Saturday, May 30, 2009


Oh no, here we go again. More excuses to hire more Muslims in sensitive government agency jobs, while rejecting Jewish applicants who are well-versed in these languages. Why reject Jewish and other linguistic experts? Because the Muslim religious mafia objects, that's why, and what oil-greased Muslim thugs demand, oil-greased Muslim thugs get. Despite the fact that several of these folks have been arrested on charges of espionage, have lobbied for special privileges and set asides at various agencies, and have conducted various other acts of jihad right under the nose of our own homeland security forces, the stealth jihad rolls on. If the Pentagon and CIA obliged them under the Bush administration, how much more so under the current POTUS, who has made it perfectly clear how well he treats his friends and their enemies in the Middle East...

CIA DIRECTOR Leon E. Panetta will ask Congress in the coming weeks to fund an "aggressive" five-year plan to enhance the spy agency's language capabilities.

In a letter to agency employees Friday, Mr. Panetta said the goal of doubling the number of analysts and collectors proficient in foreign languages is imperative for dealing with developing threats around the world.

"Language skills are the keys to accessing foreign societies, understanding their governments and decoding their secrets," Mr. Panetta said. "This important initiative will require significant new funding. In the coming weeks and months, I will reach out across the intelligence community, to the Office of Management and Budget, and most importantly, to our partners in Congress to find the necessary resources."

The clandestine agency hopes to dramatically transform the way the CIA trains officers in foreign languages. Languages of particular interest are Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Pashto (spoken in Afghanistan), Urdu (used in Pakistan), and Persian.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 29, 2009


Another case of the Obama Nation running roughshod over the American ideals exemplified in the US Constitution. We recall actually hearing of this case as it has happening on election day. Fear was rampant, the video evidence backs up eyewitness accounts, and yet, the so-called post-racial Obama administration continues to push its ugly agenda with barely a mention by the media deep in its pocket.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLITICAL APPOINTEES overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident—which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube—had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 28, 2009


THIS IS STUNNING NEWS. Election cycle Obama sycophant and MSNBC talking head Rachel Maddow has bolted from the herd in offering her poignant insights—the same poignant insights that many of us on the blogosphere have already declared as early as last August—about what the POTUS is now stealthily slipping into his record of hope and change with all this charming poetry his cult noisily adores. Unfortunately, what Ms. Maddow doesn't quite understand in her zeal to coddle the Guantanamo thugs is that Obama plans to execute this new presidential power against perceived personal enemies, which include lawful gun-owners, common cause right wingers, radicalized centrists, and hesitant liberals. Linking this plan to Guantanamo is pure technique. Bait and switch.

Maddow, along with her faithful sidekick Keith Obermann, of course, were vicious attack dogs for Barack Obama the candidate, and while I still don't think she sees the big picture—and one doubts she even cares, for her loyalty is to foreign nationals who threaten to strike with jihad against Americans, not loyal Americans—this critical analysis of Obama's latest wink and nod to the future he plans to dominate as the founder of prolonged detention earns Maddow a victory reprieve from me.

Props to Christopher Logan for this story...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


WITH THE DISMISSAL TODAY of eight complaints in one ruling, the evidence continues to redeem the the great surge of feeling many of us had when we first heard Gov. Sarah Palin speak to the American people that night at the Republican National Convention in Denver. The governor today welcomed the news that yet another ethics complaint against her has been officially found to lack merit and has been dismissed.

Notably, Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.

This is the 13th ethics complaint against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the executive ethics act. A few more are pending.

"While the complaint process under the ethics act can be a useful tool for holding state officials accountable, it's obvious that political opponents of the governor have been abusing the system, attempting to turn their resentments into legal issues," said Bill McAllister, the governor's communications director. "We're grateful that the personnel board and its investigators have taken a rational approach to these matters, finding that the vast majority of the complaints did not even warrant the collection of evidence because they failed to assert any violation of the law."

McLeod's complaint, amended several times since it was first filed, made eight separate allegations against the governor. McLeod said that there were two matters showing an improper connection between the governor's office and her political action committee; that two comments made by McAllister about the governor's travel plans were political in nature; that the governor's trip to Evansville, Indiana, for a right to life event used state resources, and that she improperly accepted gifts there, including chocolate, baked goods and a hockey stick from a youth hockey group; that the governor's daughter, Bristol, used state resources in her efforts on behalf of the Candies Foundation; and that the governor's press release concerning her selection as a vice presidential candidate was improper. Geraghty found all of the allegations to be baseless and not worthy of an investigation.

Read more here.

While we're on this topic, let me speak plainly. For all her supposed flaws and refreshing common sense which suffers in short supply these days, I still like this woman. I hope to see her taking aim at a few mooseheads along the campaign trail, circa 2012. Who knows? I might even vote for her again, given the right opportunity. As for those who scorn her and laugh at her precious Jesus of Nazareth, well, we at the Two-Fisted Quorum have regrettably seen it all before.

Let's see those same yippie yappers cringe at the Mohammed of Medina (who according to the Qu'ran was made victorious by terror) with the same feckless generosity of spirit they reserve for Gov. Palin and her family. Nope. Didn't think so.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 26, 2009


Columnist Ralph Peters of the New York Post is Old School. Yes, DEFINITELY old school. But if we had more men minding the munitions depot today pumped with the same juice as men who led the American fighting forces as recent as a few generations ago, we would not have a worldwide terrorist problem, one keenly suspects. The world hasn't really changed, but the war equation has certainly become more complex.

WE MADE ONE GREAT MISTAKE regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield. The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.

Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals. And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries.

Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week, President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.

Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons.

But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant—the left needed us to be evil, to "reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up their Gitmo myths.

Read it all.

Labels: , , , , , ,


DOES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEED a drastic realignment of ideas and physical framework to deter another civil war and provide direction for the coming age?

Yes. That is the opinion outlined in the penetrating Ludwig Von Mises Institute essay "On the Impossibility of Limited Government" described in more stringent detail in the book, The Reassessing the Presidency:

At the outset of the American "experiment," writes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is—an error.

Read it all. It's not what you think.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 24, 2009


The first thing to know about World War II is that it was a big war, a war that lasted 2,174 days and claimed an average of 27,600 lives every day, or 1,150 an hour, or 19 a minute, or one death every three seconds. One, two, three, snap. One, two, three, snap.

In an effort to get our arms around this greatest calamity in human history, let's examine 10 things every American ought to know about the role of the U.S. Army in WWII.

The U.S. Army was a weakling when the European war began in earnest on Sept. 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland. The U.S. Army ranked 17th among armies in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. It would grow to nearly 8.5 million by 1945.

When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. The Army's cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge and destroy an enemy machine-gun nest without sustaining a scratch.

The U.S. Army for a long time after we entered the war was not very good. Part of the WWII mythology is that all the brothers were valiant and all the sisters were virtuous. War is the most human of enterprises, and it reveals every human foible and frailty, as well as human virtues: cowardice and tomfoolery, as well as courage and sacrifice. The Greatest Generation appellation is nonsense.

In the first couple years of American involvement the Army was burdened with clearly inferior equipment and commanders. Those first couple years of war required a sifting out, an evaluation at all levels within the Army of the competent from the incompetent, the physically fit from the unfit.

It has sometimes been argued that in an even fight, when you matched one American battalion or regiment against a German battalion or regiment, the Germans tended to be superior, the better fighters. But who said anything about an even fight? Global war is a clash of systems. What matters is which system can generate the combat power needed to prevail, whether it's in the form of the 13,000 Allied warplanes available on D-day; the 10:1 American advantage in artillery ammunition often enjoyed against the Germans; or the ability to design, build and detonate an atomic bomb. What matters is which system can produce the men capable of organizing the shipping, the rail and truck transportation, the stupendous logistical demands of global war.

Germany could not cross the English Channel, which is only 21 miles wide, to invade Britain. The United States projected power across the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific and into Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Power-projection, adaptability, versatility, ingenuity, preponderance—these are salient characteristics of the U.S. Army in WWII.

Read it all.

This is an important essay penned by Rick Atkinson for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Every young American whose mind has been mismanaged with great liberal skill needs to understand a few facts about her own nation. Please take a few minutes of your post-modernist attention span, and give Atkinson's full essay a chance to sink into your slippery post-American sensibilities. Our brave young men and women who died in WWII as well as other conflicts in which the nation stood battle deserve your consideration. Let's not continue to confuse the cold harsh reality as demonstrated by Dick Cheney this week with the rose-colored wishful thinking of President Obama.

We are now engaged in another war with an enemy just as pernicious as Nazi Germany. We must again stand firm and undivided against our enemies and produce this victory over a totalitarian machine. But like in those early days of WWII, America begins from a weak position, a position that the Islamic enemy exploits with well-honed strategic genius.

America this time staggers from a system whose industrial base has been abandoned in favor of an argumentative human resource and legal infrastructure that has been allowed to deteriorate. This war is not about silly romantic notions of relative values or moral egotism. This is about defeating an enemy that that been quite outspoken on the one hand that it wants to conquer, enslave, or annihilate the sorry House of the West, while on the other hand sends in its oil-rich infiltrators with manipulating claims of being either stealth allies and trading partners of the West, as well as relentlessly demanding victims of Western hospitality at every twist and turn in playing the system of political correctness to its own dualistic endgame.

Stand up. Be counted. Liberty must be defended, or it WILL be lost.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 22, 2009


Columnist James Hudnall opines on the need to snuff out this miserable house called political correctness. His language may seem terse in places, but his arguments stand on their own two feet. Free speech must be protected that liberty might survive.

Of course, that colorful spate called "hate speech legislation" is a completely different box of crayons...

IN THE EARLY 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadn’t yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined.

Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people weren’t universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldn’t flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage “United we stand, divided we fall” was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born.

This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture.

It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of
the sexes is another.

That’s plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else.

While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is “progressive.”

Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over people’s lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals.

It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesn’t work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. That’s a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Political Correctness is hated by just about anyone you meet. The only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy.

Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die.

1. It’s censorship: Point blank, that’s what it is. It’s used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. It’s used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, It’s not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And it’s a thuggish weapon of intimidation.

2. It’s bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the “mean” names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, it’s creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be “protected”, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument.

3. It’s an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think that’s a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright…

4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. It’s used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. That’s nothing but a form of extortion.

5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us? Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the ’60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the ’70s we were told to use “Afro-American” then later “African-American” even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because “we’re supposed to” isn’t a reason, that’s more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldn’t we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because “they” say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why can’t we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, We’re all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 21, 2009


Old news, but American leadership is still are kicking around in the sandbox with its inconclusive parsing of this vital national security issue.

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR Dennis Blair said recently that some of the 240 prisoners who are still being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base may be released into the civilian population in the United States. This bizarre news of course has started a firestorm across the country as the talking heads rush to interpret the official statement.

In a spurt of twisted logic Associated Press reports, "that this would only take place in the case of prisoners who are “deemed non-threatening” and yet whose “home countries…won’t take them.”

That leaves us reeling. If they’re “non-threatening,” why won’t their home countries allow them to come back?

Understand this in plain language. These enemy combatants will be released into a neighborhood near you if they are in danger of being tortured should they be sent back home. So it's not enough that we have American patriots being accused of torturing these same detainees by the disturbing Leftist radicals now in power, but the thought of the detainees possibly being tortured by their own governments is just too horrible to contemplate. But hey, they've got an idea. Let's punish the Republicans and send these jihadists into our own cities...

Spectacular logic. That's truly thinking outside the box. Generating some real change we can fear. Predictably, Blair offered up the typical humanitarian meme, following the British model, saying that the released prisoners would even receive welfare benefits, wincing, “We can’t just put them out on the street.”

Of course not. Unless, apparently, it’s Main Street USA.

We're expected to believe that Americans won’t really be in any danger. After all, the only detainees dispatched in this manner surely will be the “non-threatening” ones. The US government, we are assured, is building dossiers on each of the prisoners at Guantanamo.” Well then, silly goose, chin up, smiles and confidence blessing our hearts, we can all rest easy in our little brackish backwaters. Move along. Nothing of real concern to see here.

After all, if the government is compiling dossiers, what on God's Little Acre could ever go wrong? Now, a week or so later, the new official position is that most of the GITMO detainees would merely be relocated to maximum security prisons in the US, not our cozy little neighborhoods. Better than Plan A, or at least, more nuanced, but we might ask ourselves one question. No possibility of trouble in that scenario either, eh Hoss...

A perfectly good state of the art prison camp is Guantanamo Bay. Simple solution, nimrods. Keep it open.

Ain't politics grand?

Meanwhile, on the local front, only this morning did the Two-Fisted Quorum receive notice that Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) has been vocal in the House and has also introduced legislation aimed at keeping the terrorists out of his state:

As you may recall from recent newsletters, I have been making the case that trained terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay must not be released in the US. Over the last two weeks, I have spoken on the House floor six times challenging Attorney General Eric Holder to answer my questions about any pending decision to release 17 ethnic Chinese Muslims known as Uyghurs, in our area.  We have information that these detainees were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and believed to be members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement. I also have written several times to the attorney general and to President Obama about my concerns.

I offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would have restricted the administration from moving any detainees until October 1, 2009, require 60 days notification to Congress before any move, and require approval from affected states before releasing or transferring detainees.  Although my amendment was defeated in committee on a party-line vote, much of my proposed amendment was ultimately included in the spending bill.  It is my firm belief that Congress and the American people deserve all the facts before any detainees are released or transferred to the US.

Thanks Congressman! That's change we can live with...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, May 18, 2009


Syndicated columnist and economist Thomas Sowell shakes a few limbs of current uproar in the US concerning the CIA-sponsored waterboarding of certain GITMO detainees.

We at the Two-Fisted Quorum support the logic and the common sense Mr. Sowell displays here. The shameful loose thinking and outright hypocrisy on the Left continues to stifle a united American front against our enemies foreign and domestic.

As the columnist points out, perhaps one day the evidence for a strong conservative defense will be as requisite for victory as it was at other historical turning points, gut right now, the bitterness that separates Americans who even bother weighing in on this conflict is rather disappointing.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between being ponderous and being serious. It is scary when the President of the United States is not being serious about matters of life and death, saying that there are "other ways" of getting information from terrorists.

Maybe this is a step up from the previous talking point that "torture" had not gotten any important information out of terrorists. Only after this had been shown to be a flat-out lie did Barack Obama shift his rhetoric to the lame assertion that unspecified "other ways" could have been used.

For a man whose whole life has been based on style rather than substance, on rhetoric rather than reality, perhaps nothing better could have been expected. But that the media and the public would have become so mesmerized by the Obama cult that they could not see through this to think of their own survival, or that of this nation, is truly a chilling thought.

When we look back at history, it is amazing what foolish and even childish things people said and did on the eve of a catastrophe about to consume them. In 1938, with Hitler preparing to unleash a war in which tens of millions of men, women and children would be slaughtered, the play that was the biggest hit on the Paris stage was a play about French and German reconciliation, and a French pacifist that year dedicated his book to Adolf Hitler.

When historians of the future look back on our era, what will they think of our time? Our media too squeamish to call murderous and sadistic terrorists anything worse than "militants" or "insurgents"? Our president going abroad to denigrate the country that elected him, pandering to feckless allies and outright enemies, and literally bowing to a foreign tyrant ruling a country from which most of the 9/11 terrorists came?

It is easy to make talking points about how Churchill did not torture German prisoners, even while London was being bombed. There was a very good reason for that: They were ordinary prisoners of war who were covered by the Geneva Convention and who didn't know anything that would keep London from being bombed.

Read it all.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


ALTHOUGH LEGENDARY ROCKER Alice Cooper has been often quoted in the squishy media as a supporter of the Republican Party, Cooper set the record straight during a recent interview with Canada's Hour. "I'll be honest, I go from Democrat to Republican," he said.

"I vote for the person, not the party. Regarding this past year's elections, Cooper said of former US Vice President hopeful Sarah Palin, "I think she's totally a breath of fresh air. When they say she has no experience, maybe that's what Washington needs. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for. But in a shooting war, I want a pit bull, not a poodle. I'm gonna go for the hawk."

“If you’re a right-wing rock journalist,” says Alice Cooper, “I’m in your corner all the way.”

Alice enjoyed a brief flurry of blogosphere glory last year, after standing up to one of Australia’s smarmiest television personalities. Glib puppet Andrew Denton was easily flustered when Alice could back up his support for the war in Iraq. Denton made some typically wrong assumptions about the rock star—not that Alice was offended.

“I revel in that kind of thing,” says Alice. “It angers me so much when I realize that people are jumping on some anti-Bush bandwagon. I’ve been misquoted lately on that. Some people are claiming that I said certain rockers were traitors to America. I think they’re traitors to rock ’n roll. When I was a kid, I’d put The Yardbirds on when my parents talked about politics. Rock ’n roll was my escape from politics. It still is. Why do you think we’re rock ’n rollers? We’re morons.”

Cooper also defies expectations with his Christian beliefs. The Sunday school teacher preaches what he practices on 2005’s Dirty Diamonds. Other rockers dream of running with the devil. Alice dreams of vengeful mayhem in songs like “Run Down The Devil.” Stryper or Bono could never come up with lyrics like, “I want to take him to the Mercury grill/I hope he’s ready for the big blast/ He’ll be my ultimate road kill/I’ll kick his future up his past.”

Alice isn’t afraid to take those same beliefs on the road, lecturing baffled death-metal acts that end up sharing the bill on world tours. And did you catch that part where Alice says that rock ’n rollers are morons?

Thanks to Blabbermouth.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 11, 2009


Dear President Obama,
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.  
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and  your upscale lifestyle and housing  with no visible signs of support.    
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility  and 'class', always  blaming others.   
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself  with radical extremists who hate America and you  refuse to publicly denounce  these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change  America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. 
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government  controlled one. 
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence  the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative  points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. 
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
—Lou Pritchett

This was sent to me by a very dear person I have known my entire life. Evidence is piling up that our president is not doing all he can do to reach out to America, as he has often promised. Despite all the campaign rhetoric now safely in the past, it seems there are clearly still two Americas...

The note was prefaced simply, containing two earlier "first name only" signatures, which I have omitted here for clarity:

Hi, I really agree with this. Just wanted you to know how I think. You do not have to agree. This is still a free country. I just hope it stays that way. I foresee a time when he wants to be elected president for life.

Think about every line here, the first seven you have heard before. Remember I am truly an independent that is ticked off of both sides. Wherein lies the problem with most folks they want to align themselves with one or the other.

Hang in there and read every line, not with disgust but open consideration of reality. Those who disagree with most of what is said, I would like for you to sock it to me and tell how I am way off, et cetera...

As you can read, this person(s) who asked for rebuttals "socked to her" is obviously outside the usual spheres of influence the chattering classes dominate, where there are plenty of contrary opinions as well as similar observations. So what we have here Mr. President is a colossal failure to communicate. Step away from those teleprompters, and show us who you are, fairly and squarely, sir. America has a right to know. It's all there in the US Constitution, our founding document as a nation of laws and aspirations, a document of which we recall you are a purported scholar. Sir, you owe America that much because we heard you swear on your own word AND OURS that peculiarly American oath on Inauguration Day...

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 08, 2009


SLOWLY BUT EARNESTLY the noose around humanity's neck is tightening. Soon, most of us will bow and grovel to the dictates of our masters now wearing sheep's clothing but are ravaging wolves instead. Many of us will die in the first wave of resistance. Others among us will fight on. Sorry, not exactly an original thought, but a thought clutching an emphatic truth nevertheless.

It's no secret to anyone who has known me or my shadow that I was once an enthusiastic Huey P. Long admirer for years after having read T. Harry Williams' biography of Long in the middle 1970s. However, after stumbing through a life among takers and givers, sloth managers and peace activists, gun gonzos and political vipers, I'm a bit less resolute on Longism these days, although his words still do occasionally melt this woulda, shoulda coulda heart of mine, even as I've moved back home to my beginnings as befits my belief in the American Constitution above all else, including drop dead goo-sounding politicians. When I read that the Kingfish, after all he did for a then very impoverished oil-rigged Louisiana, after going national, was planning on running for the presidency to unseat FDR in 1936 only to get himself shot dead...

...all I could think of was the word C-O-N-T-R-O-L. I love my country. Its furious heritage, its loquacious promise of better days ahead. I also chafe and occasionally fight back a tear when I am moved to chagrin her current predicament.

To be brutally honest although I never felt the true call, I now regret I never served my country militarily, but I do recall fondly my days as a Boy Scout, who in hot pursuit of the illustrious Eagle rank, fell one rank short at Life at the age of fourteen due to circumstances I could not control, but could have endured and modified to impact that pursuit. That I did not is a regret. As a scout, I learned to believe in conservation, but I also find that the environmental lobby as it has evolved today has taken a once beautiful concept and distorted it beyond due diligence into a perversion of the original mandate.

This latest water grab seems nothing less than one more Federal program aimed at perverting the American mandate with jurisdictional tyranny the final endgame. The strength of a nation is its people, and to strip liberty from a people accustomed to freedom of choice and the privilege of property is to trample the spirit and usurp the strength of the nation dependent on the vital rechargeable energy that liberty bestows.

To replace the spirit of liberty by the moribund grimaces of a bureaucratic ghost is to announce the death of a nation.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 05, 2009


THE COPPERHEADS were a vocal group of Democrats in the northern and midwestern United States who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents, the Republicans, because the venomous, although not usually deadly, copperhead snake can strike without warning (unlike a rattlesnake), and because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges. Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats.

The most flamboyant spokesman for these "Peace Democrats" was Ohio's Clement L. Vallandigham.. Although the 13th Edition of The American Pageant makes a distinction between those termed Copperheads and those who agitated at the extreme end of the coalition called "Butternuts" (for the color of the Confederate uniforms).

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Copperheads nominally favored the Union and strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions.

Even in an era of extremely partisan journalism, Copperhead newspapers were remarkable for their angry rhetoric. Wisconsin newspaper editor Marcus M. Pomeroy called Lincoln "fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism" and a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero... The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."

Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert. They talked of helping Confederate prisoners of war seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and offered money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible. Most Democratic party leaders, however, remained national patriots and resisted Confederate advances.

I don't know about you, but this description of the Copperhead Democrats strikes me remarkably close to a description of today's peace activists and their political strategies. Again, it's the Republicans who find these "copperheads" most repugnant at a time that such deliberate undermining compromises our nation's troops and puts our national security in peril against an avowed enemy. The fact is that we can't even properly name our enemy in this war as a result of becoming unequally yoked (think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) with major forces within that enemy camp even as America endures and sacrifices to address the abject oppression, slavery, and other well-documented atrocities occurring under the Big Umbrella of Islam, by fighting it.

Perhaps it is time is to withdraw from the world stage long enough to restore our nation physically and psychologically in preparation for this war that has followed us right into our own universities and neighborhoods. Because it will take everything we've got.

Most Copperheads actively participated in politics. On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the blacks and enslave Southern whites. The Army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment, but Lincoln commuted the sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines. The Democrats nevertheless nominated him for governor of Ohio in 1863; he campaigned from Canada but was defeated after an intense battle. He operated behind-the-scenes at the 1864 Democratic convention in Chicago; this convention adopted a largely Copperhead platform, but chose a pro-war presidential candidate, George B. McClellan. The contradiction severely weakened the chances to defeat Lincoln's reelection.

One thing should be evident. Today's vociferous political tenor is not new to this country. But we must ask ourselves to consider the enormous stakes today. In this clash of civilizations made impossibly vulgar by an unbridled, multicultural, politically correct feeding frenzy wading knee-deep into the nuclear age, we may not survive many more ill-intentioned mistakes by those who side with the enemy.

For those of you who don't think history repeats itself, here's something to chew. At the 1864 Democratic convention, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform that declared the war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy.

Labels: , , ,


What follows is an edited version of a radio interview on KKMS AM 980 with David Horowitz conducted by hosts Lee Michaels and Jeff Shell. The show opened with the one of the hosts asking the following question: Tell us a little bit about yourself, because I think it’s important for us to understand your background and how you got where you are as a context for your current views.”)

My parents were members of the American Communist Party and I was part of the progressive left, which was the communist left, and which has grown ominously large today, and has seen its candidate elected to the White House. I was the editor of the largest magazine of the New Left, which was organized by the children of communists, so-called red diaper babies like myself. We regarded America as the enemy. We began as an isolated political minority, but the hate America crowd has grown alarmingly in size since then. Today, nobody is embarrassed about slandering his own country even in time of war—and this includes our current president, who recently apologized for the actions of his country to Latin American communists, Jew-haters and self-declared enemies, such as Venezuela’s Yugo Chavez and Nicaraguan jefe Daniel Ortega, a degenerate who molested his own daughter.

In Obama’s presence Ortega went into a rant against America claiming that our government conducted a “terrorist” war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, when in fact American pressure forced an end to the Sandinista dictatorship and the re-institution of a free press and open elections. What was President Obama’s response to the Ortega attack? “Well, I was only six years old at the time.” In other words, an apology for our “terrorist” acts against the Marxist dictatorship. This is disgraceful and also dangerous.

To answer your question as to how I arrived at the views I now hold, during the early 1970s I was working with the Black Panther Party, whose leaders were the heroes of all progressives and were assumed by progressives to be the victims of American oppression and police brutality. As I soon discovered, the Panthers were, in fact, criminals and murderers and not the victims the left claimed them to be. In 1974, they killed my friend, Betty Van Patter, which brought all this home to me. The left protected the Panther murderers and made apologies for their other criminal deeds. Today, campus progressives invite the killers to their schools and give them ten-thousand-dollar speaking fees to denounce America as a “racist” country and criminal nation, which is what progressives want to hear.

The second principal cause of my change of heart was the Vietnam War. I was one of the leaders of the antiwar movement of the time. Of course, these antiwar movements of the left aren’t really antiwar movements in any meaningful sense of the word. They are anti-American movements, designed to make America lose whatever war it is engaged in. If there had been a peace movement during the lead up to the war in Iraq, for example, there would have been at least one demonstration in front of the Iraq Embassy calling on Saddam Hussein to obey the UN resolutions and the arms control agreements he had signed. But there wasn’t, not one. The so-called antiwar activists were not demonstrating for peace. They were demonstrating against America and its efforts to hold Saddam to the UN peace agreements he had signed.

During the Vietnam years, the goal of the so-called antiwar movement was to cause America to lose the war—and that includes every leader of the anti-Vietnam left: John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and so on. The anti-Vietnam movement wanted America to lose because for the left, for progressives, we are the bad guys: America, the oppressor. America did lose the Vietnam war as a result of our protests. The anti-American antiwar movement forced America to give up the fight for freedom in Vietnam, to retreat from the field of battle, to withdraw overnight. It was the same prescription that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed and the congressional Democrats wanted for Iraq. Fortunately they failed, and consequently Iraq is not ruled by terrorists today.

But in Indo-China the ending was different. Once America quit the field of battle, the Communists proceeded to slaughter two-and a-half million poor Vietnamese and Cambodian peasants—one of the worst genocides in history. But there wasn’t a single demonstration by progressives against this atrocity. Bloodbaths are okay if they are committed by progressives of color in the name of “social justice.”

From Communism to Islamo-fascism, the left in America—as elsewhere—has had a lifelong love affair with tyranny and terror, which is the title of an important book that one of my FrontPage editors, Jamie Glazov, has just published. It’s called: United in Hate, the Left’s Love Affair with Tyranny and Terror. That is who they are. Progressives are adept at speaking the language of peace and love and justice; but these words are just a smokescreen for their real agendas which are search and destroy. Anybody who has ever encountered a progressive up close in any kind of political disagreement knows that this is a hate movement. They hate conservatives; they hate Republicans; they hate white males, and increasingly they hate Christians and Jews. They hated George Bush.

Read it all.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 04, 2009


A FEW DAYS AGO Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the $100M dollars in cuts the White House is requesting being made is a LARGE sum of Money.

Yet, a short while ago we were told 8 Billion dollars in earmarks is a small amount. And Mr. Gibbs even restated this just a few weeks ago. So, can someone please demonstrate or explain how $100 million is larger than eight billion dollars? I am sure if someone can come up with the answer, it will make an interesting mathematical equation...

Labels: , , ,