The public has finally discovered the ugly truth - Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and his talented marionette Karl Rove have not a clue when it comes to the havoc being wrought on citizens of the United States. Their favored "comprehensive immigration reform" plans should be renamed to reflect reality: “Amnistia Comprensivo, Enorme y Deshonroso” -- Comprehensive Amnesty, Huge and Disgraceful.

Senate Republicans, in concert with Karl Rove and President Bush, have formed a solid alliance with open-borders Democrats and a myriad of Mexican-funded special interest groups. Using a phrase coined by President Bush, it might be fair to suggest their alliance constitutes an “Amnesty Axis of Evil.” Message to Republicans: American citizens won't tolerate it. It is not just one election that is at stake; it is the election of professed Republicans in any election anywhere, anytime. A generation of political careers is at stake, first in 2006 and far into the future.

Where do we stand? We have a self-serving Congress that chooses to do nothing. We also have the unfortunate do-nothing-right president. Both have popularity polls that resemble the trajectory of a gliding anvil. The Congressional Republican leadership vacuum has figured out that any legislation containing more than enforcement of existing immigration laws will amount to wholesale incumbent defeat at the polls on November 7. What Republicans fail to realize is that wholesale defeat is guaranteed to them at the polls just by their inaction on illegal immigration – regardless of what they have or haven’t done addressing other important issues.

Even the open borders lobby has figured out that the American people will not tolerate millions of illegal aliens demanding equal or better rights than American citizens. The daily in-your-face confrontation by illegal aliens, on city streets and loitering on every street corner, Home Depot and convenience store parking lot has aroused the public ire. As the understanding of the facts by the public has risen, so has the risk to all incumbent politicians seeking re-election. In response, Republicans have taken a page out of the Democratic Party playbook. They simply decided to delay any action on amnesty legislation until after the election, thinking it will save them from a predictable voter backlash. Regardless of incumbent protestations to the contrary, all Americans should be warned that amnesty for illegal aliens is coming like a freight train in the night immediately after the mid-term elections.

Even illegal aliens have gotten the picture that eludes people like Senator John McCain. A recent pro-illegal alien rally in Los Angeles drew fewer than 1,000 people, in stark contrast to the several hundred-thousand just four months ago. Similarly in Phoenix, only 5,000 showed up for the recent labor solidarity march, which was down from the previous 100,000 illegal aliens waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, and proclaiming allegiance to Mexico. Only 3,000 showed up in Chicago and less showed their faces in San Francisco. In Dallas, only 500 people were bold enough to display their defiance of United States immigration laws. Has the problem gone away? No, just crawled under the nearest rock until Congress weathers the storm of their mid-term elections. Then, fortified by the knowledge they are immune from accountability for at least two years, they will resume their quest to deconstruct the United States’ borders in favor of a North American Union.

Fortunately, better public knowledge of the past and future costs of subsidizing illegal immigration, long concealed by the main stream media but revealed by the blogosphere, has temporarily overwhelmed corporate propaganda and Mexican special interest groups. A word of caution - the President and his partners in the U.S. Senate, when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens, simply intend to ignore the U.S. Constitution, impose their will and suppress any citizen civil disobedience or insurrection.

The leaders of labor unions are also trapped in a fraudulent position. They think they can bolster their declining membership rolls (union dues) by backing the Rove-Bush-Reid-McCain-Kennedy amnesty legislation, or if necessary the Cornyn-Kyl amnesty-lite version. In doing so they must try to explain to their existing members why they’re doing nothing to preserve union jobs and the wage levels of American citizens. National labor leaders are not out of touch with the will of the American people any more than Congress. The truth is they don’t care about the rank and file any more than the White House, Congress or the Catholic Church. It’s the money.

Labor union leaders fail to recognize that once the current crop of illegal aliens becomes legal and entitled to union scale wages, businesses will quickly revert to hiring newly arrived illegal aliens for less labor cost. Those newly minted legal aliens will quickly become unemployed and qualify for social benefits. Labor unions will be worse off than they are now. In addition, any company currently willing to hire illegal aliens has already demonstrated they are unafraid of the law. It would be hard to imagine they would be afraid of hiring non-union workers. Labor unions are betting on the wrong horse. Enforcing, not subverting, the rule of law is the labor union’s only chance of survival.

Until wiser heads prevail, labor leaders have made the choice to abandon their current membership and join with President Bush and Karl Rove. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has also joined the Amnesty Axis. Together, they somehow believe that their political interests are best served by subsidizing the illegal alien population at the expense of American taxpayers – as if protecting pedophile priests weren’t enough of an outrage. They also seem to think the “rights” of the illegal alien population transcend the law of the land and the interests of the American people. One would think the contrary would be obvious, i.e., the best interests of each and every individual American citizen is by definition in the best interests of the United States. The best interests of the United States are not achieved by serving the best interests of illegal aliens and subordinating the interests of Americans. As an aside, we’re not talking about 12-20 million illegal aliens any more; we’re now talking about 60 million in the next decade and more to follow – and at whose expense.

Why are Cardinal Mahoney and his fellow elitists fostering illegal alien migration into the United States? The answer would be simple if it were not so disturbing. Again, the answer is money. Every advocate of illegal alien amnesty is financially benefiting from the presence of illegal aliens in the United States – churches and politicians both benefit by receiving large sums of money. The advocacy of illegal aliens by Senator John McCain likely stems directly from campaign contributions from industry advocacy groups such as the restaurant and hotel/motel lobby and Mexican special interest groups (some funded by the Mexican government). Senator John McCain is not afflicted with altruism.

The open-borders lobby had hoped to create a new voter bloc to permanently sway the elections, but citizens fought tooth and nail to insure honest elections, often over numerous setbacks from activist judges and Governors. Arizona now requires identification at the polls. Hopefully, John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano are failing in their advocacy of illegal aliens because there appears to be no tangible increase in new voter registration anywhere in the country.

Others argue that jobs are but a small piece of the puzzle. Voting in United States elections is not high on the list of most illegal aliens. The real prize are social benefits (education, housing, transportation, food stamps, welfare, and medical care) foolishly conferred by Congress and State governments for votes that will never materialize. Social benefits and to a lesser extent jobs, but not voting or citizenship, are the principal source of milk and honey to illegal aliens.

The leadership of this do-nothing Congress, rather than act to protect American citizens and improve national security in this era of Islamic terrorism, has chosen instead to blend cowardly into the crowd gathered at a crime scene to avoid notice or detection. Notable in his efforts was Senator Jon Kyl who voted to construct the southern border fence before voting not to fund it.

There is a line worth remembering near the end of the movie, Independence Day – “Remember me, I’mmmm back.” When elections are safely in the past, both Congress and the President will once again pursue amnesty for illegal aliens with a single-minded vengeance.

I hope you’re ready. You’ve been forewarned. It’s time to wake everyone up. You don’t want anyone to miss the political confrontation that is about to happen in which our government is going to find itself at war with its own citizens. An exaggeration? Let’s wait and see. It has the potential to become the stuff of history textbooks and legends.

Red State Patriot

Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.

Agonizingly, Army officers could do nothing but watch the pictures being fed back from the drone as the Taliban splintered into tiny groups - too small to effectively target with the drone - and headed back to their mountainside hideouts.

Military experts told The Post that rules of engagement are constantly adjusted on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, depending on the severity of the threat posed by the enemy.

In Iraq, gun battles have raged inside cemeteries in Fallujah, and once-off-limits mosques are now subject to U.S. searches.

The lost opportunity in Afghanistan came amid a spike in Taliban activity in Afghanistan - a craggy country roughly the size of Texas that poses problems for U.S. troops hunting fighters in remote mountain areas.

Taliban militants have launched their deadliest attacks since the terrorist regime was toppled by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 for providing a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda camps.

U.S. troops and NATO allies recently reclaimed territory in southern Afghanistan from Taliban fighters following a bloody 11-day operation.

NATO leaders announced yesterday the hard fighting killed at least 510 Taliban insurgents.

And American and Afghan forces stormed a fortified compound in the Wardak province to arrest a dozen Taliban leaders who were planning a new wave of attacks.

"Five years ago, the Afghan national army was zero," Maj. Gen. Robert Durbin, who heads the training of Afghan soldiers and police, told CNN. "We now have sufficient forces - that's why there is some tough fighting down in Kandahar."

By IAN BISHOP

Original article:
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/taliban_gets_bury_lucky_worldnews_ian_bishop.htm

Hat tip: Submitted by Pete Perkins who further commented: “Do you suppose we really aren’t in this to win, but would rather be politically correct? The officers in charge of this tactical event who blew this opportunity need to be reassigned to desk jobs in Antarctica. If I remember correctly, recently there was a funeral for an Afghanistan government official going on when a car pulled up with a bomb that detonated killing at least a half-dozen police officers.

It doesn’t look to me like we have the stomach to pull out all the stops and get this war over with. It’s much easier to lose two or three of our G.I.’s at a time and not make any waves because it might upset some Republican or Democrat’s chances to win political office somewhere. Unfrigginbelievable.

This really ought to upset people in this country, but it doesn’t seem to. These were top Taliban leaders, not just fighters. Now that this is all over the internet and television, we will never get another chance like this. They’re not stupid – they learn from their mistakes. I wish I could say the same for our politicians who think they are military geniuses, the ones who are responsible for these rules of engagement.”

The Cornyn-Kyl bill would establish a new visa category appropriately called "W" for its possible namesake that would allow aliens to enter the United States "when there are no available U.S. workers." The bill would require employers to pay "W" aliens the minimum wage but not require the market wage – two tiered wage system. In other words, Silicon Valley corporations could advertise in "America's Job Bank" for computer specialists at the U.S. minimum wage, no Americans would apply, and thousands of computer specialists from India and Pakistan (or Mexico) would board planes to take the jobs for which, allegedly, "there are no available U.S. workers." The "W" workers would receive special privileges that allow them to extend their time in the United States up to six years, during which period their family members may come and visit for 30 days at a time. The bill doesn't address the predictable situations of what happens when the "W" worker is visited by his wife, and they have a baby who becomes an "anchor baby," i.e., a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and taxpayer benefits for the baby and all his relatives, including those not yet in the United States but now on their way.

Amnesty, even under the label "guest worker," cannot deceptively be made palatable by hiding it in a bill that pretends to be about "enforcement" or "reform" of border security.

I complained in detailed correspondence to Senator Kyl. I received a thoughtful personal correspondence in return (original on file). Jon Kyl (or a staff member who authored the letter) expressed what he said was Jon Kyl’s personal view that what we need most is some form of earned citizenship, guest worker program and/or illegal alien amnesty, i.e., we need, using his code words, serious comprehensive immigration reform.

It is an undeniable fact that Senator Kyl has yet to advocate enforcing existing immigration laws. And yet, the RNC on behalf of Senator Kyl has spent incalculable millions of dollars in Arizona running TV ads about how Jon Kyl opposes amnesty for illegal aliens. Adding insult to insult, Senator John McCain adamantly supports Jon Kyl’s re-election and publicly belittles his opponent as does one of the most liberal ‘fish wrappers’ in the nation, The Arizona Republic. Time Magazine, arguably the most left-wing magazine on national newsstands proclaimed Jon Kyl as one of the nation’s 10 best Senators.

Anybody but an ideologue will admit one simple fact –circumstantially, John McCain’s endorsement of Jon Kyl, coupled with Kyl’s extreme left wing media support, absolutely precludes Jon Kyl from the ranks of anyone willing to enforce existing or future immigration laws. Jon Kyl’s been in Congress twenty years and done nothing – nothing to stop the invasion. Why should anybody think Jon Kyl is suddenly going to do something now if he’s re-elected, except to continue to feed at the public trough for six more years and serve his own, and John McCain’s, left-wing agenda for the presidency?

Vote for Jon Kyl? I don’t think so.

Red State Patriot

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

The Pope concluded from these references that "God,is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature."

Needless to say, peace-loving Muslims around the world entered the debate by immediately losing their collective minds and rioting, burning churches and threatening to launch suicide bombings against Christian targets... including the Pope.

So to review... when Muslims call practitioners (or leaders) of other religions, 'dogs', 'monkeys', 'pigs', etc... or compare non-Muslim religious leaders to mass murderers such as Hitler (his name should be obliterated), that is considered protected free speech. But let anyone say or write anything remotely critical of Islam... and out come the swords! Apparently, the sword of Islam cuts only one way.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the present Pope. But in truth I don't have to be... I don't count myself among his flock. However, I am tickled pink over what I think is his well-formed strategy to get Europe to finally engage Islam head-on rather than continuing to roll over for increasingly unreasonable demands of Dhimmitude.

If one examines the content and timing of the Pope's statement, it becomes fairly clear that this was no accidental slip of the tongue.

First of all, one doesn't go around casually dropping quotes from obscure medieval emperors into speeches. That sort of thing requires a bit of forethought and research.

Second, if the Pope was casting about for unobjectionable content for his remarks during a politically delicate time in European history, he certainly wouldn't draw from a source that intimated that any aspect of Islam which Mohamed hadn't managed to steal outright from Judaism or Christianity was essentially evil.

Next, the riots which resulted from the prophet cartoons failed to force Europeans to take a stand against Islamic subjugation. In fact they may have actually prevented such a stand from taking place. This is because the issue at hand was not 'Islam vs. Europe'... but rather 'Islam vs. freedom of expression'.

This distinction is quite important.

You see, culturally, Europe prides itself on being extremely diverse. This diversity is only possible because of a delicate ongoing compromise/balance between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity. However, this is also Europe's Achilles heel. It is the wedge that allowed Islam to divide and conquer European public opinion in the wake of the prophet cartoons.

Quite simply, the sacrificing of freedom of expression during the prophet riots on a narrow range of topics (Islam) did not make Europeans feel threatened since they were already conditioned to feel comfortable with compromise in the name of cultural sensitivity. They felt they had room to negotiate without giving up any part of their core identity. Giving in to the Muslims required a mental adjustment rather than ceding a core position.

However, the one unifying aspect that bridges most of Europe's cultural divides (even among die-hard secularists) is a deep-seated and long-standing Christian identity. One doesn't have to look much beyond most of the European flags to understand how central Christianity is to European self-definition.

I have a hunch that the Pope understood this quite well before he made his remarks.

My theory is that the Pope was disappointed... perhaps even alarmed... at the failure of Europeans to take a united stand during the prophet cartoon riots. So he sat down and figured out a plan that would pit Islam... not against Europe... but against Christian Europe (and ultimately all of Christendom).

He knew that any statement critical of Islam would elicit a swift and violent response, so he was careful to draw it from a historical source and present it as part of a scholarly, albeit tangential discussion. This way, when the expected explosion took place he could feign dismay and regret at the Muslim reaction while avoiding a direct apology. After all, why should he personally apologize for something that has been a matter of public record since the 14th century?

As expected, churches all over the world are now being targeted by angry Muslim mobs and the leader of the Catholic Church is being called unspeakable names... and even threatened... by a wide swath of the world's Muslims.

Europeans might not have been willing to stand up and take a stand for something as ill-defined as a personal freedom... but they sure as hell feel their backs have been pushed to the wall as their very religious identity comes under attack. The proof of this can be found in the fact that both religious and political European leaders are now closing ranks... firmly behind the Pope.

If the Pope's goal was to draw clear battle lines for the coming global struggle that would force Christian Europe to finally dig in and say 'not one more inch!'... he seems to have found an extremely effective way to go about it.

If it was merely an accident... there too, I doubt the Pope can be very unhappy with the results.

And since the enemy of my enemy is my friend... let me say for the record, "Onward Christian soldiers...".

David Bogner

On the way in the Columbia River (Passing Cape Disappointment) the water was flat calm, but there was a ton of fog. This complicated the maneuver, because we had to back down on the buoy tender to pass the tow line. We had a shoulder-fired line-throwing gun for the purpose, but we had to get so close just to see the vessel that in the end we wound up passing the bridle and line by hand.

Once we had the wire bridle hooked up we started heading out, paying out the towing hawser as we went. First 100 feet. Then 200 feet. We had 1200 feet of towing hawser on deck and the goal was to get it out to about 1000 feet. I was on the fantail with most of the Deck Force. We had greased the rail with Crisco to prevent chafing and we put a piece of leather in the towing bitt so that any metal burrs or imperfections on the bitt didn’t damage the hawser.

Halfway out the river the fog started to lift. Sun started beating down on all of us and in our “float coats” we were getting a little warm. I was starting to relax – the tough part of the evolution seemed over, so my attention started to wander a little.

Then I noticed that the leather we put in the towing bitt was starting to work its way out. I figured, “Oh well, the towing hawser has to bet banged up eventually someday.” The problem was, once the leather was free, the tow line started to “run.” My guys were leaping away, trying not to step in the bight of the line. If they had been, they would have been sucked with the towing hawser through a space about the size of a volleyball in a split-second.

It was chaos. Actually, pandemonium. Then, to my horror, I noticed that nobody had secured the bitter end of the towing hawser to anything. The towline could fly right overboard and we could lose the tow. If we lost the tow in the Columbia River, surely the buoy tender would drift onto the shoals within minutes and go aground. I would be responsible for sinking a decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter. All this passed through my mind in those split-seconds.

The First Class Petty Officer noticed it too, and just before he would have been pulled overboard, he threw the line around one of the mooring bitts. At 1200 feet, the line shock-loaded, tensed, but held. If we had lost the tow, I would not be sitting here tapping out this story out to you. I would be flipping burgers (not that there is anything wrong that), or even worse, turning big rocks into little rocks at a vacation destination called Leavenworth. But I am blessed to have had this happen, and grateful that nobody was hurt, and because I learned at a young age a couple very important things about life, markets and trading - before I ever got to the trading job.

#1. Things can and will happen a lot faster, and with a lot more force, than you can even conceive.
#2. Therefore, you always need to secure the bitter end of that line, and have a “stop.”

An Investment Professional

In the field of military science, great shifts in tactics occur very rarely, and often only in conjunction with the deployment of a new technology. The prescient General or Military commander sees how a shift in technology can change the strategic balance, and exploits it with a new tactic. Patton wrote about how the Tank and mechanized warfare could completely change the face or warfare, and render static defenses obsolete. The wehrmacht read his book and changed warfare forever with the blitzkrieg. Here, the Islamic world has taken a change in world technology, and utilized it to wholly change the way battles are fought, probably forever in the foreseeable future. However, this tactic is not dependent on the Muslims themselves possessing any new technology, the means were available at any point in history. Despite its simplicity, this tactic was not thought of, or deployed by any of the great generals. Alexander the Great never tried it, no Roman General ever considered it, not did Genghis Kahn, or any of the Prussian Generals. It was not described or even predicted by Sun Tzu, Napoleon, nor during WWI. Neither the Axis nor the Allies attempted it in any theatre of WWII. The Islamists have created an entirely new form of warfare, based on this new tactic, to which the Western armies seem particularly vulnerable.

For simplicities sake, we can refer to this new tactic as "whining."

The way this tactic is deployed, the numerically and technologically inferior force launches an unprovoked attack on a Western power. They really only need weapons little better than stone knives and bearskins. Due to the fact that it is an attack oriented on surprise, subterfuge, or stealth, they manage to inflict some damage on the Western power, even if that may only mean one or two casualties. The brilliance of the strategy only then comes into effect. Like Genghis Kahn, this original attack force flees, retreating to safe territory. Unlike Genghis Khan, who would have a militarily superior force waiting to pounce on the counter attack, the Muslim armies have no need of a counterstrike force. They break ranks, flee, and retreat into populated areas, dispersing into a population by shedding any uniforms or military accoutrements. The erstwhile attackers adopt a cringing pose to better blend in with non-combatants, and hide behind civilians, multinational or UN forces.

Rather than the former paradigm, where propaganda organs minimize ones own losses and maximize the enemies, in an attempt to effect morale on both sides, their political organs maximize images of their own casualties. They loudly proclaim the utterness of their own defeat and rout, launching into full "Whine" mode. They demand the world community protect them, and condemn the Western power for using such "brutal" means in defending itself. Brilliantly, they use the ineffectiveness of their own assault as a basis for a claim that they the aggrieved party. As an "aggrieved party" they then begin to make demands of the party they just attacked. The demands are for the attacked party to voluntarily concede those strategic objectives the attacker could not achieve by military force. By utilizing the world technological shift, created by having a 24 hour, mass media news cycle, they turn the victims into "aggressors," and in the end use their own military weakness as a basis for making demands of the more powerful state, requiring concessions and reparations.

In no previous conflict has any expansionist movement considered effectively using whining to achieve tactical victory.

Interestingly, whining, as a tactic, only works if your opponent is a good guy! One cannot imagine fighting Stalin by continually launching ineffective attacks on him, and then yelling about how badly he treated your country afterward. Similarly, it would be laughable to postulate a Polish aggression against Hitler's Germany, consisting of a few mortar attacks, followed by pleas to the world about how it shouldn't be invaded over a few measly mortar rounds. The Islamists use our civility and compassion against us. This use of kindness, to exploit the good party, is the very definition of pure, uncomplicated, and evil. It is a tactic of which comic book villains and Snidely Whiplash would be proud.

This strategy has been well known in individual human relations as "the Little Bully." In many families or schoolyards, a smaller or younger individual realizes that he or she can attack larger members with impunity if he cries loudly and piteously enough at any retaliation. However, this situation can only occur when there is a structure or individual with actual or perceived authority over both parties to the incident. Further, that authority must have a clouded sense of justice regarding the individuals appearing before it, either through ignorance of the events, a profound absence of wisdom, or at worst some pre-existing bias in favor of the "Little Bully". It may be that this new tactic is only now viable due to a strengthening of the influence of a "World Community".

If so, then it speaks poorly of the attentiveness, wisdom, and motivations of this developing "Community." This community cannot be said to be ignorant of the provocations of the Islamic states, since their attacks and bellicose statements are widely broadcast. This means that the "Community" is condemning the wrong parties, and giving succor to "the Little Bully" either from a profound absence of sound judgment, or a pernicious bias towards a favored little sociopath. The world "Community" is cast in the role of either the idiot, or the wicked stepmother. The long held dream of a "Community of Nations" will be soured and squandered, if that community continues to express a will that is foolish and bereft of merit. The world will indeed be in sorry shape if it’s military, economic, political, scientific, technological, and philosophical leaders can be overthrown by "whining."

By David Roth

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state," Rosie O'Donnell said. After expressing the view that America was attacked "not by a nation," she continued: "And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people."

Most alarming should be the applause in the background, not Rosie O’Donnell’s comments or beliefs.

Her liberal co-hosts appeared shocked by her comments and attempted damage control. Co-host Joy Behar protested that Christians are not trying to impose mass murder on America. "This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us."

O'Donnell would have no part of the damage control attempt and replied, “No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"

Rosie O'Donnell firmly holds the view that there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus. Sadly, one can only suspect the outburst by Rosie O’Donnell is a projection of her internal anger at all Christians in general for their repudiating her public advocacy and participation in a homosexual lifestyle.

Neither O'Donnell nor ABC apologized for the comments. While the American Family Association thought an apology was appropriate, in our view none should be expected.

For purposes of comparison and illustration of hypocrisy, had Rosie O'Donnell made similar comments about minorities or homosexuals, ABC would have issued an immediate apology and she probably would have been fired.

The following is our letter sent to Mr. Brian Frons, President of ABC Daytime.

Brian Frons, President, ABC Daytime
ABC
77 West 66th St.
New York, NY 10023-6298
Primary Phone: 212-456-7777
Fax: 212-456-1424
E-Mail: Brian Frons, ABC

Dear President Frons,

[12:16] When a fool is annoyed, he quickly lets it be known. Sensible people will ignore an insult.

Some people think the comments by Rosie O'Donnell were reprehensible and deserve a public apology and reprimand. We do not agree. This is America and if Ms. O’Donnell has not breached a code of ethics or engaged in criminal behavior, we should all come to Rosie O’Donnell’s defense - particularly if anyone attempts to restrict her freedom of speech or punish her for her statements.

Instead, our choice is to avoid whenever possible watching ABC programming of any kind what-so-ever, since it is evident from the network’s thundering silence that ABC shares her views. While factually ignorant, distasteful and lacking respect, in a land of liberty, anti-Christian bigotry and anti-American viewpoints are Rosie O'Donnell's right. It is our right, however, using our remote control and the money in our American wallet, to repudiate any support of ABC by redirecting our family's viewing to alternative media outlets and by refusing to purchase your advertiser's products.

It is the American way - the way in which we can fairly cast our vote. You say what you think, and we say what we think, and then we vote. We cast our votes by deciding which networks and programming we will watch, and which advertisers we will support.

I suspect the majority of Americans have already concluded that ABC suffered another in a series of self-inflicted wounds from a deadly weapon – Rosie O’Donnell’s mouth.

Conventional wisdom tells us we are irrevocably known by the company we keep. Unfortunately, under the circumstances which we know you will understand, for us that does not include ABC or Rosie O'Donnell.

Are the Dixie Chicks also an ABC product?

Red State Patriot

A portion is extracted from businesses of all shapes and sizes in the form of a corporate income tax. Individual income taxes provide five times the amount of corporate taxes. Employment taxes contribute another portion, roughly two thirds of the individual income taxes. Add to that gift, estate and excise taxes. In 2003, tax revenues were somewhere close to $2 trillion. For FY2007, beginning October 1st, 2006, Congress authorized a $2.8 trillion budget, an increase by 40% since President Bush first took office in 2001. President Clinton’s last budget was $1.8 trillion.

We give the President credit for the budget because he signed it into law. However, never forget for a minute that it was Congressmen, our Senators and district Representative, who inserted the spending provisions into the budget and it was Congress that passed it.

What effect is this spending having on the national economy? We are told almost daily there is no demand-driven inflation. Demand is determined by the magnitude of public consumption expenditures and government consumption expenditures, plus investment expenditures and net exports/imports. You know that both public and government consumption expenditures (spending) have been huge. Over the last two years alone, $1.352 trillion of equity has been extracted from real estate - an amount equal to about 10% of annual GDP - and spent without saving hardly a dime. During the same period, net imports/exports has been hugely negative. One only needs to look at product labels in any retail establishment to know that most of what we purchase today was manufactured in foreign countries. Price inflation from government and public consumption expenditures demand is running wild and unchecked, and in several asset classes as a result of speculation, inflation has become “pure.”

Congress could just as easily have shown a pretense of fiscal responsibility and reduced this year’s budget instead of raising it. While Congressmen and the media are quick to tell us the President’s words are all sound – all sound, it is Congress that is blindly proceeding to do just exactly what it wants to do, spending what it collectively wants to spend. It is Congress, aided and abetted by the media, that blames this President (and past presidents) for Congress’ ill-advised decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to entitlement spending and earmarks. Even votes are becoming expensive to purchase. Ask any Congressman.

When anyone overspends their income, they must go into debt if they continue to make purchases, which we know to as “deficit spending.” When tax revenues are inadequate to pay the bills, additional revenue has to come from somewhere. This additonal revenue iis obtained from the sale of United States assets, in the form of government debt instruments (Treasury securities). Treasury securities are issued by the United States Department of the Treasury through the Bureau of the Public Debt – notice in the name the words ‘Public Debt.' Debt financing instruments are referred to simply as "Treasuries." Foreign governments and banks purchase our Treasuries with U.S. dollars which they acquired from selling us consumer goods or petroleum products.

There are four types of Treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Savings bonds. Treasury securities (except savings bonds) are very liquid forms of national debt and heavily traded by international entities on the secondary market.

A national debt is created when a lending foreign government or bank (such as the Federal Reserve) agrees to loan a sum of assets (U.S. dollars) to a debtor nation, in this case the United States. As you would expect, these loans are made with an expectation of repayment, plus interest. The choices are few – repay, reschedule or default. Historically, individual debt was always responsible for the creation of indentured servants. Remember this detail, because national debt is no different, only on a larger scale. National debt is definitely not charity. Charity is best exemplified by the United States’ internal income redistribution programs (entitlement programs) which are a give-away of tax dollars with no expectation of receiving anything in return, not even nationalism. Entitlement programs are a subsidy by Congress of ethically, morally, educationally and culturally challenged Americans and illegal aliens in return for Congressional self interest, votes and power. Any organization or special interest group granted a tax exempt status – whether religious, political or charitable - for any reason - is similarly enjoying a pernicious form of entitlement program – receiving citizenship benefits paid for by other taxpayers including protection of the law, but indignantly contributing nothing – nothing at all.

To anyone who would read this article voluntarily, you probably already know that China has become the world’s biggest foreign exchange holder of U.S. Treasuries. Chinese holdings of United States foreign exchange (debt) reached $853.7 billion as of February 28, 2006. Japanese holdings of U.S. foreign exchange were $852 billion as of March 31, 2006.

For comparison in a global sense, the U.S. current account deficit in 2005 was $791.5 billion. The world’s next largest current account deficit in 2005 was Spain’s $86 billion.

It will take decades for our children and grandchildren to repay our government-incurred national debt, with interest. It is important to emphasize that the national debt is not the responsibility of everyone - only those individuals and corporations who do pay taxes (since the bottom 50% of wage earners and illegal aliens pay no taxes at all).

Red State Patriot

Over one-half billion federal tax dollars have already been spent in Mississippi restoring damaged state schools. While counterintuitive, these federal funds dispensed to the State of Mississippi were not loans for the purpose of rebuilding the state’s schools, but Washington, D.C. exercising a federal ownership interest, authority over, and responsibility for what have become U.S. government schools (indoctrination centers) in Mississippi. Pause and reflect on the socialist implications of the federal government's ownership and control of state schools.

Senator Ted Kennedy is a staunch proponent of such spending. Consider the “Big Dig” in Massachusetts. The Big Dig is the unofficial name of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T), a mega-project to reroute Interstate 93, the controlled-access highway through the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, into a 3.5 mile (5.6km) tunnel under the city. The Big Dig is the most expensive highway project in America. Planning for the Big Dig officially began in 1982.

Environmental impact studies started in 1983. After years of extensive lobbying for federal dollars, a 1987 public works bill appropriating funding for the Big Dig was passed by U.S. Congress, and quickly vetoed by President Ronald Reagan as being too expensive. Congress overrode his veto and in 1991, the Big Dig began in earnest.

The project was estimated at $2.5 billion in 1985. Over $14.6 billion has been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006, with Congress adding more money (your tax dollars) every year to Senator Ted Kennedy’s marquis project every time an appropriations bill presented itself. The project has been plagued with delays, escalating costs, leaks, shoddy workmanship, intentional use of substandard materials and even arrests. The Massachusetts Attorney General is demanding that contractors refund MA taxpayers $108 million for "shoddy work." Taxpayers across the rest of the nation are unlikely to benefit from any recovery – the money is gone. The final ramp of the Big Dig opened after 15 years of construction on what was supposed to be less than a ten-year project on January 13, 2006. Six months later, the tunnel segment under South Boston which connects the mainline of I-90 to the newly-constructed Ted Williams Tunnel, was closed indefinitely to the public because the tunnel ceiling collapsed on July 10, 2006 killing a female passenger riding in a vehicle.

Returning to New Orleans, there were 484,674 permanent residents of New Orleans when Katrina struck. For each one of those 484,674 inhabitants, $250 billion would provide over one-half million dollars to each person, $516,528 to be exact – for every man, woman and child. For every family of four, that’s over 2 million dollars of our tax money - $2,066,112. Or, if you happened to own one or more of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, and homes were your focus, each and every home would be entitled to $1,329,787. One year later, and billions of dollars spent to repair the partial destruction (less than 5%) of the New Orleans levee system by Hurricane Katrina, the head of the Army corps of Engineers conceded on August 26th that it wasn’t clear if the levee system (read: luck will be needed) will ever be able to withstand a heavy storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, let alone Category 4 or 5. A new hurricane season has just begun. Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) or her successor will soon be asking for another 250 billion tax dollars. Instead of opening education accounts for our children, maybe we should be opening levee accounts for Louisiana.

Why doesn’t Louisiana sell state bonds to fund their own levee repairs, particularly in those areas unrelated to national commerce on the Mississippi River? Most states and many cities sell “capital improvement” bonds to fund everything from football stadiums to water treatment facilities to transportation systems and state schools. The answer is self evident. No one would invest in the efficiency of the LA state government or risk calamitous acts of nature that will reoccur along the Gulf Coast. No insurance company would touch it. Neither should the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers.

Today, we find ourselves confined in the same room with an elephant named FEMA, the antithesis of individual responsibility and another failed product of Congress. FEMA is so fat it can’t turn around in its own confines without doing more harm than good. The corruption is staggering, mostly ignored, and far beyond the control of FEMA administrators. Congress feeds incredible sums of tax money to FEMA. Citizens, churches and charitable organizations spend most of their time with shovels cleaning up after the “benefits” FEMA provides to us – same as families must do with the Education Department, the results of which are evident in everyday life. Speaking of education, Congress and the NEA have proudly refined and reformed education in America to the point that only a few high school graduates can figure it out. The vernacular expression, “duh,” may finally have achieved some social and fiscal relevance.

Red State Patriot

A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it, and Congress is spending almost a billion (one thousand million dollars) tax dollars every 8 hours - most unconstitutionally if anyone still cares. Have you had a talk with your Senators and Representative lately? Are you going to vote?