Innocent? (Who is in charge of labeling casualties
of war “innocent civilians"?)
We are inundated everyday with pictures, stories, and first person accounts
of “innocent civilians” being killed in the streets of Lebanon, Iraq or the West Bank and Gaza. I wonder what the requirements
are for the “innocent civilian” label. First, you must assume the locals are reporting factual numbers. This is the granddaddy
of all assumptions of course. Arab media propaganda is the norm. But I digress. The people most often labeled as the “innocent
civilians” of war are women and children. They are usually unarmed, local residents, and were at the wrong place at the wrong
time.
But looking at Lebanon, I see few actual innocents. This is a government with a plethora of international support.
Lebanon ended a 15-year civil war in 1991. Any country emerging from such a thing will most assuredly experience some growing
pains. However, Lebanon was not left to its own devices to rebuild. Most Arab nations, along with many Western countries,
flooded Lebanon with monetary aid. A fledgling democracy emerged, but then the not so shocking occurred. The Lebanese people
allowed a terrorist group by the name of Hezbollah to control 20% of their parliament seats. Additionally, Hezbollah controlled
the entire southern region and headquartered themselves in Beirut. Syria, the only true foreign occupier of Lebanon and financier
of Hezbollah, remained in the country to flex its political influence, but was ousted, we think, last year. The withdrawal
is now in question. Instead of an ousting, Syria may have been preparing Hezbollah for the recent aggression towards Israel.
Removing themselves from Lebanon one year prior to Hezbollah's move against Israel, removes Syria from any obvious involvement
right? I tend to believe otherwise.
With this said, I find it hard to label anyone who lives among terrorists as innocent.
I refuse to recognize innocence in townspeople who allow terrorists to hide in their homes, hide stockpiles of weapons in
those homes, and then fire rockets into a neighboring country from the rooftops of those same homes. Imagine this happening
on our soil. An out of control renegade group overtakes a small city. Hides its weapons within apartment buildings, and even
launches attacks from the rooftops of the buildings. Would our local law enforcement hold the willing participants throughout
the area harmless? Absolutely not!
Now the question comes. Are these people being forced to succumb to the demands
of the terrorists? What if they are not willing participants in the terrorist’s plans? These questions seem incredibly naïve
when looking at any Middle Eastern footage from the past thirty years. How many “Death to Israel/Death to America” marches
have to be shown before we realize the demeanor of our enemy? The most commonly used propaganda photo is the one of an injured
child. They draw sympathy from all, but who is to say these are not the same children more commonly seen waving high powered
rifles while atop Daddy’s shoulders at a “Kill the Zionist” rally? Is he not the child who worships Bin Laden while in an
autistic trance at his madrasah? Women and children
from all over this region celebrated the 9/11 attacks, and the media, along with the United Nations, expect me to believe
these people are “innocent civilians”? Only a Jackass Democrat could fall for that.
Truth is there are no “innocent
civilians” in war. Nevertheless, the terrorists have used this misconception to their full advantage. Knowing the United
Nations will scream foul if anyone who is not carrying a gun at the time of their demise is killed, emboldens the terrorists.
This is their power. Deception and the guarantee of international intervention keep them not only living, but thriving. Pre
Korean War tactics can end all of this, especially against a cowardly group whose only survival hinges on the use of its unassuming
“civilian” supporters. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awful, but militarily necessary. Were there any “innocent civilians” killed
there? The Allies marched all the way to victory against Germany in World War II. History tells us that 62 million
people died due to that war. Sixty percent of those were “civilians”. At the time, that accounted for 2.5% of the entire
world’s population. A global threat must be met with unmatched force, and for the Jackass Democrats who think terrorism
is not a global threat, you have obviously been living in a coma for over thirty years. The same Hezbollah killed over two
hundred of our own Marines twenty four years ago. Now you ask Israel to halt the defense of its country due to a few hundred
people being injured in a city where Hezbollah operates freely amongst its locals?
Warfare is far too often fought
while adhering to political outcries, and this time Israel should demand political silence.
Israel has not intentionally
“murdered” anyone, and the “innocent civilian” tag is unfair, and frankly, ridiculous. Ridiculous because it is war, but also
ridiculous because we are talking about Lebanon, a country who shares one common bond with the rest of the Middle East, the
hatred of Israel and the commitment to it’s destruction. If the Middle East truly wants sympathy from the civilized world,
prove your toughness and willingness to die for something by building a country dedicated to it’s people and their well being,
not some promise of 72 virgins or martyrdom fame.
Israel should finish the job, without any involvement from the international
community. The “innocent civilian” tag be damned. If we are to defeat terrorism, we must hit hard, and hit heavy, with total
disregard for the enemy’s human shields. This goes for Iraq, Iran and Syria. The time has to come for America to realize that
the holding back of our total force for political opinion’s sake is futile and only prolongs the real horrors of war.
Blake
Elliott
August 2, 2006
Lebanon and the Palestinians are Guilty of Fraudulent News Footage
As
you watch this footage, you will notice what appears to be the typical middle east chaos we have grown accustomed to since
the early seventies. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see." It should be widely
known by now that any arab reports of civilian casualties should be taken with a grain of salt. This has been nothing more
than another terrorist tactic used by their local media types. Problem is, it is our American media outlets that pass these
bogus clips on as "news" and consequently "factual" events. Our media has been on the side of militants for quite some time,
and this is yet another example.
A small tidbit I found interesting in this clip, is the 60 Minutes opening.
For all the Jackass Democrats who have been led to believe Middle East peace was achieved during the Clinton Years, think
again. Even one of your most loyal news outlets, CBS, states otherwise. Madeleine Albright was probably the worst Secretary
of State ever, and served as a propagandist for the ultra-corrupt Clinton Administration. She recently criticized the Bush
Administration for five years of failed diplomacy, when in actuality it was her previous eight years of Kim Jong Il champagne
luncheons and laughable Arafat hand shakes that deserve criticism.
This man showed insurmountable incompetence during Hurricane
Katrina by not only neglecting to use the resources available to him to evacuate his "chocolate people", but by also leaving
to live in Texas while people suffered through horrific conditions in his Super Dome. Now he shows us his lack of character
and charisma during this press conference. Louisiana would not have fallen so hard if it weren’t for the fact that Jackass
Democrats run the entire state. What an absolute joke of a person this man is.
It is not my opinion that Nagin is racist, it
is my opinion that he is just stupid.
Blake Elliott
January
17, 2006
Alito Confirmation Not Very Successful For Democrats
As far as congressional hearings go, the Alito
confirmation hearings uncovered very little. The stage was dominated by egotistical Senators who require at least 98% of their
total questioning time to be focused solely on themselves. Not surprising, and certainly no revelation. These hearings are
supposedly held to help the public and the Senate understand the nominee better so as to make a more educated decision on
his confirmation. But these important hearings have become nothing more than street carnivals and special interest rallies.
Our
beloved Jackass Democratic senators have once again forgone the opportunity to familiarize themselves with a potentially important
judge, opting instead to prejudge a man based on “faulty intelligence”. I watched approximately 5 total hours of the hearings,
and of course paid close attention to the post game breakdowns on various news shows. The scorecard was lopsided and showed
a pounding taken by Democrats which in time, may become the gift that keeps on giving.
Judge Samuel Alito was once
a member of CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton) and listed this association in an application for employment with the Reagan
Justice Department in 1985. The conservative organization, which could be researched with little effort, was a group of alumni
who were concerned about the university’s decades long trend of leaning left. The main opposition of the group was to affirmative
action, which this writer shares. How can we ever as a nation move away from racism and inequality if we lower standards for
minorities? This insanity does nothing but create the belief that minorities are a lesser group. But enough with the rational
thinkers.
Once Senator Kennedy caught wind of Alito’s membership, the raging Jackass Democrat set his staffers’ wheels
in motion, and ordered the mud digging to begin. They uncovered an essay written by Harry Crocker III for the controversial
CAP magazine Prospect, and focused on a passage which read, “People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere
one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic…”. With no evidence, written
or spoken, of Alito’s individual endorsement or support of this group, Kennedy accused Alito of being “anti-black” and “anti-women”
and demanded the records of the group held in the Library of Congress be subpoenaed and placed into the record. Is this not
a perfect example of guilty until proven innocent? If a simple membership in an organization automatically means that you
as an individual endorse everything any other member may say, then everyone would be guilty of any number of heinous social
beliefs. But civil liberties be damned according to Kennedy, unless of course you vote for him.
The records were released
that afternoon to all committee members, and researched all night by anxious staffers. But, to the dismay of the Jackass Democrats,
Alito’s name never once appeared in any of the four boxes of documents. And though this was a mighty blow to the Jackass
Democrat’s wishful thinkers, it was hardly equal to the blow dealt the next day. It turns out that the essay Kennedy read
from, and based his accusations of “bigotry” and “racism” toward Alito, was a satirical piece. Satire: n. Irony, sarcasm,
or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. It was written as humor. Excuse me while I pause due to
uncontrollable laughter.
Will Senator Kennedy apologize for jumping to conclusions? Will he publicly show regret for
driving Mrs. Alito to tears through his damning accusations? Has Dan Rather or Mary Mapes ever apologized for relying on forged
documents to report that President Bush was AWOL? Has John Kerry ever apologized for his campaign of misinformation? Has Bill
Clinton ever apologized for allowing the intelligence community to become so weak that we suffered several terrorist attacks?
Has Howard Dean ever apologized for being angry, little and retarded? The answers are no, and never. Only Republicans are
required to apologize, and it usually occurs while stepping down from whatever position they hold. Jackass Democrats just
live to fight another day. But as long as they continue to fight with unsubstantiated attacks, conservatives will continue
to win. Thanks Teddy!
Blake Elliott
January
12, 2006
The Left’s Bogus Separation of Church and State Argument
As a huge fan of American History,
though hardly a scholar, it amazes me how little our leaders actually know about the constitution. The liberal interpretation
of Separation of Church and State has been festering for a long time. As a part of the leftist agenda under the disguise of
equality and privacy, this idiocy has grown like a cancer and has been thrown upon the steps of our highest court.
Let’s
be honest. It takes an incredibly weak individual to be offended by a Christmas tree during the holidays. Ever since this
nation was born, Christmas has been the most anticipated celebration. How many toys do you remember getting on Independence
Day? But now, through lifetime litigators like the ACLU, this along with all other public displays of religion have been
dragged through the mud. And for what? To protect people’s rights? That’s a farce. These attacks are an attempt to dismantle
not only American and Christian values, but all of our foundations and traditions. How these traditions became so offensive
I haven’t the slightest inkling, but make no mistake, the number one goal of the ACLU and many other far left groups is to
make sure our way of life is altered forever.
The main focus of the Jackass Democrats is Separation of Church and
State, which unbeknownst to most Americans, never once appears in the U. S. Constitution. Instead, the words appeared in a
letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the
Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The letter addresses the subject of government, churches, and their prospective
roles in society. The Danbury Baptist, a religious minority, were concerned that the freedoms of religion that they enjoyed was actually seen by the state as only privileges
granted by the legislature, not immutable rights as the U. S. Constitution sets forth. Can you see the difference between
the actual concerns the Danbury Baptists had in regards to the government and it’s threatening infringement of religion versus
the concerns the left proclaims they have now. The two beliefs are complete opposites. The left would have you believe that
Separation of Church and State is to protect the public from religion, when in actuality, Separation of Church and State
is meant to protect religion from government. It is history, and it was our founder’s intentions to finally live without
religious persecution and government mandates against it. For the left to even attempt this sham shows the lack of respect
and knowledge they have in regard to our country. In reading those letters, it is clear that the concerns were based on fear
of government infringement, and Jefferson’s response, while careful not to promote Baptists, was an assurance that there would
be none. The Establishment Clause, or the First
Amendment, was written for this same reason and was ratified long before Jefferson’s letter. It clearly prohibits any
laws made by government pertaining to religion. This shows the clear protection of religion from government. What is more
troubling is that we have people in this country promoting terrorist activities, and yet the Jackass Democrats couldn’t care
less. The real issue to them is how they can get that damn tree and those commandments taken down from in front of every government
building. I can see why the mere mention of “patriotism” makes them cringe.
Our fore fathers came here for many reasons.
But one of the main hopes was to find a place where they would be free from religious persecution. The British government
was, as many European governments were, not very tolerant of any “outside” religious freedoms. In Europe you were either
Catholic or Protestant, with only one being acceptable depending on which country you were in. Europeans believed that uniformity
of religion had to exist for any society to become truly successful. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed
as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "enforced uniformity of religion," meant majority
religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. Hangings, disembowelments and beheadings
often occurred all due to religious adherence. Austria once expelled 20,000 Lutherans, allowing them only 8 days to leave
their homes. Forced to leave during winter, many families froze to death while seeking sanctuary. But hell, I’m sure the
atheists in this country have their own legitimate reason for their fear of public displays of religion.
The protection
of people from government is real, and the only thing that can be argued in favor of the atheists is that there shall be no
state sponsored religion. And as far as I know, there hasn’t ever been one in this country. The display of a Christmas tree,
the ten commandments, a picture of Jesus and Mother Mary, in God we trust on our money or any other display is not a sponsorship
nor a promotion. There hasn’t been one conviction in a federal or state courtroom based solely on religion. Our laws are in
fact loosely based on religion, but are still designed to allow the individual the right to practice whatever belief, as long
as civil laws are left unbroken. The same great leaders of yesteryear, whose words are twisted by today’s liberals, would
roll over in their graves if they witnessed what was happening to the product of their blood, sweat and tears. Our judges
are finally beginning to realize the pettiness
of this entire argument.
As with so many of the phony arguments the left is involved in, i.e., affirmative action,
welfare, civil liberties, gay rights, and abortion, nothing seems to really hold water. But why do they continue to fight
for frivolous rights that sometimes don’t even exist? The only logical conclusion is hatred. Because the more left you are,
the more disconnected from mainstream society you get, and that disconnect over time eventually leaves a person wanting to
be part of something. The only way to accomplish this is to take everything away from that society that shuns you, and make
your own little world where you are free to be as rude, radical and weird as you want, with no limits. You can see evidence
of this by the people they choose to rally around. Tookie Williams, a murderous gang member, Luis Farrakhan, a radical racist,
Ward Churchill, a pseudo Indian and America hater who admitted lying about his heritage in order to get a job, Malcom X, another
radical racist, Bill Clinton, a lackadaisical leader and proud adulterer, John Kerry, a war hating pothead who has never held
a non government job. Do you see the pattern? All of these previously mentioned people stand for the anti-American crowd.
The more of a social outcast the person is, the more liberals wrap themselves around them. It is their way of protesting,
no matter how ignorant they make themselves look. To be accepted is not their goal. Their goal is to achieve revenge against
you and your way of life. There is very little difference between the fundamentals of an Islamic radical and the fundamentals
of the far left. Their goals are the same, they only differ with their tactics.
The U. S. Constitution is not a living,
breathing document. It was written by people who possessed a moral compass, an incredible sense of patriotism, and an undying
desire to see a great nation born. Things that Jackass Democrats despise. Senator Kohl (D, WI) who sits on the Senate Judiciary
Committee actually asked Judge Alito this week if he should rule based on how the country feels at the time. Meaning, shouldn’t
your rulings be based on public perception? A perfect example of how Jackass Democrats believe the fundamental laws should
change as society changes. Judges are not vested with the power to rule how they feel, but rather entrusted to uphold the
Constitution of the United States of America. And now we have shamefully allowed these dissenters into positions of power
within our government.
Just like the gay marriage issue (which will soon digress into the freedom for one to marry
an animal), we are being forced to accept things once believed to be unacceptable, and as long as we sit back and see the
liberal activists as only mere nuisances, they will continue their pursuit to end our nation as we know it. We must not let
this happen.
Blake Elliott
July 26, 2005
Looking to be Offended
Why does every damn Jackass Democrat have to react
so negatively to heightened security measures? On one hand they incessantly argue for more government funding for police,
firefighters and emergency workers, yet their support ends with the distribution of those dollars. I recall complaints from
the left about the lack of proper safety measures in place before 9/11, but every time the government attempts to implement
more effective security measures, these same people scream foul and immediately accuse the people responsible for public safety
of infringing upon their civil liberties. This reminds me of the numerous times I have been stopped by the cops when they
were “partygoer” profiling. Cops would lay in waiting outside parties, bars and other social gatherings for the perfect moment
to pull over a potential drunk. I was never charged with any wrongdoing, but others were, and who knows, those civil liberty
haters may have prevented an accident. If I would have known then what I know now I probably would have had a case against
the local law enforcement complete with free representation from the ACLU. What is this insanity?
There is a huge
difference between someone asking to search your bag on the street versus being asked to have your bag searched before you
board the extremely public and chaotic subway. If traveling by air a bag check is mandatory. The New York City Police Department
is now performing random searches on subways and most
people are very accepting of this, due to their disdain for things that blow up. But there are groups out there who are
offended by such action. What is the worst that can come of these searches? Honestly, if you are not breaking the law, then
what do you have to worry about? Say they find some crack in some person’s bag. The ACLU would argue that even though this
drug is illegal, the police had no right to search the person because they did nothing to cause suspicion. This person was
just minding his own business until he could get to his destination where he would then pipe up or maybe even sell a teenager
a little rock. No harm no foul right? Can you see the lunacy here? Who cares if this guy gets busted? I personally dislike
crack heads, and the more they can get rid of the better. Ever seen a clean, law abiding crack head? Surprisingly enough,
me either. But forget all of that, I just like the idea of finding a bomb before it blows up. For God’s sake, let them
attempt to do this please.
You will not be arrested for embarrassing paraphernalia like skimpy undergarments, tampons
in quantities over ten, sex toys, stale crackers or a roll of Mentos. These items are of no consequence, and if you stay
calm so not to draw any attention to yourself, no one will notice your embarrassing baggage, except for the cop who will never
recognize you again due to the one million two hundred and thirty thousand tampons he just had the pleasure of digging through.
I have yet to hear a coherent argument concerning this civil liberty fiasco. Are we going to let a bunch of cooks who have
nothing good to offer this country lessen the greater public’s right to security? And once again, as noted in my previous
article on John Roberts Jr.’s nomination to the Supreme Court, activist judges are partly to blame for this debate. A New
York State Judge a few years ago ruled that random bag checks were unconstitutional and were the equivalent of being accused
of a crime. And if you happen to be one of these people who would be offended due to a simple bag check, then let me be the
first to say that I am sorry you were born such an idiot.
Believe it or not, not every cop is like the Los Angeles
kind of the mid 90s. The majority are good guys who commit themselves to your protection. Police officers are many times
accused of over stepping their bounds, but very seldom do the accusations result in an uncovering of some conspiracy. In fact,
most of the people who have sued the police over abuse matters were committing a crime at the time they were abused. It was
only due to over the top aggressiveness that the story ended up being about the bad cop and not the actual criminal who probably
deserved to get his ass handed to him. You think Rodney King was just some good guy who got unlucky that night? The ACLU
thought so, and were more than happy to help ole‘ Rodney “the PCP King” out. Rodney asks,“Can‘t we all just get along?“. The
better question is, “Can we all just use our brains when it comes to national security issues?”.
The ACLU is a joke. Their goal is to dismantle
this country and the fundamentals that allowed it to become the greatest and most powerful nation ever in history. These people
have no foresight or hindsight and continue to weaken this nation every day. But don’t blame them totally, because liberal
judges are allowing them to force their agenda on the rest of us. I am still in search of an island where we can send all
of the Jackass Democrats in order to create their own country under their own laws. It would be a great investment, because
in less than five years they will have to sell it back for half the market value due to the failure of their socialist dreams.
Any investors interested?
Blake Elliott
July 23, 2005
Should We Explore Nukes as an Option in the Middle East?
Calm
down, I am not suggesting it, but just posing a legitimate question. Everything we are currently doing causes a backlash from
the liberal circles as well as the moderate ones. We constantly draw complaints from the anti war movement that we are helping
the terrorists recruit future terrorists. This silly way of thought deserves little attention, but what does deserve some
attention is the question posed here. If the current war is doing more harm than good in some people’s opinions, or not doing
enough, quickly enough, then what type of action should we take? I quickly disregard any brainless idea of doing nothing,
and still await a day when some island will be donated to the jackass pacifists so they can finally run a country of their
own into the ground. So again, what do we do?
Japan considered themselves relatively war savvy back in 1941, but their
Pearl Harbor attack proved disastrous for their entire country. A swift retaliation of atomic proportions quickly jerked them
back into shape and over 60 years later seems to be a distant memory. Our relationship with these folks has grown strong and
prospered even though we once, by the blast of one bomb, nearly wiped them from the world map forever.
Is this an
option with the Middle East? Didn’t the extremists declare war on us in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties? Didn’t
they bomb numerous U. S. Embassies, and ultimately kill 3,000 innocent people on United States soil by using a plane as a
bomb? 9/11 had to share some mood similarities with Pearl Harbor? The same death, confusion and anger were present at both
attacks. We responded with a massive air and ground attack on Afghanistan’s Taliban, who were a popular and proud sponsor
of terrorism. We then went to Iraq, and may I add finally. I now have one less crazy dictator and sponsor of terrorism to
worry about. I applaud both moves, but seem a little unsatisfied with where we are today. Insurgents crawl out of any hole
and over any border into Iraq. Their attacks are poorly orchestrated and their existence incredibly meager, but they still
manage to kill our soldiers almost every day. I agree that this will be a long hard fight, but does it really have to be?
The
anti war crusaders are heard every day through the media, and surprisingly, I probably dislike war just as much as they do,
but their incessant ignorance when dealing with terrorists is exhausting. Jackass Democrats do not understand that no matter
how many demonstrations, or demands for troop withdrawal, or offerings of peace and understanding, these terrorists will still
celebrate in your bloody death. They do not distinguish people by political persuasion like we Americans do, they only see
you as a geographical enemy and label you an infidel because of where you live first, and your faith lying with something
other than Allah second. Let Louis Farrakhan travel to an Islamic extremist terrorist camp with his hat in his hand. He will
surely leave with his head on his lap. Killing the innocence sadly sweetens the victory for these cowards. Maybe the total
annihilation of them, their fellow countrymen and their treasured shrines will once and for all send the message that we will
not stand for a constant threat to our people. Just as they pledge their allegiance to a higher power, we will let them know
that our allegiance lies with our defenseless ones state side, and to protect them we will destroy everything in the Middle
East down to a subterranean level. It will not matter whether the sponsors of terrorism agree with us or not, because we most
assuredly will exterminate their kind.
The picture becomes more and more painfully obvious everyday. The preemptive
strikes we have chosen may not be good enough. A strategically placed nuke may be. As long as these terrorists can kill one
of our soldiers on the battlefield, they consider it a victory. Fifty of their lives for one of ours is good enough to them.
What do you think the reaction would be if we leveled 25% of Afghanistan, and threatened to do the same in Syria within one
month if they refused to cease terrorist activities. No excuses, no second chances, just a rule, and if broken, the wrath
of Hates will be dropped on top of your country. What would be the reaction of the law abiding citizens of these countries?
Would they then realize that choosing to abstain from any defense of their own country could result in the extinction of it?
Would the good finally rise against the evil with the same acceptance of self sacrifice as the terrorists posses in order
to defeat the extremists? These are questions we cannot possibly know unless we try. Should we?
It is a brutal thought,
and through years of pacifism and ignorance, we as a nation have become numb at the thought of delivering such a blow to any
nation. But every time America has been pushed, we have responded with furious and unmatched force, and I am not sure fighter
jets and M-16s are going to get this one done. I cannot remember a time in history, nor can I fathom one in the future, where
we have been pushed so far. It may finally be time to push back once again.
Blake Elliott
July 22, 2005
John Roberts Jr.: A Constructionist not an Obstructionist
The
following is an excerpt of the 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on John Roberts to the DC Circuit Court
of Appeals (courtesy of FoxNews):
In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for
Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr. , Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New
York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree
with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much
as I love and respect you, I just think that's true." A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which
Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change
his mind. A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say
it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions." The
nervous laughter that accompanied the exchange belies the growing tension over the confirmation process. While Roberts,
a respected lawyer nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is likely to win Senate approval, Democrats fear the
conservative 48-year-old with 39 cases before the Supreme Court under his belt, may one day be nominated to sit on that bench. For
that reason, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois demanded Roberts' view of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that legalized
abortion. "I'll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I might be,"
Roberts replied to Durbin's question. (end excerpt)
What else do we need to know about John Roberts Jr.? Not
much. You see, Jackass Democrats attempt to sell the notion that as Americans we are required to look deep into a person’s
soul in order to find his or her true beliefs on issues before we can appoint them to the highest court in the land. Anything
short of this is dangerous and unacceptable. Stop right there jackasses, your lunacy knows no bounds.
A question: So
how do people from all walks of life function together outside of the poisonous political world? How can a company run, or
a store sell or even a school teach if not everyone is of the same opinion on every issue? They function because of a foundation
of rules and regulations that no matter what your personal opinion may be have to be adhered to in order for you to be a part
of that organization. America is an organization, with the fundamentals being the United States Constitution, and in order
to function here, you have to adhere to them. Through the entire history of the Supreme Court, many people of different values,
beliefs and religions have come together to uphold our laws and constitution. If your belief on Roe v. Wade is relevant to
your confirmation, then isn’t your religion, your sexual persuasion, your opinion on large or small government, etc.? The
relevancy would never end.
And all of this is truly irrelevant because contrary to a jackasses way of thinking, where
they believe judges are to legislate from the bench and undo all of the flaws within our constitution, the only real duty
of a judge is to uphold the existing law. Jackass Democrats have consistently lost elections, and in turn power, for over
a decade now, and have suddenly found that if they can appoint liberal activist judges, then they can still have power over
our everyday lives through the inappropriate behavior found everyday on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco,
the most overturned, most liberal and most laughable court in the land. My fellow American Constitutionalists will not let
this happen to our Supreme Court, filibuster be damned.
Blake Elliott
July
19, 2005
The Plame Game
There is just so much to laugh at and so little time. The Jackass Democrats
recently tried to dismantle heavy political hitter Representative Tom Delay with baseless attacks, which of course you haven’t
heard anything about for over two months now because there is no case against the man. Now the most recent baseless attack
has been pulled straight from the delusional playbook of what has now become the Democrat's favorite game day strategy. And
it’s focus is on Karl Rove . This time the entire jackass world, from the media to the Jackass Grand PooBah Howard Dean, has
asked for playing time in this one.
The latest covert operation by the JackassDemocrats is to have Karl Rove’s security
clearance removed and for him to be immediately fired. For what you ask? For divulging classified information to unauthorized
recipients. Gasp! How could you Karl!? Let’s begin the twisted story shall we?
Joe Wilson, a former ambassador to Iraq
under George Herbert Walker Bush, was sent to Niger to explore the British intelligence assertion that Iraq had sought yellow
cake uranium from that nation in order to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program. Wilson first claimed he was sent by
Vice President Cheney’s office, yet nobody in that office can remember who he is or what he did. Wilson then came back from
Niger having found no evidence to support the claim of Iraqi pursuit of yellow cake. Soon after his return, Wilson went on
a full tilt tirade, although a cowardly one, against the administration accusing them of bolstering the intelligence in favor
of war against Iraq. Wilson chose to release his attack on the op ed page of the New York Times, who are always more than
happy to oblige any anti Bush rant from a pseudo important source. Of course, as has every other left wing cook in this crazy
political world, Wilson felt the need to exercise his capitalistic greed under the disguise of informing the public by authoring
a book in which he attacked the Bush administration further. Surprisingly, the fact that the coalition found tons of yellow
cake uranium inside of Iraq is never mentioned. I am sure he donated the proceeds paid by all the leftist conspiracy whores
across America to some very fine charities, such as his mortgage, credit card debt and lease payments, but this is neither
here nor there, it’s just too easy to surmise Wilson as a political pig. The more he remains on the media’s stage, the clearer
his intentions will become, and the “political pig” conjecture will become fact.
It was only a matter of time before
Mr. Wilson's trip was proven to be an utter failure. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee got a hold of Mr. Wilson’s
notes and reports from his Niger trip, and quickly concluded that not only did the diplomat turned inspector lie about who
sent him, but his report was so lacking of definitive findings that the trip was rendered useless. So useless that George
Tenet never even read it. And as for as Washington is concerned, the current media darling who is Mr. Wilson is seen as
nothing more than a political operative and a liar to boot. Here is an excerpt of a Wilson testimony under oath : On at
least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims. . . . For example, when
asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote
in his book, [Wilson] told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair.". Attempting
to defend this guy is just not very smart.
Of course this story only begins there. Enter Valerie Plame, a former
covert CIA operative who is now married to Mr. Wilson, has two children and works as a desk jockey at Langley. Soon after
Wilson’s heroic op ed piece, journalists across the country were in a frenzy over the Wilson truth seeking mission to Niger.
As far as the media was concerned, the Bush administration had been caught in yet another lie concerning pre war intelligence
and they wanted some answers. So, who do journalists call when they need good solid reportable information? Well hell, those
damn liars over there in the White House of course. Enter Karl Rove.
Matt Cooper of Time magazine called Rove one
afternoon to ask about welfare reform. After a brief conversation on the subject, Cooper redirected the conversation toward
Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger. Cooper told Rove what he was going to report in regards to the Niger trip and Rove quickly
advised him not to because it seems as if Wilson’s wife, apparently a CIA employee, was the one responsible for sending Mr.
Wilson to Niger. Rove told Cooper he had heard about “Mr. Wilson’s wife from a couple of other journalists, and he did not
know who she was. Three days later, ka-freaking-boom, Robert Novak writes a story about Mr. Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, claiming she was somewhat responsible
for choosing Wilson for the trip to Niger. Novak actually praises Wilson and gives examples of his heroism in Iraq as reported
by a journalist present in the first Gulf War. As you can see, but jackasses fail to, Novak never once attacks Wilson or his
wife in the story and never attempts to make the story about “outing“ an undercover CIA operative.
The Democrats immediately
lost even more of their minds than the previous week. Hemorrhaging from their ears, they claimed that this was a blatant attempt
by the White House to discredit Mr. Wilson and his wife. But isn’t it rather difficult to be further discredited after being
characterized as a failure and a liar by a Senate Intelligence Committee? This is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer untrustworthy.
Dahmer may or may not have a habit of lying, but you still stand a damn good chance of being eaten. The Jackasses also claimed
that someone leaked Valerie Plame’s “super secret mega undercover CIA operative status”. By God, in the Democrat’s opinion,
this was a national security breach of James Bond proportions, and who better to go after than Karl Rove, the one man responsible
for the endless ass-kicking each Democrat has enjoyed for the past 8 years and running? He is no doubt the culprit who leaked
Plame’s “super secret mega undercover CIA operative status”, and he should fry for it. But Valerie Plame had not been active
in the CIA as a covert operative since 1997, and everyone in Washington knew that she worked for the agency, except for government
officials who actually run the country, which is why Karl Rove had no idea who she was until a reporter, Robert Novak, told
him.
A special prosecutor was assigned to investigate the matter, and it seems Rove is the only one willing to fully
cooperate. Rove signed a release at the beginning of the investigation releasing any reporter from any confidentiality agreement
that may have existed, which makes me wonder why the hell Cooper was hesitant to testify in front of the grand jury as Rove
has done on several occasions. Regardless of the facts, after Matt Cooper and Time released Cooper’s email naming Rove,
the game was on. Everything the Jackasses needed was now sitting in their laps. The mere mention of Rove’s involvement was
enough for conviction. The White House Press Whores demanded that the Rove be fired due to President Bush’s statement from
a year ago in which the press claims Bush said, “If anyone in this administration is involved in the leak of a CIA operative,
they will be fired.” Problem is, Bush actually said, “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,
and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." I now assume if Bush fails to execute Karl Rove soon,
then Bush will be seen as a liar once again, because everyone knows “taken care of” means to tie a cinder block around someone’s
ankles and throw them from a very high bridge. Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person
has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN, but now gang up to
portray the White House as changing it’s story. As a conservative I have come to expect this from our media midgets and am
not very shocked. The main stream media has rendered itself useless over the past decade due to so many situations just like
this and is honestly made up of some of the most inept and devious people ever.
So where is this now? Who the
hell knows? But here are a few things that bother me about this big waste of time. First, the jackasses base their entire
case for firing Karl Rove on news stories, not on the fact that Rove had nothing to do with exposing anything, or that Rove
is not even considered to be a “target“ by the special counsel in this case. Secondly, I have yet to find one liberal leaning
rag describe Wilson’s trip as it should be, a fact finding trip set up by his wife that was of little importance to the CIA
or the Senate Intelligence Committee, who both found the trip to be negligible in it’s inception and conclusions. Thirdly,
the jackasses lined up at endless podiums in front of their main stream media Koolaid drinkers to accuse the Bush administration
of declaring war on Joe Wilson. How is this possible when no administration official ever sought out a reporter to give damaging
information to? In essence the war had already been declared by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the media who neglected
to report these findings to the American people whom they claim to represent. Why is it they only represent us when reporting
dirt on President Bush? And finally, after reading the law that prohibits anyone from outing an undercover spy working on
foreign soil in order to hurt United States’ intelligence gathering, how is this entire story even relevant? There are several
stories citing Plame’s identity as
a CIA operative that have been reported prior to the Novak story or Cooper and Rove conversation, yet no one cares in the
media, just as long as they can keep the pressure on Rove and the White House.
I feel as if people are starting to
realize how worthless the Democratic Party has become, but for the ones who insist on being idiots, I will give you credit
for one thing besides making me vomit a little bit every time I see you protest, disrupt a speech, or God forbid, attempt
to be interviewed by a news agency. You do have the ability to irritate, but so does a certain type of bowel syndrome, and
I have yet to find anyone who wants that around either. Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Harry Reid, Senator and handily defeated
presidential punching bag John Kerry along with Senator Charles Schumer have all called for Rove to step down before anything
of factual importance has been released by Fitzgerald’s office. This from the same Senators who repeatedly condemned preemptive
strikes. If you thought the intelligence was bad on Iraq, just wait until you see the finale of this ridiculous circus over
a non scandal.
Our stupid little friends in the Democratic party are once again relying solely on news reporting to
condemn a man who they already hate. This worked out real well for Dan Rather didn’t it? Instead of ousting a sitting President,
it was Rather who was forced to step down. With all the past, current and subsequent attacks from the left, Bush may prove
to be the most honest president ever in American history, and ironically, we will owe this historical account to the media,
the ones who have tried, and are trying, to prove otherwise. I normally hesitate to call people stupid because it is just
mean, but when you choose to be stupid in the face of facts that disprove your assertions, isn’t that another level of stupidity
which we have no name for yet? I really need to find a term for this behavior because the English language lacks a proper
word to describe the lunacy of today's left and their fruitless actions. Unfortunately this story will continue until another
accusation can be improperly leveled against yet another conservative so stay tuned.
Blake Elliott
July
21, 2005
America Underestimates the Bullet Dodged with the Defeat of Kerry
Bush lied! If you are a conservative,
this overly used ditty makes your skin crawl. Though not true, Jackass Democrats never hesitate to use this statement in their
pure desperation to make a point. Too bad the jackasses lack the integrity to admit that their own choice for President is
a proven pathological liar.
Forget that Kerry once supported the war then chose to join his nutty constituency in opposing
it later. If it looks like the French, talks like the French and walks like the French, it must be French. It was the leftist
political talking points during the election that were infuriating, and were always flawed when used as an attack against
President Bush.
The DNC ran a commercial on October 17, 2004 claiming that the “truth was coming out” in regards to
Social Security. The commercial went on to say that Bush planned to cut Social Security benefits by 30%-45%. Not only is this
a bold faced lie, but it flies in the face of reality. There were three plans being proposed by the President's Commission
to Strengthen Social Security, none were endorsed by Bush at that time, and all would increase benefits for future retirees
while leaving the current retirees at the existing constant with no cut in benefits. This tactic was also used by Clinton
in 1996 when he accused Bob Dole of wanting to “cut” Medicare by 270 billion. Dole was actually proposing a slowdown of Medicare
growth, just as Clinton had proposed a 124 billion slowdown himself. The Clinton campaign chose to characterize his own plan
as a slowdown and Dole’s as a “cut”. This is typical political lingo the Jackasses have engaged in for decades. The debate
is very telling now, seeing that the attacks flew wildly while actual ideas from the DNC were non existent. Senator Kerry
has remained silent on the Social Security reform desperately needed today and demonstrates that his greed for attaining higher
office trumps his interest in actually committing himself and eventually doing something good for the country.
John
Kerry and loveable Teddy Kennedy launched a full fledged attack on Bush accusing him of under funding the No Child Left Behind
Act by 28 billion. They accused Bush of going back on his “promise” to fully fund the program he and Kennedy worked on. The
promise, Kerry and Kennedy said, was that Bush would fund the program at the maximum Congress would allow. Of course this
is not true. Bush, just like his “promise” to deal with anyone in his administration who broke the law in the Plame circus,
stated that he would "provide the resources necessary." I will let you be the judge. During President Bush’s first three
years in office the Department of Education grew by 58% with substantial spending on lower income children as well as disabled
children. Spending on the No Child Left Behind Act increased by 12% since it’s inception. I have a tough time describing this
information as under funding a program, but the jackasses tend to do this in their sleep. Makes you wonder why the Teacher
Unions continue to bitch about the lack of money available. If a 58% increase over their beloved Clinton administration is
not enough, what is? Trust me, I don’t want to know.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. This damn country has no jobs. Well, not exactly.
Though the number of people working in this country surpasses any other recorded number in history, I tend to dislike this
comparison. As population grows, so does the work force. This is natural and becomes somewhat irrelevant when judging the
creation of jobs in a nation. No matter what you would like to believe, 9/11 was a huge blow to our economy and dealt a death
blow to the work force, but I am not making excuses, because I don’t have to. While John Kerry claimed that Bush had lost
1.6 million jobs, and was going to be the first President in 72 years to have a net job loss during his administration, the
job market was rapidly recovering. In Kerry’s opinion, there was no way Bush could turn the tide of job losses plaguing the
nation, and even the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated the loss would be closer to 500,000 total jobs lost. Again, the
intelligent boarding school Frenchman along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics were wrong. Bush ended up with a job gain
around 100,000. Nothing to jump for joy about, until you realize that all the experts, and non experts like Kerry, predicted
a sure loss. Damn that Bush is stupid isn’t he?
Another ploy by Kerry was indicative of the Jackass machine that has
pandered to freeloaders in this country for over 50 years now. “Free healthcare for all.” First off, healthcare and health
insurance are two very different things, but I will not waste my time discerning the two. While Kerry was selling the free
healthcare promise, Edwards was imitating Benny Hinn at stump speeches promising wheel chair users that “if John Kerry becomes
President, people will get out of those wheel chairs and walk again!” Amen brother! What a loon. But back to the “free for
all” issue. At the time of Kerry’s claim, 86% of all Americans were covered with health insurance. Kerry’s actual plan would
increase that by 6%. Of course this is an increase, and it would provide some people with insurance, but it
would also offer millions of people who already pay for their own insurance to switch to federally funded insurance at the
cost of taxpayers. The Jackass Democrat belief is that whatever you do on your own could be done better through the government,
and this is why the democratic voting base is so inept when it comes to truth and self reliance. Democrats believe in the
government bureaucracy, not because they believe it will help the people who need it, but because they increase their power.
If you believe that liberals have some sort of true conviction, though flawed, behind their actions, you are wrong. Jackass
Democrats only seek power through someone else’s wealth, and this is their core belief. The more they can pander to the poor
in order to secure their votes, the more they feel as if they can disguise their actions with doing something right while
pursuing their greed for power.
All in all, Kerry’s campaign promises and accusations turned out to be wrong. Just
last week, Kerry’s attacks on Bush’s tax cuts touting them as disastrous to our growing deficit have been proven wrong. The
federal deficit was surprisingly cut by 100 billion dollars due to the government collecting unexpected tax revenue. Even
this fact can’t penetrate the ignorance of a liberals belief that tax cuts cannot possibly result in more revenue, which shows
how Jackass Democrats do not posses the intellect or ability to run this country in a fiscally and socially responsible manner.
History is on Bush’s side with the same thing occurring under Reagan, yet liberals still fail to comprehend. Quite frankly,
we dodged a huge bullet by defeating John Kerry and the morons who followed him.
Blake Elliott
How the Mind of A Liberal Works, and Why They Are Wrong
February 25, 2005
Following
is an email I received from a friend of mine who was outraged at the way this particular organization portrays President Bush.
Kansas Action for Children is a non-profit organization that declares itself ‘nonpartisan’. I thought I would interject my
thoughts on each point, and if you agree, feel free to email the organization. The quote below is from a person sympathetic
to the cause, which I thought was telling.
“As stated in the first paragraph, this budget would be devastating
for children and families. Apparently "family values" are only supported if they help rich white people!”(umm, rich white
people don’t need any help)and((assuming of course that all needy people are minorities-what a bunch of friggin’ hypocrites.)) KAC
Update Network cindy@kac.orgkac@kac.org
2/15/2005 10:38:18 AM The Federal Budget
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CHILDREN?
How does the President's budget
affect children’s programs in Kansas? While many numbers are yet to be crunched, several expert groups have compiled overviews
and state estimates. It is clear that the Federal FY 2006 budget plan proposed by the Bush Administration could have devastating
impact on critical children's programs in Kansas. (I thought this was funny…”It is clear that this could be devastating”…isn’t
that the same as saying it definitely might be???)
FOOD STAMPS would be affected by tightening eligibility requirements
for TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) recipients, a change that will deny benefits to an estimated 200,000-300,000
people. It is also likely that the 2005 Congressional session will see efforts to cut funding for food stamps and child nutrition
programs like school lunches, breakfasts, and WIC. These funding cuts may take the form of entitlement caps which would cap
the amount of money states could receive to fund the programs.
How is tightening eligibility requirements a
bad thing? Seems to me that removing 200-300,000 people from the food stamp rolls is a good thing. The government does a very
poor job of determining who is truly needy.
HEAD START would receive a $45 million increase, which would be
set aside for a block grant demonstration program in nine states. Flat funding for the rest of the Head Start program is likely
to lead to a reduction in the number of children receiving services because of the failure to keep pace with inflation. If
adopted, it is estimated that as many as 25,000 children will lose Head Start and Early Head Start next year.
Head
Start should be completely removed from the government handout list, and begin functioning as a private charity. Accountability
and success would ensure that there is no waste in this program, and they would have to use the money where it did the most
good. If they did not accomplish their perceived goals, donations would dry up.
The CHILD CARE & DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT, which provides child care assistance to low income working families, has not been increased for the past three
years. According to the Administration's budget tables, flat funding again this year would mean that 300,000 fewer children
would have child care assistance by fiscal year 2009, on top of the 200,000 who lost assistance over fiscal years 2003 and
2004.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if these folks would provide information that corroborated their numbers? If
you cannot afford to support your children, get a better education, get a better job, or don’t have as many children. It is
not my responsibility to pay for your childcare so that you can go to work. Sorry. Well, no I’m not. Take responsibility for
your own children and leave me out of it.
MEDICAID, which provides health care for low income children, people
with disabilities, and low income elderly, would be cut by $45 billion over 10 years. It is estimated that this could affect
the coverage of 14,300 children in Kansas by 2010.
Can you say sliding scale free clinics? Again, the government
does a very poor job of differentiating between the truly needy and the freeloaders. No one is denied health care. How about
this; don’t go to the doctor every time you have a cold. Health insurance is expensive for all of us. My husband and I happen
to think that providing insurance for our children is an obligation we have as parents, so we do what we have to do to make
sure that we can pay for it.
The SOCIAL SECURITY system today pays more benefits to children than any other
federal program. About 3 million children receive Social Security as dependents of deceased, disabled, or retired workers.
I’m not sure what their point is here. Sounds like it is working just they way they want it to. Why do children
who are dependants of dead, retired or disabled people receive any government benefits at all?
21ST CENTURY
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS is the only federal program dedicated to after school. The budget freezes spending for 21st Century
Community Learning Centers at $991 million-- less than half of what Congress and the President agreed to in No Child Left
Behind legislation. Nearly 8,920 Kansas kids are in the programs supported by the U.S. Department of Education's 21st Century
Community Learning Centers initiative.
I don’t know where to start on this one. Nearly a billion dollars to
take care of other people’s children because they choose not to be home when their kid gets out of school. I made a decision
when I had children that I would not work outside the home. That is what all mothers should do if at all possible. If people
would be willing to sacrifice, I truly believe that the vast majority of children would be able to come home to a parent.
How as a parent can you be willing, regardless of the circumstances, to sentence your child to a childhood of being at school
for 80% of his day? My God, as a parent you do what you have to do to be a good parent and to let your children be children,
not cattle to be housed with someone else.
Proposed Budget Process Changes
The president's budget
also contains several recommendations for changing the current federal budget process. Most of these changes are meant
to limit spending.(They are upset because the President is trying to limit spending! These people make me shake my
head in wonder.) No changes are proposed that would hinder future tax reductions.(Do you hear this? They are
upset because there will be no way to stop tax reductions. They want all of us to pay for every bad decision anyone has ever
made.) Two of the changes are particularly onerous:
• Discretionary Spending Caps (which is the proverbial
stake through a liberals’ heart): The budget proposes setting statutory limits on discretionary programs, which are funded
through the annual appropriations process. This includes programs like Head Start, housing, education and training, and many
other human services programs. The proposal would set these caps at the amounts requested by the president in the FY 2006
budget, which flat funds domestic discretionary programs over the next five years with no increase for inflation. According
to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (they work on low-income issues, you see, so they are qualified
to make impartial judgments), if defense, homeland security, and international affairs are funded at the levels requested
by the president, all other discretionary spending would be cut by 16 percent below 2005 levels by 2010 when such spending
is adjusted for inflation. Let me make myself very clear here. It makes me furious that anyone could possibly think
that spending for defense should even be in the same league as after school programs. One falls under the category of personal
responsibility. The other falls under the category of if Clinton had not decreased funding throughout the nineties we would
not have had over three thousand people killed on 9/11. The government’s responsibility is to protect our nation, not to take
care of your children.
• PAYGO Rules for Entitlement Programs: The administration is proposing two sets of pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) rules that apply to entitlements, but not proposed tax cuts. Under bipartisan budget rules first agreed to by the
first President Bush and a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, and later continued under President Clinton and a Republican
Congress in the late 1990s, PAYGO rules were applied equally to both entitlements and tax cuts. These rules helped to produce
the first federal budget surpluses in 30 years. Did you know that under President Clinton we had the highest tax rates
in the history of our country, but the lowest defense spending since before Pearl Harbor? Those rules expired, however,
in 2002. Under the new administration proposal, however, the rules would be revived only for entitlements, and increased entitlement
spending could not be offset by increases in tax revenues. Any new entitlement spending would need to be offset by a reduction
in other entitlement spending. Thank God for President Bush. I would be happy if all entitlement spending got the ax.
Under a second proposal, Congress would be prevented from considering any entitlement change that would increase entitlement
spending over the next 75 years. This is called progress. Such rules would affect spending on programs such as TANF,
the Social Services Block Grant, and mandatory childcare spending, among others.
On the off chance that a liberal
will read this story, let me explain something. Conservatives are not hateful. We do not turn a blind to the needy or to hungry
children. But it does not take a village, or a socialist government, to raise a child. It takes responsible parents. Conservatives
do not believe that government is the answer. Have poverty rates gone down since the inception of these programs? What about
generational welfare recipients? Have they shown increased work ethics or responsibility? Are children doing better in school
now that they have access to free food, before school care and after school care? No, no, no, no, no and no. Our society as
a whole is much worse off now that it was prior to Social Security, welfare, WIC, food stamps, unemployment benefits, blah
blah blah. Prior to entitlements, individuals, with the help of their families, took care of themselves cradle to grave. There
are many entitlement programs, lobbyist groups, think tanks, nonprofit groups and policy watch dog groups targeted to erase
need and poverty in this country. Imagine the billions of dollars wasted every year to fund the programs, to keep an eye on
the funding, to monitor the programs, to keep an eye on the groups that are keeping an eye on the funding and on and on and
on. If we were to eliminate all entitlement programs run by the government and privatize them, the majority of the money would
actually go to the people it is intended to help. The nonprofits would have to screen applicants carefully, eliminating the
something for nothing crowd. They would have to clearly demonstrate goal achievement, or donors would go elsewhere. Accountability
is an amazing tool in the elimination of fraud and waste, which is what these programs are currently built on. Everything
the government touches becomes a bloated parasite. How can anyone think government is the answer? I know best how to spend
my money, and to which charitable organizations to give. So please, remove the tax man’s gun from my head, remove yourselves
from my wallet, and perhaps people like me would donate even more money than we do already. Only then we will know that it
is actually going to a hungry child, and not to pay an administrative fee.
Tina Wallace
Don’t Just Stop With Social Security
February
21, 2005
The privatization of Social Security is a hot topic, as well as a controversial one. Unfortunately, the
controversy stems from a misrepresentation of the facts. Many opponents of the President’s yet to be released plan argue that
our older population will lose current benefit levels, even though President Bush has said that our current Social Security
recipients will not be affected. Some other opponents complain that privatization is a risky investment based on a volatile
market. I guess the Dow Jones Industrials’ increase from just over 1,000 in 1985, to almost 11,000 today could be called risky.
Only if you trusted jackass democrats and thus failed to invest.
Capitalism drives this country, not the federal government
or it’s attempted redistribution of wealth. Compare our economy to any other socialist country, and you can easily see why
we shy away from any new national plan funded entirely by tax dollars. Social Security can be privatized and reformed to better
meet the current state of America, instead of staying a course that was defined almost a century ago. In fact, the privatization
of most programs would create a thriving responsibility based society in which high taxes and free funding would become a
thing of the past.
With all the federal programs in existence today, it is impossible to sustain a fluid government
in which the needy are taken care of. Our education system is broken, and more money is not the answer. Welfare is a disastrous
failure that lacks the ability to turn a recipient into a fully functioning citizen. Our orphaned and disabled children are
often left behind by the very federal programs responsible for the care of such individuals. Yet what do our government workers
do? They ask for an increase in funding with no evidence supporting the need for such. Our entire government is broken beyond
the point of repair. The old ’57 Chevy can only roll so long before a rebuild is in order.
Jackass democrats often
display their hatred for corporate America, but this sector may be where the answer lies. All large corporations give heavily
to non profit programs, and due to the competition for their funds, they actually request proof of success and relevancy before
giving. What if we wiped away all federally funded programs such as welfare, Medicaid, education, and Social Security, from
the budget , and instead, left it up to the executive directors of these money sucking programs to secure donations for their
own funding? This is the most generous country in the world, and instead of allowing a few political pundits in Washington
D C to relegate hundreds of millions of dollars to whatever program may secure the most votes for their next run for office,
let’s place the financial welfare of all federal programs into the hands of our corporations and general public. The federal
government was never meat to be a creator of various kitties just so programs could rape it in the name of the common good.
We all agree we need to create some responsibility in spending and what we spend it on, and this “freedom of choice funding”
system can achieve just that.
I am all for congress making the decisions for funding our Department of Defense, NASA,
EPA, The Justice Department and so on, but discretionary spending should be taken care of on the private level. The Internal
Revenue Service has for years included a small contribution box on their most simplistic forms. I personally think listing
various programs in need of your contribution is far more important than the planting of a tree, or a political campaign donation.
Relinquish the burden of large corporation taxes and free up these dollars to be donated. I guarantee you these corporations
will erase the accepted irresponsible spending taking place in Washington by demanding results and fiscal accountability,
the same fundamentals that bring success to corporations.
Our current system does not work. We have leveled endless
criticisms on every president for decades because they failed to present an acceptable budget. But how can any budget be
acceptable when it includes numerous increases for failed programs and deficits due to incoherent discretionary spending?
We need either a consumption tax or a flat tax to fund our governmental departments, and a privatized system for discretionary
programs. Lobbyists and liberals will complain at the very thought of this radical reform, but lobbyists only have to shift
their focus from senators and representatives, to corporations with money readily available to donate. Liberals will just
end up losing their stranglehold on the poorest of Americans. For too long, the liberals have enslaved this country’s poor
to the master of government programs, without any intentions of releasing the chains or relinquishing the power they possess
over them. With the reform of discretionary programs, the jackass democrats will lose their unwarranted power that has allowed
them to steal other‘s wealth and oppress our weakest individuals. I consider this a fringe benefit of privatization.
Blake
Elliott
Stupid
Is as Stupid Does
February 20, 2005
If you ever needed a prime example of a jackass democrat, look no further
than this week’s testimony by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in front of Congress. This exchange between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Secretary Rumsfeld proves how illegitimate
and unqualified most jackass democrats truly are. Fast forward the clip to 2:13 and proceed to watch the next 3 to 4 minutes.
Blake
Elliott
Disguising
The Disqualification of Judges
February 19, 2005
The filibustering continues on capitol hill. President
Bush has sent the same batch of nominees to the senate as last time, and the same results are threatened by the jackass democrats.
I can understand opposing judges who pose a danger to our society, which is the excuse liberals give for their actions, but
examples of dangerous rulings is what we need from the opposition before we give their obstructionist behavior any clout.
The
only evidence offered by the democrats participating in the filibuster is the personal stance most of these judges take on
the abortion issue. This does not suffice as evidence to support the blocking of judges to the federal courts. I am personally
pro life, this does not mean that I do not recognize or accept the law of the land. I happen to believe the governing of abortion
is a slippery slope. Roe versus Wade was not the inception of abortion. Women have been terminating unwanted pregnancies long
before this nation was even founded. The banning of abortion would in fact endanger the lives of thousands of women because
they would seek unauthorized, and untrained individuals to perform illegal abortions. This would create a black market that
would unnecessarily kill women every year. The problem lies within social irresponsibility when it comes to sexual activity.
Our youth are basically too stupid to foresee life problems such as premature parenthood. But weren’t we all stupid at one
point? Many of us, including myself, were just plain lucky. Still, the point is, a judges’ personal stance on a political
issue does not disqualify them as a candidate for a federal bench position.
A judge has one responsibility; to uphold
the law. The separation of personal belief and the law is required. For example, many judges may think that the mandatory
sentencing of a pothead is nonsense, a waste of time and resources in regards to our prison system, but they still sentence
the convicted to whatever the state or federal law demands, therefore proving their personal belief never infringed upon the
existing law. The only instances where judges have overstepped the bounds of the law has taken place in the liberal courts
like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional), or the Massachusetts
Supreme Court (ruled marriage unconstitutional). Other liberal courts have recently attempted to rule in favor of terrorists
in order to legally challenge the Bush doctrine concerning the war on terrorism. These types of judges are the only ones who
actually pose a danger to our country by consistently ruling against the law, and in favor of their personal beliefs. This
is where the term “activist” comes from, and there is no place for activism in our courts. Activism should only exist in the
political system where legislation creates law based on popular demand. Jackass democrats have long been attempting to illegally
change law through liberal activist courts, instead of gathering support for their fundamentals through successfully electing
like minded individuals who can legally change law through legislation. This is the clear undermining of our judicial system
and displays a blatant disrespect for our foundation.
I personally do not care what a judge believes in, whether
it be creationism, evolution, abortion, Kerry or President Bush, as long as they have a reputation of properly interpreting
and enforcing the existing law. This fundamental performance qualifies any judge for any bench in America. The jackass democrats
are doing nothing more than lying to the American public in order to quantify their anti-conservatism positions, which makes
most of them unqualified to serve in their current positions. It takes all kinds and beliefs to sustain this country. The
democrats happen to believe that only liberal thinking people deserve to serve this country, or more explicitly, change this
country.
Blake Elliott
February 10, 2005
Freedom of Speech?
Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado hates America. It is his constitutional right
to do so. Professor Churchill says that the 9/11 victims had it coming to them, and no matter how you personally feel about
that opinion, it is also his constitutional right to voice it. It is a tall task to combat such stupidity, especially when
the perpetrator is an over aged hippie, but Churchill need not waste his breath crying freedom of speech.
College
students showed up in boisterous force in defense of their beloved half wit instructor. Every time the professor uttered anything
to do with our constitution, and the rights afforded him by it, the crowd became blatantly raucous in the name of freedom.
It would seem that the students professor Churchill had a hand in educating are not so educated after all. The ACLU consistently
attempts the same legal maneuvering, and often fails, for good reason. Our constitution does not give you the right to be
grossly offensive, nor does it give you the right to preach hate.
Imagine your child is attending college as a freshman.
In fact, imagine your child is taking an ethnic studies course taught by professor Churchill. Ethnic studies covers a vast
curriculum, and the very first topic your child will be studying is the slave trade and how Africans made it to North America.
Professor Churchill is a man who enjoys pushing the envelope, and proceeds to teach his opinion on the subject. Professor
Churchill prefers to call these Africans, who were forced into slavery by their own tribesmen, niggers. He then follows
up by giving examples of how America has greatly suffered from the acceptance of niggers into our society, and that
if our fore fathers had any sense what so ever, they would have loaded every last nigger onto those ships and set the
sails back towards Africa. Had enough yet? I thought so.
Most would consider that subject matter a tad bit offensive.
How long do you think professor Churchill would continue to be an administrative head at your child's college? Or better yet,
do you think professor Churchill would ever be hired by any university ever again? Suffice it to say that the least of professor
Churchill's worries would be his future employment. He would have a difficult time just making it off campus without being
mobbed and brutally beaten.
But what about his freedom of speech? Aren't we supposed to protect his rights
first? Did that right vanish? Absolutely not. But your freedoms can be easily overshadowed by your hate. Many people, whom
I doubt professor Churchill knew, died on 9/11. They were also innocent. To teach such negative opinion as college education
is deplorable, and yes, punishable by termination. We all have opinions, and you know what they say about opinions right?
I understand the need for individualism, and I tend to think that most of these college students are searching for
a defining moment, not for the world, but for themselves. The current generation shows no signs of successful tendencies
or global understanding, and with the annihilation of competitive education (no valedictorians, no firsts in class, fewer
magna cum laude graduates), these underachievers will receive their fair share of bruising when in the real world. They have
very gullible minds, easily misshapen with sharp offensive rhetoric, and idiotic professors take advantage of them. Cutting
edge is what these hapless ninnies seek, but to contribute to delinquency, and to encourage the spreading of personal contempt
in the name of tax dollar education oversteps any bounds allowed by law. Mr. Churchill is more than welcome to join Moveon.org,
the ACLU, or any privately funded university, but to currently require an entire state to contribute to his compensation is
indefensible.
I am not paid by tax dollars, and I do not attempt to push my opinion as fact, so let me take this opportunity
to exercise my first amendment rights. Professor Churchill, you are a pathetic incompetent, and good riddance you commie
bastard.
Blake Elliott
February 1, 2005
Okay Lefties, Let’s Compare Some Numbers
Since the
media and prominent self-promoting politicians like to paint the war in Iraq as one of the worst guerilla wars we have ever
seen, let’s consider a few statistics in an attempt to better understand their portrayal. Of course it goes without saying
that our troops are invaluable, and each death is heart wrenching. But if you look at the war in Iraq (the “quagmire”), and
compare it to every day life in the United States, you might see things a little differently than Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Jennings
and their ilk. Iraq has an estimated population of roughly 25 million. In 2004, 7,837 troops were injured and 713 were
killed in action. In 2000 (the most recent data from the US Census Bureau), the population of California was about 33.5 million.
In that same year, there were 210,531 violent crimes and 2,079 murders. The population in New York in 2000 was a little more
than 19 million. In New York in 2000, there were 124,890 violent crimes and 952 murders. In one year, we lost 713 very brave
soldiers who were fighting in a war, which obviously is a dangerous environment. In one year, California lost over 2,000 citizens
to murder, and New York lost over 950. That said, would the Democrats assume that it is more dangerous to live in the U.S.
than it is to fight in Iraq? Is driving a car more dangerous than fighting in Iraq? In 2001 over 42,000 people died in the
U.S. because they took the risk of driving. Is having the flu more dangerous than promoting freedom? The CDC estimates that
20,000 people die each year from the flu. It is estimated that Hussein released over 70,000 hardened criminals from prison
before the war. If you compare terrorists in Iraq, who are nothing more than criminals, to our own criminal element, it would
seem that it is much more dangerous to simply live in America than it is to fight terrorism in Iraq.
It is the position
of many on the left that we are losing the war in Iraq. Some say that we should pull our troops out immediately, as it is
just too violent and the death toll of American soldiers is at an unacceptable rate. Let’s compare the war in Iraq to some
of our other conflicts to see if the war really is the losing proposition that the left portrays it to be. Years ago, the
U.S. was attacked by foreign men who used airplanes to murder thousands of American citizens. A madman halfway around the
world was murdering his own people and threatening the countries around him. If that scenario sounds familiar, it should.
It describes 9/11, as well as WWII. Would today’s lefties have fought WWII? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Hitler did not attack us. Hitler, just like Hussein, had signed numerous useless pieces of paper assuring the world that he
would behave. Hitler, just like Hussein, had no intention of following his word. On D-Day alone, the Allies dropped 156,000
troops in ten hours on the beaches of Normandy, and 73,000 of them were American. Total Allied casualties for that one day
are estimated at 10,000 with 2,500 of those killed in action. Out of that 10,000, 6603 were U.S. casualties. Can you imagine
what the Democrats of today would have thought of Eisenhower’s plan? I think I can guess.
In the case of WWII, 16.1
million U.S. armed forces personnel served during a five year period. The United States lost 292,000 troops in action, another
114,000 died of other causes, and 671,000 were wounded. The U.S. fought for many years, then began reconstruction in various
countries which took many more years, and we still maintain a military presence in those countries as a result. In the case
of Viet Nam, 2.59 million armed forces personnel served. Of those, over 47,000 died in combat, another 9,000 died of other
causes, and 304,000 were wounded. In the Civil War, 620,000 Americans lost their lives. How can one look at those numbers
and think the current war is too costly? How can one reflect on our military history and conclude that the War on Terror is
not worth fighting, that the casualty numbers are too high? How can the Lefties continually disparage the war, our President,
and the cause for which our troops make so many sacrifices? And how is it that so many people buy it?
Tina
Elliott
January
30, 2005
The American Insurgents: Jackass Democrats
The media and Jackass Democrats told us that we would
have difficulty taking control of Baghdad; we did it in 23 days. They told us sovereignty wouldn’t be transferred to Iraq
by the self imposed deadline; sovereignty was transferred on time. They told us that elections would not occur on the date
specified, due to violence and lack of interest; elections took place with better turnout than our own country has ever experienced.
They also told us that the insurgency was winning, and the war was nothing more than a quagmire; the insurgency lost their
bid to suppress the vote, Iraqis are celebrating, and our military has systematically met every goal in Iraq. Do you see a
pattern here?
From domestic issues to foreign affairs, I have a difficult time finding any accurate predictions from
the Jackass Democrats. They fought against tax cuts, yet the plan implemented by President Bush proved to bolster a troubled
economy. The Patriot Act , though initially supported by many democrats, is now under attack for violating civil liberties.
I have yet to witness one account of any American citizen having his civil liberties violated, and all the while, terrorist’s
have failed to attack us again, and violent crime has plummeted by 30%, the lowest rate in over three decades.
Who
is laying a clear path for America? And who is nipping at the heels of progress? Just as the insurgents in Iraq fight and
kill without a clear message or goal, Jackass Democrats attempt to derail and smear any clear direction without offering one
of their own. As of right now, American politics is an absolute opposite of what it was 20 years ago. Conservatives are now
the people’s choice, and with the promotion of freedom, along with the subsequent increase in national security it brings,
Jackass Democrats are left to flounder in their incompetence.
The Kennedys, Kerrys and Boxers are becoming increasingly
irrelevant. Their consistent dissent based on erroneous accusations makes their base weary. It is incredibly ironic that the
self anointed party of democracy has been relegated to opposing freedom and democracy, all due to political pettiness.
It was just five years ago, when the National Organization for Women (NOW) website featured Afghanistan as the main culprit
guilty of the suppression of women. Since then, elections have taken place in Afghanistan, allowing women to vote and run
for public office. But there is no sign of any celebration within NOW. President Clinton first called for regime change in
Iraq while campaigning in 1992 with Al Gore. That administration continued to call for change through 2000. And with all
the support President Clinton received from the Jackass Democrats, the majority of them refuse to positively acknowledge Sadaam
Hussein’s removal and capture, or this incredible Iraqi election. Ask any democrat in this country what their party’s agenda
is, and all you will hear is one of opposition. An Iraqi voter was quoted today as saying, “We as a people do not want to
be one of constant opposition.” The Iraqis get it, why don’t Jackass Democrats?
The examples of liberal hollowness
are endless, and continue to baffle clear thinking Americans. Either you stand for something, regardless of who is credited
for it’s creation, or you don’t. Through their own activism, it is obvious that Jackass Democrats are against democracy, national
security, economic growth through capitalism, and the removal of worldwide oppressive regimes. Doesn’t that eerily resemble
the terrorist’s agenda?
Blake Elliott
January 27, 2005
Sunni Participation Could Equal American Black Vote
The highly
anticipated Iraqi vote on Sunday will be of monumental historical value. An interview with a Jewish Iraqi now living in the
United States was very revealing. This man and his family were thrown out of the country due to religious persecution. He
is now 82 years old, and gives God credit for bringing the opportunity for democracy to his country. He also understands,
better than the rest of us distant observers, that Iraq has no idea how to run an election. Yet millions of Iraqis are preparing
to vote for the first time in their lives. In his over 20 years in Iraq, he never saw an election, and never saw any real
chance of one ever happening. Now he can thank God, President George W Bush, and our troops who fight and defend democracy
anywhere and everywhere.
The main concern, or disguised hope, for Jackass Democrats is the possibility of low participation
by Sunnis making the election illegitimate. I often wonder if there has ever been an election in history that Jackass Democrats
viewed as completely legitimate. Of course the political pundits have convinced their base that every lost election has been
rigged and therefore illegitimate, and there is little available to combat this stupidity. So the question arises, what is
the standard for a successful election? I believe the simple right to vote for every adult would act as a solid foundation,
and Iraq is granted that freedom immediately. How soon we forget that our own country, the supposedly shining light of democracy,
only recently allowed women and blacks the right to vote. Women received the right to vote in 1920, and blacks were fully
recognized 45 years later in 1965. There were 27 Presidents elected without one female vote. There were 35 Presidents elected
without full participation from black voters. Women currently make up more of this country’s population than men, and have
equaled or surpassed men in voting registration for the past twenty years, but were not recognized as legal voters for 70%
of our country’s Presidential elections. On the other hand, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the black vote has averaged
only 45%, and the registration rate has lagged that of whites by 2-7 percentage points for the same time period. Blacks in
this country marched, rioted, and bled for the right to vote, but seldom excercise it. Even prior to 1920, the entire world
viewed this country as the strongest democracy in existence. But with only 50%-60% of the male population voting (back then
men were the only people eligible to vote), that equated to only 25%-30% of the total adult population deciding who would
govern this great democracy. As usual, Jackass Democrats continue to ignore our own history while attempting to undermine
a conservative agenda.
If just 50% of the Sunnis participate, this will equal or better the numbers most of our
minorities accomplish every election cycle. Our America, with all of the protests and hate filled political rhetoric, can
only boast of a 50% eligible voter participation rate. And this after over 200 years of existence. But this is a good thing,
because democracy allows you to voluntarily vote. This is a freedom of choice that should be celebrated. And as the story
has gone for over a decade, the Jackass Democrat’s message of constant doubt only grows more ignorant and tiresome.
Sunday
is a historically significant day. A historical day for the Middle East, for the United States, but most importantly, for
Iraq. The Sunnis make up 35% of the total population of Iraq. They are a religious minority, not an ethnic minority. They
will vote, and most probably surpass any participation numbers achieved by any minority group within this United States during
our own fledgling years. And no matter what, a constitution will be written, and it will represent the Sunnis, whether they
choose to participate or not. That very choice, and the following representation of all people, represents one of most simplistic
dreams of democracy, and the Iraqis are on the verge of accomplishing that dream.
It looks as if our own military advisors are currently being trumped by a true
war planning organization...Knight Ridder Newspapers. According to these journalists, it appears that the numbers in
Iraq show that the U. S. is losing the war. And of course, we all know that the analysis of a war can easily be wittled down
to just a few statistics. The Jackass Democrats never cease to amaze me. No matter how many obvious successes, they will endlessly
search for the negative, and will always report it more frequently than the positive.
Currently, 90% of Iraq is considered
secure. The insurgent numbers are actually shrinking, and are reduced to terrorizing through typical Palestinian style car
bombs. When the insurgents attempt to establish any type of base, as we witnessed in Fallujah, they are systematically
dismantled and killed, yet the media insists on reporting only dubious numbers.
I admit, for the most part, the negative
numbers are accurate, but these statistics represent a situation far different from the one portrayed by our press. The insurgents
are giving this fight their last gasp. The election is approaching fast, and some form of Democracy will be implemented soon.
There are attacks reported daily, usually killing innocent Iraqis. Still, everytime these terrorists are successful with inflicting
casualties, the leaders in Iraq and the United States refuse to waiver. This consistent message undoubtedly damages an extremist's
sense of loyalty, for it is supposed to be the great jihadist whose commitment knows no bounds, not the feeble Americans.
The majority of the insurgents consist of brainless border jumpers, not experienced fighters. And though they are still willing
to fight and die, they seem to be more successful at the latter. This group of sacrificial lambs is always described by the
media as tough, experienced, and determined to die for their cause. But let's be honest. Even though the media claims to have
intimate knowledge about these people, nobody knows the actual psyche of these terrorists. All I know is that our troops are
obliging their willingness to die daily.
The coalition's refusal to waiver is another example of true commitment. The
terrosists have consistently shown that in order for them to achieve destruction against the enemy, they must recruit people
who have little to live for. In many cases, children are even used as suicide bombers. Terrorists have always taken cowardly
advantage of the weak in order to sustain their putrid existance. So I end by asking the journalists this: Which side do you
think has the greatest ability to sustain? The answer is simple, but difficult for a Jackass Democrat to admit.
Blake
Elliott
January 21, 2005
Jackass Democrats Causing Innocent Soldiers to be Charged With Abuse
This absolutely pathetic news came
from a European news agency yesterday. The actions being taken against these soldiers, who are risking their lives daily to
promote freedom, are reprehensible. This bogus prosecution is directly related to the distorted reports of the Abu Ghraib
prison scandal. Still to this day, I have yet to see anything released to the public that remotely resembles torture, yet
the Jackass Democrats continuously hammer these lies and distortions in order to portray themselves as soldiers for human
rights. The American servicemen and women involved in Abu Ghraib deserve what they get, but the Jackass Democrats have put
the rest of the world on notice, and as we see by this story, many soldiers will be prosecuted due to this indignant political
payback ploy.
Blake Elliott
January 20, 2005
How Dare Democrats Use Fallen Soldiers As Political Tools
Look
at any major newspaper or magazine, and within the pages you will always find a total number of soldiers killed in Iraq. If
this were used as a remembrance in honor of these fine soldiers, I would find it suitable for print. But make no mistake about
it, these numbers are used as nothing more than a political tool by Jackass Democrats.
The reminder of fallen soldiers
is all around us. The entire international media has successfully informed each American about the situation in Iraq, good
or bad. I know of no one who is unaware we are losing brave men and women almost daily. I am thankful for these soldiers,
and so should every American. But a yellow ribbon, a protest, or a snide remark in the Senate does not constitute thankfullness,
because in order to truly honor a persons death, you have to realize what that deceased person's true belief was.
It
infuriates me to witness people like Senator Barbara Boxer (D, CA) validate her rude protests by mentioning fallen soldiers.
Not only is this the lowest act I have ever witnessed in our Congress, but it also stains the memory of the actual soldier.
How can anyone speak for these men and women of our Armed Forces? How can any American crown themselves the spokesperson for
the dead? This shows the audacity, and the shallowness of the Jackass Democrats.
I write this article as a tribute
to these men and women of the United States of America. Men and women that I know took an oath to defend America, men and
women who joined our armed forces with the full understanding that if a war was to break out, they would be the first ones
to confront the enemy, men and women who took the trip to the middle east ready to take action and ready to defend their country.
Does a person not understand that when they voice their " this war was wrong" opinion, while in the same breath, remind
us of our dead soldiers, that they are telling the world that this fallen soldier died for nothing? I can't imagine a more
vile act.
Jackass Democrats have always been at the fore front of every war protest. During all of these face time
extravaganzas, I have never heard a realistic reason for their anger. When our nation is hit, they show little concern, but
let us attempt to defend our country wile bringing freedom to a hapless one, and the voices of dissent increase, as well as
their ignorance.
In my opinion, there is a simple reason for this belief gap between the parties, and though very
uncomfortable for most Americans to discuss, it is supported by each parties incredibly different actions when at war. Conservatives
are more willing to fight and die for their country, while most liberals would rather enjoy this country's freedoms without
giving anything of themselves to support it. This is not to simply say conservatives are better than liberals. Liberal is
not a dirty word in my vocabulary, and there are many liberals who have fought for this country. But the fact still remains
that most servicemen and women are registered Republicans, and I have yet to here a deserter claim to be a conservative. I
have yet to see a soldier support a public protest, but have witnessed nothing but old hippies and young ignorant college
students orchestrating them. This is a shame, but fine with me, because all American soldiers understand that the service
they give is meant to help all, including the weak, the unappreciative, and of course, the Jackass Democrats. But always remember,
if you truly wish to mourn our fallen soldiers, do it with dignity, not as a token tool to push your political point, because
whether you agreed with their mission or not, they ultimately fell for you and I.
Blake Elliott
January
19, 2005
Journalism, With a Touch of Treason
So the CIA is conducting covert operations in Iran? Well not
anymore, thanks to Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker. In his new article, Hersh claims that The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions
in order to organize a war plan against Iran. The fact that the United States is concerned about Iran and may be planning
a future war comes as no surprise. What is surprising is the detail of these operations said to have been supplied to Hersh.
Hersh reports that covert operations have been going on inside Iran since last summer, and that at least 36 sites have been
identified as possible targets. Hersh quotes an official close to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon
want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible." Hersh quotes another former intelligence
official as saying, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking
at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign." This same unnamed intelligence source
also gave specific details about an American commando task force operating in South Asia, that works closely with a group
of Pakistani scientists who have past dealings with Iran. Hersh says that Bush has signed several top secret findings and
executive orders authorizing a multitude of covert operations, in conjunction with the Pakistanis, taking place in several
Middle Eastern and Asian countries to identify potential terrorist targets. In exchange for the Pakistani cooperation, officials
have given President Musharraf assurances that he will not be forced to turn over Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's
atomic bomb, to face questioning about his role in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Is it possible
this leaking, and the subsequent reporting of it, be considered treason? For instance, let’s say the FBI is protecting Hersh’s
home from a suspected Muslim extremist, and as normal procedure, the agents would all eat lunch together every Friday leaving
only a skeleton crew to keep watch. Do you think Hersh would want that information reported in a national publication? Even
though the motive of the reporter may only be to expose the FBI’s tendency to choose camaraderie over proper protection, does
it still make the dangerous release of that information acceptable? Of course it doesn’t.
For years journalists have
brow beaten the public with tales of their obsession to get the story. I have heard many journalists say that they would
risk their lives just to get the story. Maybe that is the way it used to be before journalism became such big business,
but all I see in the current media mine field is reckless, obnoxious, unsubstantiated attacks. From a former intelligence
official turned book writer, like Richard Clark, to a television producer turned political attack dog, like Mary Mapes, this
news world has gone absolutely insane. I am sure Seymour Hersh would tell you he supports the troops, yet I wonder how many
lives he endangered by reporting a story backed only by anonymous sources. Even if the story were true, and it may be, why,
as an American, would you report it? Is the public’s need to know greater than the nations need for success in this war on
terror? Is this story worth the lives of our much needed operatives on the ground?
News travels fast, and just as
we watch the excerpts from Al Jazeera television, the Middle East watches our television news. This type of story can cause
a Middle Eastern informant to doubt a U. S. operative’s motives. This one story could trigger repercussions as serious as
losing a contact who had life saving information. But we are told that it’s all about the story, and with the current freedom
of the press, the story may or may not be true, and the reporter is not required to give proof either way. This entire process
is very strange.
Who polices the media? The only reason CBS was exposed for their fraudulent reporting was because
millions of bloggers took it upon themselves to investigate otherwise unnoticeable forgeries. The subsequent investigation
would have never happened if it weren’t for a group of very attentive people. But how can we check the validity of an intelligence
sensitive story when only anonymous sources are required before releasing it as fact? Sadly, we can’t. If things are to change,
it is necessary that our media be held to a set of super stringent standards when reporting on national security issues. I
have little interest in investigating the three headed baby story, but my interest level could not be greater when a story
could ultimately affect this nation’s safety.
For over a decade, our clandestine organizations have been victimized
from outside and inside. Those same culprits from within are now being forced out, only to begin promoting their soon to be
published books in which the revealing of classified information is seen only as a selling point. The past twelve years created
this type of unethical behavior, and it ran unabated from one corner of this country to the other. All the corporate scandals,
document shredding, and lying under oath is the true Clinton legacy. The massive spending cuts from that period groomed an
intelligence community willing to sacrifice security in order to either sell books or denigrate an administration. Seymour
Hersh is celebrated by the Jackass Democrats for his bravery in reporting the Abu Ghraib story. But make no mistake, Seymour
Hersh is no patriot, no hero, no committed pioneer. Hersh is nothing more than a notoriety whore, and if this slide by our
media continues, so will the quality of our information, and most importantly, our quality of life.
Title 18 United
States Code section 794, subsection (b) prohibits anyone "in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated
to the enemy [from publishing] any information with respect to the movement, numbers, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces
... of the United States ... or supposed plans or conduct of any ... military operations ... or any other information relating
to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy ... [this crime is punishable] by death or by imprisonment for any
term of years or for life."
Blake Elliott
January
17, 2005
Martin Luther King Jr. Exploited, Not Celebrated
On a day meant to celebrate a great man and
his legacy, all Americans should be grateful. We should all be grateful for our freedom, for our quality of life, for our
neighbors, and for this entire country we call home. Yet every year new outcries of inequality and hatred arise on this day.
What a shame for Dr. King’s legacy.
I have listened to this man’s speeches, and the one constant found in all of them,
is the exclusion of hateful rhetoric. Through his words, it is obvious, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior’s soul was void of hate.
His speeches were ones of hope, inspiration and responsibility. His presentations were delivered flawlessly, never inciting
riots, but instead triggering tears of optimism from all races. This man had a conviction which drove him to compassionately
recruit all people from all different walks of life to join him in becoming one big community. Dr. King’s intentions were
not for blacks to be catered to through government programs. His vision was not for blacks to be given material goods as payback
for slavery. His intentions were not political. Dr. Martin Luther King’s vision was one of simple inclusion. He only demanded
the chance to be accepted so his people could be successful.
It has been over 40 years since the enactment of the
Civil Rights Act. I now live in a country where blacks serve on the Supreme Court, in presidential administrations, and in
Congress. Blacks own businesses, oversee school districts, and enjoy all the opportunities this great land offers everyone.
Dr. King’s basic hopes and dreams came true through the enactment of this legislation, but the Jackass Democrats only saw
a window of political opportunity appear. With the right to vote came a battle between conservatives and liberals. The conservatives
fought for the success of blacks, while the Jackass Democrats fought only for their vote. The damage the Jackass Democrats
inflicted on the black community through entitlement programs closely rivals the damage done by slavery. Welfare and affirmative
action are programs which harm the recipient by removing the American way of incentive based success. These two entitlement
programs alone have ripped the heart and soul from the black person’s foundation.
With the death of Martin Luther King
Jr., so died the hopes and dreams of a people who had fought with him. The shock of this loss seemed surreal, too painful
to endure. But instead of choosing a leader with the same type of inclusive message, the anger got the best of King’s community,
and quickly tore it down. The message of hate and injustice started to resonate throughout the black neighborhoods. Endless
accusations, charges of political corruption and threats of rioting rang through the nation. This was not King’s vision, and
the reversal of his life’s work began.
If you had to choose a political party’s message most similar to Dr. Kings
of yesterday, the Republicans would be the overwhelming choice. Martin Luther King believed in individual responsibility,
not hand outs. He believed in togetherness, not exclusive “whitey hating” communities riddled with filth and crime. Dr. King
only wanted the chance to succeed, not affirmative action which rewards based on color, not the level of achievement. The
Jackass Democrats have been delivering blow after blow to Dr. King’s legacy in hopes of keeping their voting base together.
Dr. King was raised by a man who voted Republican. Dr. King preached a conservative message. He did not blame, he persevered.
While JFK was ordering the FBI to spy on him, Nixon was meeting with him. While JFK was voting against the Civil Rights
Act, Republicans were demanding the passing of it. The Republicans pushed for equality since the Civil War, while the Jackass
Democrats were only concerned about the political implications. Instead of celebrating the moment, Lyndon Baines Johnson said
he feared that he had just delivered the entire south to the Republicans buy signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is
no level too low for a Jackass Democrat to stoop.
New black leaders are needed desperately. The current “leaders”
have been infecting the black community since the assassination of King. The welfare and reparation mindset breeds failure.
How can the black community consistently choose Jackass Democrats to represent them when their track record is so dismal?
It has been over 40 years since the Civil Rights Act, and the black community still preaches today what they were preaching
in the 60s. This is grounds for change. Imagine the horror if Dr. King were to see the behavior of some prominent black
leaders today. Just last week Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee exclaimed she had come over here as a slave, and now she wanted her
right to vote. A blatant lie on both ends. For years Rep. Cynthia McKinney has accused the government of creating crack cocaine
in order to kill the population of blacks. How does this promote unity? Jesse Jackson swears that black votes are being stolen
in every election by white people. Accusing your neighbor can only lead to trouble. Various rappers are selling music riddled
with racial slurs and demeaning lyrics. If they refuse to respect themselves, how can they demand it from others? Blacks make
up 12% of this entire nation, but black men commit more than 50% of the total crime in this country. And the argument is that
blacks are being wrongly targeted, as if none of the blame rests on their own shoulders. A disproportionate amount of black
kids are raised by single mothers or their grandmothers in this country due to the father abandoning them. Unemployment in
the black community is higher than any other race. Yet individual responsibility is never mentioned or even discussed. Dr.
King talked the talk, and in turn, Dr. King walked the walk. The black community should forget this tired old hate speech
they have to dust off once a year before the annual delivery. Bill Cosby is one of the few voices today that reflects the
King message, but if he continues to be attacked for his opinions, his message will also die. His disdain for the actions
of many blacks has prompted him to publicly denounce the ignorance running rampant in his community. If Martin Luther King
could come back and reinvent his dream, I truly believe it would be the one of conservatives today. Martine Luther King III,
Dr. King’s son, said today that if
his father were alive today, he would surely be against the war in Iraq. This represents the heart of the misunderstanding.
This statement was nothing more than a political jab. But King III should be reminded that if it weren’t for people like President
Bush and his father, hundreds of millions of people in this world would still be living under an iron fist where freedom only
exists as a dream. Both these men draw striking resemblances to each other. Their messages are the same, and their commitment
to fighting the good fight is unparalleled. With the emergence of Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Reverend
Wayne Perryman we have seen that responsible living and equal access can help anybody succeed, but in order to erase the devastating
blows dealt to blacks by Jackass Democrats, more true leaders need to be heard. God bless Martin Luther King.
Blake
Elliott
January
10, 2005
How Soon We Forget The Case for Going to War
The media has had two solid years to question the
war in Iraq and the facts have been so blurred that most Americans have forgotten why the United States went into Iraq to
begin with. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations was only partially reported. It seemed to me that the main objective
of our media was to cast a shadow of doubt on as many of Powell’s reasons as they could. If I were to guess, close to 85%
of Americans either did not watch the full presentation or can’t remember any of it specifically, and it may prove to be the
defining moment of our time. I just spent the last hour reading the entire presentation, word for word, and I am amazed
at how much I have forgotten.
Let us start where Powell did that day, with intercepted phone conversations between
Republican Guard members. Powell played a tape of a conversation between a General and a Colonel. The conversation was blunt
and to the point. The Colonel referred to Mohamed ElBaradei [Director, International Atomic Energy Agency] by name. The Colonel
was concerned about a mobile lab from the Al Kindi company being present at a site he was overseeing. The General said that
the Colonel should have never received one of "those". The Colonel became adamant, swearing he was in possession of one and
wanted to know what to do with it. The General said he would be at the site first thing in the morning to discuss the matter.
This was just days before a scheduled inspection of the site. The Al Kindi company specializes in prohibited weapons system
technology. In another taped conversation, two Republican Guard officers were conversing about upcoming inspections. Obvious
paranoia leads the General to order the other officer to not mention nerve agent over the phone. He then instructed the colonel
to destroy anything at the location mentioning nerve agent. Powell’s opening also included satellite photos of previously
proven chemical weapon depots that showed lines of tractor trailer trucks, including loading equipment and biological and
chemical cleanup crews. Powell outlined numerous evacuations of chemical weapon sites ordered by the Iraqi regime. Some evacuations
actually removed any and all material just days before inspections. Some other operations consisted of the replacement of
chemical technicians with Iraqi Intelligence officers in order to divert inspection teams and spy on them. There were also
two satellite photos detailing a weapons site activity over several weeks. One photo showed the site fully operable and active,
the next photo taken days later, showed the site completely dismantled and covered with new topsoil that had recently been
trucked in. The U. N. inspection on that site occurred just days later.
Mobile labs were an interesting part of this
presentation. Note that the illustrations of Mobile Labs was not some conjured up Bond movie scenario. The Iraqi regime admitted
having these labs, which is something that was never reported in the mainstream media. All I can remember about these labs
was that news reports gave many alternative uses for these such vehicles, but with Saddam in charge, the intended use was
quite evident. Iraq has admitted to having chemical and biological weapons, but never provided any proof of the required disposal
of them. Saddam murdered his own people with chemical and biological weapons, and also used these weapons in war with another
country. Iraq even documented an accident in 1998 that killed 12 of their technicians due to exposure to chemical and biological
weapons. Now this same regime was in possession of mobile labs and our media felt necessary to present alternative uses for
these labs? Even in America we do not have door to door pharmacists who, with just a quick trip to the van, can administer
any medicine you may need for your illness. All of this documented activity was in unquestionable violation of resolution
1441, and Powell’s audience consisted of the very people who enacted that resolution.
The middle of the proceedings
consisted of specific biological agents and equipment the Iraqis had developed in order to disperse them. Powell showed video
of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage fighter jet that was equipped with spray tanks. With the lack of vegetation present in Iraq, I see
no need for supersonic crop dusters. Another video showed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fly 500 kilometers, 350 kilometers
over what resolution 1441 and the previous resolution 687 allowed. Again, the Iraqi Government never provided any documentation
concerning the disposal of these banned devices. Ballistic missiles equipped with empty warheads having travel capabilities
well over the United Nation limits were discovered. SA-2 rocket engines acquired as late as December, well after resolution
1441, were discovered. A newly constructed test site for large missiles exceeding the allowable size and capabilities were
discovered. The documentation and eyewitness accounts of 1600 death row inmates being used as guinea pigs for experimental
exposure to chemical and biological agents was unearthed. Direct orders were sent to all regime scientists demanding them
to refrain from granting interviews to the United Nations. United Nations inspectors requested interviews with these scientists.
The interviews were to occur outside of Iraq in order to relieve the regime pressure. The inspectors later found signed
agreements that stated if the scientists granted any interviews, they would be punished by death. Saddam also promised that
if any scientists defected, he would kill them as well as their families. This was a credible threat seeing that Saddam
had murdered his own son in law for defecting.
In 1991 the United Nations initially reported that they had found no
evidence of a nuclear program, only to discover later that year, that documentation uncovered by inspectors showed a very
advanced nuclear research program. Under 1441, all nuclear activity was to be halted. Even after resolution 1441, intelligence
confirmed Saddam’s pursuit of uranium from Niger. Joe Wilson, who was sent to investigate the Niger story, attempted to refute
this claim, only later to have this story confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, proving Joe Wilson to be a liar. Shipments of
centrifuge tubes, used to enrich uranium, were intercepted and inspected. It was found that the tube’s specifications were
more advanced than tubes used for conventional purposes. Whether used for conventional or nuclear, both types were banned
under resolution 1441. Countless smuggling rings for nuclear components were botched by intelligence agencies exposing a network
of many front companies aiding Saddam in his nuclear pursuit.
Powell ended his United Nations presentation with the
Iraq ties to terrorism. Saddam has publicly boasted of his support for Hamas. Saddam offered Palestinian families large sums
of money for successful terrorist acts against Israel. The most telling example of Saddam’s terrorism ties revolved around
one main terrorist figure. To this day, this Al Qaeda collaborator continues to operate from Baghdad. Abu Musab Zarqawi was
Powell’s main connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and who could dispute this fact today? Powell documented Zarqawi’s activity
since the Afghan war over a decade ago. Iraq not only allowed Zarqawi to operate a terrorist cell in Iraq, but also met with Al
Qaeda concerning chemical and biological warfare training as well as offered Bin Laden safe haven in Baghdad, much like Iraq
did for Zarqawi. The 9/11 Commission, who was not assembled to investigate Iraq, confirmed these meetings, and even though
they could not conclude a “working relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it would be absolute pacifism to take these as
chance meetings. During Zarqawi’s operation in Baghdad, several European countries thwarted planned attacks orchestrated by
Zarqawi’s network. At the time of Powell’s presentation, over 116 Zarqawi’s operatives had been apprehended. These operatives
offered information detailing the extent of Iraq’s involvement in terrorism, from training camps within Iraq to monetary support
for international terrorism. Saddam’s interest in terrorism was no secret.
The presentation was sometimes exhausting,
but absolutely overwhelming in regard to reasons for Iraq‘s disarming. If the world would have continued with sanctions, Saddam’s
disruption of inspections coupled with the United States Military’s monitoring and patrolling of the no fly zones would have
cost this country far more than what we will spend for this war. In order to protest this war, an individual has to ignore
all of this. Saddam’s ability to inflict international damage was present in 1991, and was still present when this presentation
was made. The pursuit of Uranium, the acquisition of centrifuge tubes, the purchase of SA-2 rocket engines, the empty warheads
atop outlawed missiles, the mobile labs, the recorded conversations between Republican Guard members, the spray tanks on fighter
jets, the long range unmanned planes, the missile test site, the evacuation and cover up of chemical and biological depots,
the banning of U2 flyovers, the millions of dead Iraqis, the threatening of the Iraqi scientists, the countless attempts to
mislead and block inspectors, the Oil for Food scandal , and finally, the solid connection between Saddam and terrorism, has
to be ignored in order to protest the reasons we invaded Iraq. This is not the thinking of a humanitarian. This is not the
thinking of a person who respects international law, and it cannot be the thinking of an American who holds this county’s
safety, as well as our ally’s, sacred. The Iraqi people are finally going to realize freedom of choice. They no longer have
to fear the wrath of a dictator, and their god given wealth can finally build a nation where every voice can be heard. It
was a telling moment when a Zarqawi message was intercepted in Iraq. The message read “If America succeeds in creating a democracy
in Iraq, we are finished.“ God Bless America!
