Billboatd on I-75 At Lake City,Ga…

Billboatd on I-75 At Lake City,Ga…

 Where do we get one? The attached photo is of a billboard recently
established on I-75 just south of Lake City . A group gathered there today
to celebrate its unveiling. The cost of 10 months rental of the billboard
and doing the artwork was $6500. We feel that is a reasonable cost to reach
out to 1,000,000 vehicles per month and perhaps motivate their participation
in the electoral process to get our country on a sound footing.

Advertisements

The Left’s war on America

The Left’s war on America

Ann Kane

The leftist progressives continue to plot their strategies in a perpetual war of their own making.  They are on stage mocking America because of the health care takeover, while they have financial institution reform and amnesty for illegal aliens waiting in the wings.  News headlines and conservative pundits tell us the leftists drew a line in the sand when their puppet congressional representatives voted for health care reform.  They have declared war on the American people.  How will we respond?

Winston Churchill wrote about the reality of fighting for a just cause.

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case.You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves.”

Obama removed a bust of Churchill from the White House upon his arrival last year, and sent it back to England whence it came.  Very chilling.

In our arsenal, we have many ways of counterattacking the left.  States are throwing lawsuits at Obamacare; Republicans in congress are using every means possible to repeal the legislation; and private conservative citizens are working doggedly to put like minded candidates into office in the fall. 

However, conservatives should not delude themselves into thinking that these responses alone will win this political war.  According to David Horowitz in his booklet The Art of Political War for Tea Parties, we have to know our enemy because “defining the opposition is the decisive move in all political war.”   We must understand how the America haters do battle.

Just listen to what progressives/tyrants say.  Remember, what they accuse conservatives of being, such as an angry mob, is who they are in reality.  Since they are so radical, and hateful of the good in society, they have to project their ill will onto others.  Hitler exemplified Freudian projection theory.  In speaking to the Reichstag in Berlin in 1942 about his disdain for Churchill, Hitler in fact described himself.

“He is the most bloodthirsty or amateurish strategist in history…For over 5 years this man has been chasing around Europe like a madman in search of something that he could set on fire. The gift Mr. Churchill possesses, is the gift to lie with a pious expression on his face and to distort the truth…His abnormal state of mind can only be explained as symptomatic of a paralytic disease or of a drunkard’s ravings.”

We cannot wait until November, we cannot wait for the courts to take action, and we cannot wait for others to do the right thing.  We must do the right thing now.  We must know we are at war, and be willing to sacrifice ourselves for the good of our country.

Landslide Victory for McCain — In the Military

Landslide Victory for McCain — In the Military

October 26, 2008 – by Greyhawk

[1] Surprise — at least one poll shows a huge McCain lead: “[Senator John] McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, and Air Force Times.” Or perhaps not so surprising: there’s a history involved here.

In 1864 the nation was nearing the end of the Civil War — but some wanted it ended sooner than others. Democrats offered a [2] platform declaring that it was “the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which . . . the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, . . . justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities.” In short: end the war now.

Their candidate was General ([3] still on active duty throughout the presidential campaign) George McClellan. He [4] assured voters that restoration of the Union was a worthwhile endeavor, but hinted that other goals had since corrupted the purpose of the war he himself had once waged and nearly lost. “The Union is the one condition of peace,” McClellan wrote. “We ask no more.” He likewise pledged to restore America’s standing in the eyes of the world — in his words, “resume our commanding position among the nations of the earth.”

And along with all that, Democrats [5] supported the troops:

Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and sailors of our navy, who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and, in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.

Which was a good thing because [6] America was trying something brand new that year: “absentee voting” — intended to ensure that those troops would be able to cast their ballots, too. But while Republicans claimed that voting was “a right vested in the individual which could adequately be exercised through written media, regardless of location,” Democrats countered that votes must be cast in person: “Like marriages and wills, votes required competent witnesses, defined by the Democrats as fellow citizens with shared concerns and responsibilities. Army officers appointed by the federal government could not fill this role. These conservative Democratic views of the mid-19th century seem alien to our thinking today, as absentee voting has since become a firmly established practice.”

So as Sherman marched on Atlanta [7] a different sort of war was waged in the North:

Wisconsin was the first to permit their soldiers to vote in the field through absentee ballots. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania all followed suit. However, Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey, which all had Democratic-controlled state legislatures, did not pass legislation allowing soldiers to vote in the field.

But Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [8] ensured the troops were given absentee ballots or granted leave to vote in person, and Lincoln himself asked General Sherman to allow Indiana soldiers to return home to vote. Lincoln was reelected with 55 percent of the popular vote and an Electoral College landslide, and while not decisive in the election, he received over [9] 70 percent of the military vote.

The above shouldn’t be misconstrued as a claim that Democrats are anti-war. In fact, American involvement in World Wars I and II, then Korea and Vietnam, would begin under Democratic presidents with spines of steel. As the 20th century ended, President Clinton, after withdrawing American troops from the humanitarian mission in Somalia launched by his predecessor, actually deployed U.S. forces to several “small wars,” including two European conflicts, and launched periodic air attacks on Iraq. Still, by the year 2000 the nation thought itself “at peace.”

Odd then that combat terms were used by the New York Times in [10] this story from November 2000:

Retreating under fire from Republicans, Florida’s attorney general, a top ally of Vice President Al Gore, said today that local officials should count absentee ballots from overseas military voters that were thrown out because they lacked postmarks. …

The most common reason cited for challenging and rejecting ballots was the absence of postmarks, or illegible postmarks, which Florida law requires on all overseas ballots. …

That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

According to the figures provided by the Times, Bush had received about two-thirds of those absentee votes that were counted. However, even with the state attorney general’s urging, local officials still didn’t count the remainder. That prompted the Bush campaign to [11] file suit — an action that resulted in Judge Lacey A. Collier’s [12] decision that any federal write-in ballot thrown out only for lack of a postmark must be considered valid (something I remembered four years later as I prepared my own Florida absentee ballot in Iraq).

Which brings us back to [13] this year:

Fairfax general registrar Rokey Suleman said Thursday that he has had to reject some of the ballots because of a Virginia law passed in 2002. That law — then called Senate Bill 113, sponsored by then-state Sen. Bill Bolling — requires that when an overseas citizen wants to request an absentee ballot and cast a vote with the same paperwork, it requires not only a witness signature but also the current address of the witness.

The McCain campaign said there’s not even a space for the witness to list an address. Suleman agreed; he said the federal document was changed in recent years and the space for the witness address was removed. But the Virginia law hasn’t changed.

Yes — military absentee ballots once again. But the law is the law, after all. And besides, [14] Suleman is a busy man:

Suleman said his office, at the request of criminal defense attorneys who approached his staff, delivered registration forms and absentee ballots to inmates with misdemeanor convictions and those awaiting felony trials.

Suleman, who is listed as a founder of the Trumbull County (Ohio) Young Democrats, ran for office in the Buckeye State as a Democrat earlier this year. He said the office he holds in Virginia is nonpartisan.

As opposed to those [15] partisan military folks of 2008: “Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat and those who haven’t, all backed McCain by large margins, to about the same extent they supported President Bush four years ago.”

And four years before that, and Lincoln back in 1864.

But “resentment of those who would block their votes” doesn’t make the list of reasons they give for doing so. And while “the economy” and “character” do, I offer [16] these quotes as additional explanation of why so many choose to vote against a seeming shortcut to peace: “I cannot vote for one thing and fight for another”, and “I do not see how any soldier can vote for such a man, nominated on a platform which acknowledges that we are whipped.”

At least, that’s how they felt in 1864.

But maybe things are different now.

Document drop: The “Accountable America” warning letter targeting GOP donors

“The Axis of Idiots” By J.D. Pendry retired Marine Sergeant Major

“The Axis of Idiots” By J.D. Pendry retired Marine Sergeant Major


“The Axis of Idiots”

Too bad we don’t have folks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out like this.    

  J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.  
He is eloquent, and he seldom beats around the bush!
 

Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.  You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.


Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us.  You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers.  Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.


John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute.  You lied about American Soldiers in   Vietnam.  Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact.  You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in  Iraq. You called Iraq  the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam.  You’re a fake. You want to run from  Iraq and abandon th e Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese.   Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.


John Murtha, you said our military was broken.  You said we can’t win militarily in   Iraq.  You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to  Okinawa.   Okinawa, John?  And the Democrats call you their military expert!  Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume?  You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician.  You’re not a Marine, sir.  You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s ass.  You’re a phony and a disgrace.  Run away, John.


Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at  Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of  Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists.  Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate.  History was not a good teacher for you, was it?  Lord help us!  See Dick run.


Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from  Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera  quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management.  Did you see the news, Teddy?  The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again.  If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it.  Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.  You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs.  To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in
Washington.


Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein,  Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy,  Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam:  Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave  Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.


American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers.  You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help  Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda  is.  Think about that each time you face
Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.


You are
America‘s “AXIS OF IDIOTS.”  Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us.  Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers.  It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.  There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists.  Don’t ever doubt that.  Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam.  If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.


Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism.  Your loyalty ends with self.  I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing.  You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform.  You need to run away from this war, this country.   Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.


No, Mr. President, you don’t get off the hook, either.  Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.  Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force.  It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS.


America must hear it from you that these self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety.  Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target.  You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media.  You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets.


Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.  They need you to do it now.


J. D. Pendry  
Semper Fi

The Helpless Majority

The Helpless Majority
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 29, 2006

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that – now that it is upon us – it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush’s administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen’s filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority – 218 – to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army – disciplined, unified and determined – the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail — caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus — hat in hand — to see if one’s bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one’s legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats — the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, “I didn’t even recognize myself.”

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don’t worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel’s, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It’s not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only – to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can’t pass legislation.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

 

E-Mail Ballots for Military Questioned — Democrats set up denial of military vote as usual

 E-Mail Ballots for Military QuestionedThursday, November 02, 2006WASHINGTON — A New Jersey congressman raised questions Thursday about a new military voting program that lets service members request and submit their ballots by fax or e-mail.The Defense Department, however, said the program is as secure as possible, and any risks are detailed for the military members when they access the e-mail system.In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt said the electronic registration and voting service is well-intentioned, but could expose troops to identity theft, or allow hackers or others to tamper with the ballots when they are in transit.“After the Defense Department was stopped from implementing a program like this two years ago because it was full of security holes, I’m angry and astonished that they’re doing it again without review, scrutiny, and oversight,”said Holt.He said that while U.S. military personnel should participate in the political process,”no one is served by introducing possibilities for error, insecurity, and fraud.”Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the Defense Department has set up a secure absentee voter program that will allow military members to request and receive absentee ballots. The new program, she said, lets people vote without relying on the regular mail system.As part of the program, many states allow military members deployed overseas to return their completed ballot via fax or the Internet. Those ballots, Smith said, will not pass through the hands of any government officials until they are received by a local election authority.“The e-mail-to-fax operation does have risks, but we have taken every precaution to limit those risks,”said Smith. She said U.S. service members have been told of the potential privacy concerns with the system, so they can make an informed choice about whether to use the program.___On the Net:Federal Voting Assistance Program:http://www.fvap.gov/Defense Department:http://www.defenselink.mil