to become fluent in a language, unless the transition is from Spanish to English?

   e. Any country that’s not willing to secure it’s own borders isn’t long for this world.

7. I like green trees and chirpy birds. Really. But I think that the modern environmental movement is full of organic fertilizer.

   a. It’s amazing to me how the environmental movement’s goals have basically merged with the communists of the last generation; eliminate business, give the government the control over the means of production, redistribute wealth.

   b. There’s not a single aspect of your personal life that the environmental movement doesn’t feel it should have the right to control. These guys make Maoists look like libertines.

   c. It’s not a scientific movement, it’s a political one. From what I can tell, 90% of environmentalists haven’t taken a science class since eighth grade. The ones that can claim the mantle of scientist are also dependent on a pro-environmentalist grant system, yet are the first to call anyone who disagrees with them a “shill for the oil companies”.

   d. Anyone ever notice that there's no actual qualifications for "environmental activist"? All you need is an opinion and a business card. Birkenstocks and an air of smug self-satisfaction help, but aren't actually mandatory.

   d. The greenhouse global warming theory (and it IS a “theory”) is full of holes. There is absolutely no proof that the concept is valid, and plenty of evidence that it’s wrong. Any other theory would have been abandoned years ago as hopeless.

8. I believe that racial issues in this country are being addressed in exactly the wrong way.

   a. The gains of the civil rights movement were real, lasting, and amazing. I don’t know of any situation in human history in which a minority population was able to achieve parity in a single generation without an armed uprising. But they weren’t a matter of minorities wrenching power from whites. They were brought about by the white majority accepting responsibility for the injustice of the situation and changing the way they acted, the way they thought, and the way they did business. And they institionalized these changes as law.
   

   b. There are certainly still white bigots out there. But to the widest extent possible, those people are marginalized, fringe figures, and there are laws to keep them out of power. There are also minority bigots out there, but I can’t say the same about them.

   c. The problems facing the minority communities today, the “performance gap”, drug use, illegitimacy, and black-on-black violence can’t be laid at the feet of white people.

   d. The idea of establishing a black culture separate from the white middle-class has proven to be an abject failure. We advance when we work together; apart, we all become victims of the race-baiter’s obsessions with past injustices.

A much underreported and often ignored issue in this election is the war in Iraq. Mr. Obama has voted against funding our troops and spoken of how our soldiers are “Air raiding villages and killing civilians”. So one need not cogitate deeply to understand why Obama would rather speak of income redistribution. But why believe my opine? Fair question, so watch the following from someone who has paid the price, helped win the war that Obama wants to still lose and dedicated his life to protecting us all.

There is really not much else I can add other then “Nec Asperra Terrent”.

Add your own unit’s motto, if you please.

In one week, America will elect its next president, 33 US Senators, 435 congressmen and thousands of state and local officials. The stakes could hardly be higher. I attempt to view the elections through the Judeo/Christian worldview upon which America was founded and built. I additionally use the context of the Declaration of Independence, with particular emphasis on the following sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

LIFE

In a free society, elections always shape these unalienable rights and can ultimately lead to greater freedom or enslavement and tyranny. The greatest right we hold dear is the right to life. When both candidates were asked the question, “When does life begin?” Sen. McCain stated, succinctly and correctly, at “conception.” Sen. Obama responded the question was above his “pay grade.” A society that wishes to remain free must guarantee the rights and freedoms of its most endangered citizens.

Keep reading

The Democratic Party consistently rejects rights for the unborn. The Republican Party, however, is committed to defending unborn children. Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate to ever run for election. He has consistently supported, and to this day supports, partial-birth abortion, which nearly all Republicans and many, if not most, democrats (including former President Clinton) oppose. Christians have a moral obligation to protect life, especially the innocent, defenseless lives of the unborn. This matter is the defining moral issue of our time, much like slavery was in the 1800s.

LIBERTY

We are at war. Winning the global war on terrorism is paramount to defending the liberty of America’s citizens. The central battlefields in the war are currently sIraq and Afghanistan.

On a personal level, one of these men will be my commander-in-chief during my deployment to Afghanistan next year. While good people disagree on the merits of the Iraq invasion, most Americans view victory in Iraq as a major strategic objective to protecting our country. The war drew foreign terrorists to Iraq like moths to a flame and has cost the lives of many innocent Iraqis, coalition soldiers and American soldiers and civilians.

As the war's unpopularity soared, most Democrats (including Obama) voiced support for withdrawing from Iraq. Democratic Majority Leader Reid stated the “war is lost.” Republicans did not give up on our military and correctly criticized the “cut and run” stance of their Democratic counterparts. Some republicans favored a shift in strategy. The earliest, vocal supporter of the surge strategy was McCain. He consistently voiced his opposition to the status quo strategy and called for the surge in troop levels. Obama opposed the surge and favored immediate withdrawal. McCain finally got his wish, and the surge was implemented. Obama said the surge exceeded his “wildest dreams.” Yet he opposed it. Violence and terrorism has been dramatically reduced and most Iraqis are moving closer to living normal lives. On perhaps the most fundamental national security issue over the last 7 years, McCain chose the right course of action. Obama, advocating withdrawal and ultimate surrender in Iraq, got it wrong.

Both McCain and Palin have "skin in the game." Palin's son recently arrived in Iraq as an army infantryman and McCain's son, Jimmy, a marine, recently returned. McCain & Palin both understand the military and are best suited and qualified to lead it during this critical period in our nation’s history.

Our commander-in-chief must understand the military and have their respect and loyalty. McCain has earned this respect. As a Navy Pilot in Vietnam, he was shot down and spent 5 years (FIVE YEARS!) of his life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. See the video below that outlines his story. He was repeatedly tortured. The communists offered him early release because his dad was a very important Naval officer (an admiral). But he refused to leave ahead of his fellow servicemen in captivity. His decision to stay meant more years of his life unjustly taken away from himself, his family and his country and instead spent in a miserable prison cell.

Obama opted not to join the military, and I have no problem with that decision. Americans serve the nation and their communities in a host of ways besides military service. But it is another thing altogether to disrespect the military. Obama made headlines when he stated that he would be willing to meet with America's biggest enemies, (America-hating dictators Hugo Chavez and terrorist-sponsoring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) without preconditions. Yet, as he campaigned for President (and Commander-in-chief), he refused to meet with wounded American soldiers in Landstuhl, Germany because the Pentagon said he could not take the media along for a highly publicized campaign photo op. Obama canceled his planned visit to the troops and instead opted to exercise and sightsee.

Due to space/time constraints, I will avoid delving into more detail regarding Obama’s poor judgment in selecting his mentors (Rev. Wright) and political allies (Ayers, ACORN, etc), his anti-gun positions, all of which will ultimately affect our liberty. Suffice it to say that had Obama attempted to gain a top secret clearance as a private citizen as opposed to a US Senator, his application would almost certainly have been denied due to his affiliation with terrorist William Ayers. Links to these topics are provided at the end of this letter.

THE PURSUIT

The “pursuit of happiness” phrase in the Declaration has its origins in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in which he argued governments were to be established to secure the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of property” for its citizens. To the founders, Thomas Jefferson’s substitution of the word “happiness” for property brilliantly conveyed Locke’s central argument of the right to property and yet added something more, namely an intangible component and a dream of pursuing the greater good for yourself and family.

Obama’s vision for America would leave us more dependent on government and less free. Much of the housing crisis was generated by Democratic politicians who refused to allow reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2005, McCain called for reforms and warned that the economy was in serious danger if reforms were not implemented soon. Obama, the second largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie political donations, opposed reforming these quasi-government institutions. Enter sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

Obama's economic plans take us down the path of socialism. He says he only wants higher taxes for corporations and wealthy Americans. His refusal, however, to extend the Bush tax cuts, amounts to a tax increase for 100% of Americans. Any economist or business major will tell you Obama's tax increases on the wealthy, in particular, will just get passed on to consumers and employees. When business owners and executives have to pay more taxes to the government, they have less money to create jobs, raise salaries, expand their business, invest, etc. Taxing the wealthy hurts all Americans, because the tax burden is shifted to the middle and lower classes. Obama echoed Karl Marx when he said he wants to "spread the wealth," and that it was a “tragedy” the Supreme Court did not do more to bring about economic justice (aka wealth redistribution) during the civil rights era. McCain understands government needs to strengthen and support free enterprise capitalism and foster an environment where Americans "create wealth" as opposed to punishing hard-working, successful Americans by redistributing (i.e. stealing) their wealth and giving it individuals who’ve done nothing to earn it.

PRAY, EDUCATE, VOTE

Pray for America. Your vote matters. Do your duty and educate your family and friends. And vote. Please contact friends and family and ask them to vote for McCain, especially those living in swing states (Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, etc). The Americans in swing state have an added duty to do all they can to get their friends and families to vote.

May God Bless America,

Justin Wax

Justin has a bachelors degree in history and political science from MTSU. He is currently an MBA student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Disclaimer: Justin expresses his views as a private citizen and does not speak for the US Military.

LINKS

Great videos on why America should choose McCain

Definition of partial-birth abortion

Obama supports partial-birth abortion

Obama voted against the live birth abortion act.

McCain's Heroism in Vietnam

Obama Skips Visit with Wounded Troops to Sightsee

Obama and Democrats Responsible for Fannie/Freddie Mess

Obama and Ayers

Obama and Wright

Obama’s Close Ties to ACORN

Obama Wants to Eliminate Right to Carry Handguns

Harold Philby said it best, "to betray, you must first belong" and certainly there are a plethora of politicians. Looking at the Saturday Night Live parody of Representative John Murtha (D-PA) I became more disgusted with this man, despite his otherwise honorable career as a U.S. Marine. His remarksafter the Haditha incident where he accused Marines of war crimes was the tip of the spear for me regarding any modicum of decorum from the Democrats in Congress. It was May 17, 2006 and I was still in Iraq conducting combat patrols through remote towns in eastern Diyala Province. We would come back from our four or seven hour missions and head to the chow hall for some rest and food. What do we see? A Congressman, a former Marine calling us all war criminals. When approached by a citizen who was asking for an apology for two of the Marines who had been acquitted of the crimes that Murtha brought up he refused to answer and ran into the elevator . This alone would disqualify him from office in Georgia and it should do so in Pennsylvania.

But he's not alone, no far from it. His allies in the Senate, Congress, and other political offices are attacking the service members, my brothers and sisters, for doing our jobs... for the sake of votes and campaign contributions. Let's start at the top:

Barack Obama John Kerry Harry Reid

Now what amazes me is that these people will continue to get elected no matter what because America is at the shopping mall, the military is at war. When we can effectively use their words against them I think we can see a change in the make up of the legislative body. For the most part their words are ignored by the mainstream media and buried in below the fold middle pieces in news papers. When liberal outlets like Salon take up a rather obscure incidentand blow it into a full on assault on the American service member. The Salon piece is nothing like a mention of Abu Garahib prison and the crimes committed there but when you take something like this and say its all a war crime you diminish the real crimes and mitigate every bit of good we do over there.

We in the military face an uphill battle againstour own population at times and of course the media at all times... so to them I'll always say "no comment". It may be that they are small minuscule parts of society but they are a cancer that infects the majority and cause others to questions our objectives, missions, purposes, and eventually our character, morality, and honor.

If this story is true, this is more bad news for terrorists and their enablers. While we have been absorbed in politics, our warfighters continue to battle our enemies overseas. From the link, go to the main page and see it all.

Undoubtedly, Bidens recent statement that should Obama be elected President, there will be an intentional international crisis within his the 6 months to test his mettle. He also stated that it would not be apparent at first that 'we' were doing the right thing. He also said there were 5 or 6 troubles that could crop up.

So I was splitting wood today pondering what the Great Gaff Machine had said. I know that the candidates on both sides have received national security briefings about current troubles our country is facing. So I started thinking about what was the most probable crisis the next president might face. I came up with either Israel striking Iran's nuclear assets, or Iran striking Israel in a preemptive attack. Either way, I think it will be a war between Israel and Iran.

So, what did Biden mean by "it would not be apparent at first that 'we' were doing the right thing". It comes down to whether he will support Israel or not. Obama is beholden to the left wing anti-war crowd, so any support for any war will bring him into bad favor with those nuts. Will Obama stand up to his left wing and support Israel? If he doesn't support Israel, he will alienate the Jews who voted for him. They will feel betrayed, and justly so. Obama will be in a bad spot. Which way will he go? I'm not sure, but I think Israel will get thrown under the bus, along with his grandmother and others he can not politically afford.

So what happens when Iran mines and shuts down the Straight of Hormuz? Will he take action then? If not, oil prices worldwide will skyrocket. $4 a gallon gas would look like a bargain. What if Iran attacks US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan? He might be forced to act. If Obama refuses to fight, Europe could be forced to act because so much of their oil supply comes from the Middle East (rather ironic European nations having to fight). Depending on how big the war gets, and what type weapons get used, the conflict could quickly escalate. China and Russia could get involved, The US could be forced to act, but would Obama have the 'steel in his spine' as Biden claimed he has?

I don't think many Americans understand just what could get started if Israel has to use their 'big stuff'. If they feel sufficiently threatened, it will happen. Armageddon may be the result. The all out nuclear war we avoided for so long with the Soviets could be brought about because a wrong decision is made, or the US is perceived as being weak. Remember, Obama already said basically that there are no circumstances that necessitate the use of nuclear weapons. If our enemies don't think he'll use them, they are no longer a deterrent, and nuclear war becomes far more likely.

This is a really bad time to elect a President who boasts of his deep foreign policy credential and points to spending a few years as a child in Indonesia. The sad thing is that many Americans have such a poor education, they couldn’t find Israel and Iran on a globe, much less understand what is at stake if they go to war. I wonder if Obama does actually take us to war if code pink will protest him.

Lotta uncertainty.... this is probably rambling, kind of tired tonight...

October 2008, Joe Biden: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking... Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Suggested RNC reply Ad (YouTube) at end of this article.

Frankly, depending on the crisis and where it occurs, Obama might actually step-up for the "first test" to puff out his chest and pretend he is something he is not. After that, of course (if he indeed does do that for his first test), he'll resort to the anti-American apologist to the world and the ObamaBinBiden doctrine will be the "Surrender First" policy.

But more so to my point over the long haul. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said 'you have to go to war with the army you have?' What he should have said was "We had to go to War with the diminished Armed Forces that the Democrats and the Clinton Administration left us!" Down 200,000 Troop level, that extra amount for that "over-whelming" force we could have had. Remember all those calls about not having enough ARMOR? Again, what administration cut back on Defense preparedness spending?

Bill Clinton harmed this country, and we are paying the price ever since, for his supposed "Peace Dividend." ...

The Obama plan will similarly cut Defense and weaken America, I coin it the "Surrender Dividend," which will hurt our country far beyond what Clinton did during a "relative" time of Peace (if you define it as absence of all-out-war, while we were under attack left and right during Clinton and he just lobbed an occasional Cruise Missile). The Clinton "Ignore Terrorism and maybe it will go away" doctrine escalated to the apex of the 9/11 attacks.

Joe Biden refers to JFK in his remark,and as Lord Benson said of Quayle, Obama is NO JFK. The pronounced/declared "Peace loving" (in this definition, just means unwilling to fight at about any cost) nature of Jimmy Carter (Obama = Carter, not even wishy-washy Bill Clinton) yielded the Iranian Hostage crisis. I do have to criticize Reagan in relation to "cut and run" from Beirut following the Barracks, but he learned, moved on, grew, and that experience helped him understand even more that the "Peace Through Strength" doctrine is the only one THIS NATION's enemies understand and can/will keep us safe. The Clinton "cut and run" from Somalia after the "Black-hawk down" incident, which set the stage yet again of our enemies believing that the US was again a Paper-tiger (as under Carter). Coupled with continued disarmament under Clinton (yes, even under Republican Congress, forced cuts in Defense for other Budget cut concessions and ultimately Welfare Reform, deals were made) inviting the continually escalating attacks on US interests, without any REAL RESPONSE!! The whole long list, which I go into as part of my 9/11 - Day of Tragedy and Miracles article, I'm not going to repeat here (you all know it anyway, and the Democrat Trolls won't acknowledge).

If elected, while with a Democrat controlled Congress House and Senate, cutting Defense during war-time under his "Surrender Doctrine," because (after-all) in his pea-brain he really does believe everyone sees America as the problem and now will be the time that Swords are beaten into Plowshares. They will, but only here in America by his command, while our enemies aboard stockpile and use more and more armaments. Once weakened, though we know we (US) will survive, what will be the long-term costs we will pay for his "Surrender Doctrine" which will be to "Spread the Wealth" by cutting our "Strength Dividend" and providing more Government handouts?!?!?

And all of this w/o even discussing how Democrats making Oil Drilling in America even more scarce than it is now, depriving our Citizens/Military of Resources. Get ready to welcome back $4.00+/Gallon Gas prices.

Remember John Paul Jones - "I have not yet begun to Fight" ... Why it is NOT time to give up, companion Diary: Voting - Psychology of the "Bandwagon" effect (not time to give up and how/why MSM Polls slant)

This country cannot afford the ObamaBinBiden Change (World retreats from Socialism, why would we move toward it here?):

Suggested RNC ad to respond to Biden: Just need to change the last few words to "If we are to survive... We must maintain Peace Through Strength... Elect McCain/Palin on Nov. 4"

Historical perspective:
Byron MacGregor (1973) The Americans:

Byron MacGregor (1979) Stand Up America:

Originally published by Mike DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports

The media has been in a frenzy claiming that a few isolated hecklers at campaign events was evidence that the McCain campaign, and especially Sarah Palin, was ginning up anger by recounting Barack Obama's past alliances with former terrorists and bigoted pastors.

Especially eschewed as execrable was the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee's assertion that Obama's domestic alliances and foreign policies were "dangerous." The media went wild.

The next day, in response to a statement by an American citizen that said she was "scared" for Obama to be Commander in Chief, the ever timid of the opprobrium of the politically correct media, tone deaf John McCain defended Obama as non-scary. The media's designated most experienced foreign policy expert, the Democrat's VP nominee, begs to differ:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.

So what else is new about a newly elected Democrat being tested? Nothing, It's the norm.

With respect to JFK, I would point out that he later admitted his mistake in meeting with Khrushchev without preconditions and that his weak performance and failure in the Bay of Pigs invited and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thankfully, the anti-Communist WWII vet that vowed to bear any burden in the cause of Liberty passed his test.

Not so for his successors.

President Lyndon Johnson allowed the Russian and Chinese communist backed Vietcong safe haven in North Vietnam and let Walter Cronkite drive him from office. He failed the test.

President Jimmy "inordinate fear of communism" Carter saw the Russians invade Afghanistan and back communist insurgents around the globe, as he abandoned the Shah of Iran under pressure from a "religious man [he] could deal with", the Ayatollah Khomeini launched the radical Islamist Revolution. He failed the tests.

President Bill Clinton treated terrorist attack after terrorist attack, including the clear act of war in the 1998 African Embassy bombings, as crimes for law enforcement to handle after the fact. Osama bin Laden cited Clinton's failures as showing America was a "paper tiger" that could be defeated and began planning the 911 attacks with operatives inside the United States as early as 1998.

Biden does not say that America would be so tested under a Republican President McCain. History is on Biden's side.

President Richard Nixon went after the safe havens in Cambodia and his "Vietnamization" strategy had essentially won the war before the post-Watergate Democrat congress intentionally lost the war in 1975.

Iran released American hostages they had held for 444 days within minutes of the 1980 Inauguration of President Ronald Reagan. Russia never tested Reagan. They surrendered without a shot.

As noted above, 911 was already planned before the Inauguration of President George W. Bush with UBL's most vivid recent memory of America presidents being Clinton's inaction and one of two partial exceptions to this rule:

Reagan's abandonment of Lebanon after the Marine killing bombing in Beirut and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait test of President George H.W. Bush.

The former was remote in time and was not the same kind of test, given that the US placed the troops in country as peacekeepers.

The latter, however, does bear examination.

Most historians say that Saddam did not think he was testing Bush 41. Most agree that Saddam thought we had winked at the idea of the invasion.

I would say that UBL cites our refusal to finish the job in Iraq in 1991 as evidence that we were a weak horse unwilling to kill the king we struck.

Back to Bush 43. Immediately upon taking office he faced a belligerent Saddam, and al Qaeda. In February 2001 he told then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that he was "tired of [the USA] swatting at flies [in Afghanistan]" and directed her to have the CIA to plan removal of the regime.

That plan was placed on his Oval Office desk on September 10, 2001 and was the basis for the quick victory that deposed the Taliban, thus removing the safe haven from our enemies.

Libya surrendered without a shot and after several years of emboldening of the enemy by bushlied congressional democrats Kerry, the enemy and our allies got the message after the 2006 election that Bush was different. They saw the spine, intel poured in and the surge won the war.

Bush had to do this virtually alone, except for a minority of congressional republicans led by John McCain and one democrat, Joe Lieberman.

Yet now, Biden pleads for the kind of support for a besieged America under an Obama, that he and the rest of the democrats, especially including Obama (who Biden himself once denounced for voting to cut-off funds for the troops ala Vietnam), denied America under President Bush.

You need not worry Joe, should, by some ACORN miracle this neophyte gets the nukes.

Remember Bosnia, Kosovo and the Desert Fox bombing of Iraq under President Clinton? Speaker Newt Gingrich led the overwhelming majority of Republicans in vocally supporting Clinton.

So don't question our patriotism!

I am sure you agree that it is dangerous to be tested. Thanks for affirming one of the three main rules of life:

Death Taxes Democrat party weakness invites aggression

One of the reasons I left your party in 2000 (should have been years earlier) is when I realized that there was absolutely no reason for a foreign enemy to fear a Democrat.

[Caveat: Given your recent rhetoric and votes, as well as Bill and Hillary's statements, it appears that you three might be able to avoid a test. See if you can get Obama to step down. Or do you want us to be tested?]

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

Race 4 2008

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Colin Powell advises America to elect Barack Obama as President and Commander in Cheif.

Other advice he has given:

Powell advised Bush 41 not to destroy Saddam's army near the end of the Kuwait War in 1991. Saddam waged war against us for the next ten years and defied us after 911.

In 2003, after getting a U.N. resolution before the Iraq War that called for "serious consequences"(universally understood as promising military force), Powell, nevertheless insisted that Bush 43 seek another, redundant U.N. resolution that gave Saddam month's to plan an insurgent war. Thousands of Americans paid with their lives.

This is the same Powell that abandoned President Clinton re Somalia in 1993, when Clinton entered office in the midst of an ongoing operation and, despite a request by the President to stay on thru the crisis.

Now, Colin Powell's story of heroism as a soldier; personal story of achievement and message of conservative America values amidst derision as an Uncle Tom from the liberal Democrat Civil Rights crowd; and service under President Ronald were exemplary.

He was great at following orders in Vietnam; President Reagan's orders as National Security Advisor and President George H.W. Bush's orders during the first part of the 1991 Gulf War.

But when President Bush asked for his advice as Saddam Hussein's army was fleeing a liberated Kuwait, he lost his way. At that moment, he rose above his pay grade and failed President Bush 41 and America.

Today, we are told, he is poised to endorse a man who considers making a decision on when a baby is entitled to human rights is above his pay grade.

Of course, lawyer Obama has decided, by his actions, that a baby has no right to life while in the womb and no right to life-saving treatment outside the womb if it survives attempted murder at the hands of an abortionist. Millions have perished due this notion thanks to Obama's ideological lawyer allies that wear robes.

Powell's decision to let Saddam remain in power in 1991 caused hundreds of thousands of adults and children to lose their lives and was a major rationale for Osama bin Laden's conclusion that America did not have the stomach to win wars that require more than the 13-week period given TV pilots or that require more than 150 patriots sacrifice their lives.

In fact, his famous "Powell Doctrine" that states we should not go to war unless we can win quick with overwhelming force actually invites aggression that can't be defeated Powell's way.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs he had famously vowed, when asked about his military strategy against the Iraqi army in the Persian Gulf War of 1991:"First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."

He failed to do so.

In 1991, when Saddam Hussein's army was fleeing Kuwait, Colin Powell advised his Commander in Chief to let Saddam survive.

Fast forward to the bushlied era in September of 2006, former Secretary of State Powell wrote that "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

In response, I wrote that the Conservative World Beginning to Doubt Moral Basis of Colin Powell's Acts and Omissions. An excerpt:

Colin Powell, in a rare departure from Armitage-aided anonymous leaks to the press attacking his Commander-in-Chief, released a public letter he sent to John McCain opposing President Bush's request that Congress clarify the meaning of vague language in Common Article III, as pertains to prisoners of war, and, as recently ordered by a brain dead Supreme Court, to illegal terrorist enemy combatants as well, prohibiting "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

The letter reads in part: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell observed. “To redefine common article 3 [of the Geneva convention] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

We are not "re-defining" the treaty. The treaty does not define "outrages", "humiliating", or "degrading." Powell would allow anti-American World Court judges to define those terms to imprison American interrogators of Khalid Sheik Mohammad who extracted information that saved thousands of lives.

If an American criminal statute contained such language, the law would be thrown out for vagueness. One must be fairly put on notice concerning prohibited conduct for which one may be lose their liberty.

Powell's policy would leave our military, CIA and innocent civilian lives at risk and have allowed Al Qaeda to have carried out many more terrorist acts inside the United States.

The public letter from Powell comes on the heels of years of silence despite his having information that could have prevented Scooter Libby from being indicted.

What happened to Colin Powell?

Any world that doubts the moral basis of our fight against terrorism has much larger problems that can be addressed by leaving in place litigation inviting vague language in a treaty.

Any student of the history of war teaches that you don't strike the King unless you intend to kill him. Didn't he learn anything from our own failures in Korea and especially the Vietnam War that he fought in and which Obama's ideological allies lost via liberal democrats in the 1975 Congress?

Any man, whether its Louis Farrakhan or Colin Powell, that could endorse Barack Obama for President over John McCain, has lost their moral compass and good judgment. In Farrakhan's case, he never had it. In Powell's case, it appears he lost his after The Gipper left Washington.

His behavior in his last days in office and weeks and months after leaving the State Department, were despicable betrayals of the public trust with his leaks and defeatist rhetoric.

Let's make sure we win one more for The Gipper. Reject Powell's latest bad advice and elect John McCain, a man who learned the lessons of Vietnam.

[update]

See also Christopher Hitchens' Bill of Particulars against Powell from 2000 which paint a picture of a politically expediant career not contradicted by his actions after 2000:

In 1968, as a staff army major in Vietnam, Colin Powell played a direct role in suppressing the inquiry into the My Lai massacre, and into related atrocities against civilians.

As a White House fellow during the Watergate years he earned a reputation -- but only for keeping his mouth shut.

As a military assistant to Caspar Weinberger during the Reagan administration, he helped to deceive Congress about the trading in heavy weapons with Iran, about the exchange of those weapons for hostages, and about the diversion of the illicit proceeds to finance another illicit operation in Nicaragua.

In Panama, in 1989, he helped shape an operation that totally disregarded international law and took many civilian lives.

During the Gulf War, he strongly opposed any military help for the Kurdish and Shia rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

In the Bosnian conflict, he publicly opposed any intervention against Slobodan Milosevic and his forcible creation of a "Greater Serbia."

Read it all.

[end update]

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

As I said in an earlier post, although I realize the economy is the number one issue in the public eye at the moment, in light of Biden's statement I think Obama’s positions on National Defense Policy are worthy of discourse right now.

Simply put, Obama is wrong on national defense.

He says we have unproven missile systems. I think not.

Consider also his qualifications to even handle security matters of a sensitive nature. Next time some Democrat or moderate Republican complains about us making a big deal about Obama’s past associations, point out that those associations would make it impossible to pass a background check for a security clearance.

One of the latest troubling associations which have received no media scrutiny has to do with Raila Odinga.

Does the fact that United States Senator Obama was involved in a Kenyan political campaign violate any laws? If not, what about Senate ethics rules? How about common sense and what we in the military used to call good order and discipline? What kind of message does it send for Obama to lend support to a man who seeks to impose Sharia law in a democratic country and has repudiated Kenya’s support for the US in the GWOT? Odinga has alleged Obama is his cousin but Obama or his campaign (don’t remember which) eventually denied it. Related or not, they seem to share something in common.

Kenya is an important ally in the Horn of Africa region, bordering on the long-failed state of Somalia. Somalia is the home of the troubling piracy issues in the region. Radical Islam is active there, but it goes largely unnoticed for most Americans. Let’s not have dubious and counterproductive associations undermine our security efforts there. At least we now have dedicated a joint command for the continent of Africa.

What is his view on gays in the military? Here's one FWIW, Tammy Baldwin is on his national gay leadership and policy committee.

As for the women-in-combat roles issue, Obama thinks it is already a reality, and that they should register withselective service

The points I’ve raised here only scratch the surface of my objections to Barack Hussein Obama’s qualifications as Commander-in-Chief, but this should give you some incentive to seek further information on the subjects I’ve raised and the related issues you will discover via the links provided.

Yes, I know "it's the economy, stupid", and Joe the Plumber is still popular right now. We're all having a lot of fun "punching the hippies" that are close at hand, and I would hate to distract you all from that pleasant diversion. Let us not forget that one of our other important tasks is to "kill the terrorists", and in general protect our country from foreign enemies. SEN Biden's recent gaffe puts national defense back in the forefront of discussion.

This clip has been posted over at Blackfive recently. It uses Obama's own message in one of his early campaign adds, juxtaposed with current events, to illustrate the danger of an Obama commander-in-chief. That early campaign ad, by the way, is a rich source of material to hammer him on over a variety of subjects - but particularly on defense issues.

Vets for Freedom has released an analysis of key, war-related Senate votes - the Report Card  is here (PDF) – grading every Senator on thirty votes critical to the missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall War on Terror.  The methodology is available in the full document, but it is straightforward. 

• They judged candidates based on their voting records alone – up or down on bills and amendments, with a small penalty for those times when a Senator did not vote. 

• They calculated a straight percentage based on those factors, with no “extra credit” or shady tinkering to elevate one vote in order to help reach a predetermined result.

• They supported or opposed legislation based on three criteria:

• Funding for the troops

• Timelines for withdrawal

• How the legislation impacted the ability of the troops to carry out their mission

Sadly, support for the mission and the new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq has, for much of the 110th Congress, broken down largely on partisan lines -- but not entirely.

Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans from Maine, respectively received an F and a C- on their report cards. Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, also received an F, as did Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Some Republicans on the report card began to lose confidence in the war effort early in the 110th Congress, but the bold change in strategy and public pressure from both mission-supportive individuals and groups like Vets for Freedom brought them back around in time for them to earn B grades.

Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut votes with the Democratic caucus on many issues, but to support the troops and their mission, he broke with many Democrats and has received an A-.

Democrats had a mixed propensity to support bills that VFF supported, so while there were some senators who scored at or very near zero percent – Joseph Biden, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama being the lowest – there were also a number of Democrats who were convinced to support the mission, and the troops who carried out the mission, as often as 48% of the time.

Senators Mark Pryor (48%), Ben Nelson (44%), and Tim Johnson (40%) all deserve credit for having the courage to break with the more extreme members of their party as often as they did. While those scores are not yet high enough to carry a “passing grade”, those votes are appreciated.

See the complete report here (PDF).

It will give you a very good guide to which Senators really supported the mission and the troops who fought to accomplish it. And who did not.

IF THE GOP, ALONG WITH THEIR RECENT LAWSUIT FILING INVESTIGATING CAMPAIGN FUND IRREGULARITY IN THE BHO CAMPAIGN, DOESN'T ALSO ADDRESS THE BLATANT AND RAMPANT VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD IN THE FIVE 'UP FOR GRABS' STATES AND ISN'T DONE SO WITH IMMANENCY. THERE WILL BE A MUCH LARGER WAR TO ADDRESS IN AMERICA.. A VERY REAL AND VERY VALID RACIAL WAR! THIS WAR WILL BE DOWNPLAYED AS JUST ANOTHER SOUR GRAPES ATTEMPT BY 'THE WHITE RIGHT', BUT TAKE HEED- IT WILL BE MORE THAN JUST THE AVERAGE CAUCASIAN CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN.. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS WILL RISE UP LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

MAKE NOTE, THAT THE TENTATIVE AND UPCOMING 'HELL -WILL- BE- HOSTING- A RACIAL ASPERSIONS COCKTAIL PARTY' SCHEDULED TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW NEXT MONTHS ELECTION EARTHQUAKE,WILL MAKE THE POST 2000 FLORIDA ELECTION FIASCO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE A GARDEN TEA PARTY!!

I RECALL THE FORMER SOVIET DICTATOR NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV AND HIS PERHAPS MOST MEMORABLE ANTI-AMERICAN STATEMENT, WHEN HE DECLARED THAT : "THE U.S. WILL NOT FALL AT THE HANDS OF HER ENEMIES, FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED FROM WITHIN"

HOW THAT SENDS A CHILLING JOLT UPON MY AMERICAN