GOD BLESS AMERICA!

     

Old Taglines:

- Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is looking.

- Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind.

- All people are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

- All your Diebold are belong to us.

- 11, 175, 77, 93 - In Memory Always

- "They did try to hurt me, but they missed because Liberals throw like girls." - Ann Coulter

- "My job as the president is to see the world the way it is, not the way we hope it is." - W

- Everyone has an equal opportunity, but is not guaranteed an equal outcome.

- Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it; Right is right even if no one does it.

- “That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.” - Thucydides

- The Democrat Party is engulfed in a Culture of Hypocrisy.

- "It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Manual

- "You can't fix stupid..." - Ron White

- "Liberals' church IS the State." - Ann Coulter, June 7, 2006

- How's this for disproportionate, Ahmadinejad - Islam blew up two buildings,USA blew up two countries

- *more duct tape needed*

- The years Before Bush have no relevance in the mind of a DUmmie.

- If you speak against your own, you have chosen the wrong side.

- "Thanks Bill Clinton. The gift that keeps on giving." - Glenn Beck

- Sorry soldiers.....your country let you down on November 7, 2006.

- "There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy." - George Washington

- "I do a lot of things to irritate the libs. And it works!" - Rush Limbaugh

- Islamists are like children. You cannot reason. They only understand rewards and punishments. Mostly punishments.

- The United States of America is the only country strong enough to go it alone.

- To Neo-Liberals like Pelosi, it's not about serving America, IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER!

- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it- Aristotle

- "I am not a neoconservative. I am pro-American." - John Bolton

The Goals of Communism (page 94 from Communist Manifesto)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

(Note: the above pages reflect the paperback version, 14th printing, April 1976)

Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

A GREAT RUSH RANT!!!

RUSH (October 2, 2007): You know, it's sad to be told, ladies and gentlemen, by a wounded vet returning from the theater that I have challenged his legitimacy and his heroism and his service and called him phony when no such thing has ever been said. I really don't even want to accept the premise of this because that would mean it necessary to defend it, and there's nothing to defend here, because this is a smear and a false charge. I've been to Walter Reed, the amputee rehab unit. I have been to bases, combat bases in Afghanistan on troop visits. I've raised millions of dollars and donated a lot to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. To have these people lied to like this is just shameless on the part of the people who are lying. What's happening with all this, folks, I must tell you, people say, "Rush, what have you accomplished? I mean, what's left to accomplish? Why do you keep doing this? You don't need to do this." Folks, this stuff energizes me. They are energizing me. They are energizing conservatives throughout the country in ways that they don't even understand. They are underscoring for the one thousandth time to our military and civilians alike how they lie about and abuse our soldiers and lie to them.

Folks, I am more energized and focused on the task of advancing liberty and victory than ever before. I am more energized and focused on the task of defeating Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton than ever before. I will not rest. I'm not going to stop until they are exposed, until they are pushed back and defeated. They must not control our government; they must not be put in charge of our military; they must not gain the power they crave to shut down talk radio and free speech wherever they don't like it. They must not control anything in which our future is at stake. Let me add another point about all this. It has not gone unnoticed here that only a handful of Republicans and conservatives have dared to speak up about what has been taking place here. I see it. Most of them think I can handle these things on my own and so forth, but there's a fear out there. The fear and the weakness that permeates the Republican Party, and even parts of the conservative movement is also on display now, as it has been for too long.

We've talked about it at length on this program and on many occasions. It's this fear and the weakness that you, members of the base of the conservative movement in the Republican Party, are sick and tired of, and I am, too. I was thinking about this last night. I have a theory to advance. Where are the Bill Buckleys of today who dared join up with Whittaker Chambers? That was gutsy. Whittaker Chambers, a defector from the Communist Party. My theory is that all these new blogs, and all this new cable TV, and all this media, has actually not been helpful to our side. I don't want to mention any names, but it is apparent to me that many on our side are far more interested in image, reputation, getting time on television just to get time on television, rather than being focused on a movement, the issues, if you will. People who used to be of substance have lost some of the substance and now are focused on being media stars, focused on being on television. I think it's been detrimental.

There is a fear that if they take on anything controversial, if they defend something that's happening out there to somebody, that they will be associated with the smear and they'd rather not be associated with the smear, so they leave it alone, which is understandable if you understand motives and reasons, and it doesn't bother me. I'm just passing this off to you because you and I talk on this program constantly: Where are the Republicans? Where are the conservatives? Why are they not responding? Well, they don't want to defend President Bush because they're afraid they'll be tarred and feathered just like him if they do. This extends not just to elected Republicans, but also people in the media, who have their own little turf staked out, happy with what they've got, and they've got their TV appearances, and they want to hold onto those. They don't want controversy swirling around them. So they hunker down and let these things play out as they might. It's easier that way, and there's less opposition.

But what are we conservatives about? We're about liberty. We are about country. We are about faith. We are about loyalty to our troops on the battlefield. We are about winning wars. We are about sending whatever reinforcements and resources our soldiers need to defeat the terrorists or our enemies anywhere they appear on the battlefield. We are about, as conservatives, limited government and individual liberty, free, genuinely free, political speech. The freedom to exercise your religion, your private property rights, the right to keep most of what you earn. This is who we are. This is what we believe. This used to be our movement. These are things that Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats work day and night to diminish. The left is about seizing and keeping power. They are about undermining the traditions and institutions that have made the country great. That would include the Constitution, which they dismiss as a living and breathing document, to be interpreted by activist judges at the behest of liberal trial lawyers. They want the Constitution to bend and shape to accommodate where they happen to be in a given year, in a given month, on a given day.

We know who they are. They are John Kerry, who was celebrated when he lied about our soldiers in Vietnam in testimony before a Senate committee, who met with the enemy while still in the military, and who has spent most of his career smearing the military and undermining them. It's about Jack Murtha, who is now the subject of a lawsuit for calling our brave Marines murderers of innocent civilians before any facts were known, and he did it at a press conference, not the floor of the House, just to make sure the entire world would hear it. It's about Dick Durbin, the number-two Democrat in the Senate, who actually compared our soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's assassins, and to Pol Pot's killers. It's about Ted Kennedy, who compared our military to Saddam Hussein's henchmen. What he said was, during Abu Ghraib, "No difference, just under new management, the US military." It's about Harry Reid, who declared the war lost, while brave men and women are on the battlefield winning the war against the terrorists. These are the leaders and the voices of the Democrat opposition.

Not a single resolution was offered by any Democrat or Republican repudiating these libels against our armed forces. Not a single vote was taken to condemn any of the things these Democrats have said and offered. Why would there be? These are the beliefs of the Democrat leadership, and the Republicans are too scared and weak to confront them. So I confront them, with you, my audience, giving me the strength to do so, because I know that you are always going to be there. I denounce them, I expose them, again with you, my audience. We are disgusted with the abuse of our soldiers -- hell, our entire country. We are fed up with the abuse our entire country has taken at the hands of Reid and Pelosi and the rest of them. We are sick and tired, getting up every day and looking at the news and listening to Democrats about how this is wrong and that's bad, everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Every day is a crisis. We're going to die of global warming. We're going to die of too much coffee. They scare us, they are doom and gloom apocalyptic pessimists, and we are sick and tired of this abuse of our military and our country.

We don't want to sit quietly while they try to lose this war, while they stab the troops in the back, lying to them, misleading them, while they run roughshod over anyone and anything they perceive as standing in their way. They wage war on me with greater energy and more sense of purpose than they wage war on the enemies of the United States of America. They wage war on President Bush with more fervor and more energy, more passion, more desire, than they join the war on genuine enemies of this country. We are not going to sit quietly while their hit operation, MoveOn.org, trashes the very general who is leading our troops in this current victory and who cannot defend himself against these vile attacks and attackers. We're not going to be silenced; we're not going to be intimidated by these same political hacks who have lied repeatedly about what I said. More importantly, didn't say. They can try to use Hillary's group, which she admits to helping found and form, Media Matters. They can try to use their favorite anti-war organization. They can write all the letters they want. They can introduce resolutions; they mean nothing to me. They can't do a thing to me.

There are tens of millions of us, both in this audience and outside this audience, who have had enough of what these people are doing, and that is why Congress rates at 11% approval, an all-time low. We despise, do we not, what these people are doing to our country? But we can remove them -- that's what elections are about -- one by one if necessary. For example, I don't believe the people of Nevada thought they were voting for an anti-war, big government, big taxing character assassin when they voted for Harry Reid. Reid tells his constituents he supports the troops. Somebody tell me how? I guess you support the troops by attacking me. He's proclaimed defeat, waved the white flag of surrender, said the surge wouldn't work, offered numerous resolutions to bring the troops home in defeat. Somebody name a single way in which Senator Reid's helped fight the war in Iraq and the war against the terrorists genuinely?

He tells his constituents he is a frugal steward of their tax dollars, yet in Washington he demands massive new spending and tax increases. He better represents the views of the people of Massachusetts than the people of Nevada. He tells the people in Nevada that he supports good people being named to the federal bench, but back in Washington he leads filibusters to block some of the greatest legal minds from becoming judges because he, in truth, supports activist judges who undermine the Constitution. One day he's going to have to answer to the people, Harry Reid will, as do all of these politicians. They're just temporary inhabitants of these public offices, and when they abuse their offices, as Reid does every day, it eventually catches up with them. Ask Tom Foley. Ask Tom Daschle.



Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.