Google Custom Search

Saturday, November 11, 2006

MUSIC! The Isaacs Turning Heads in Music Circles

Lily Isaacs was born just after WWII to two Holocaust survivors. As German Jews, however, her parents decided that Europe was not a friendly place, so they immigrated to America. Lily eventually met a bluegrass Gospel musician whom she later married. She then converted to Christianity.

Stunned by their daughter's decision to forsake the religion of her upbringing, Lily's parents disowned her. But she and her husband started a family and raised three children who would later become renowned bluegrass Gospel musicians and singers--Sonya, Becky, and Ben Isaacs.

The children were old enough to begin extensive traveling with their parents in the late 80s and early 90s. Lily, her husband, and the children became known as 'The Isaacs.' The group took Gospel music by storm in 1991 with their Number One single, 'I Know a Father Who Can'--an a-capella number that showcases the Isaacs' immense vocal talent.

Sonya Isaacs is the lead vocalist and mandolin player for the group. Her impressive talent caught the attention of country music execs who tapped her to record a couple of crossover hits that saw chart action on country stations.

But Sonya's talent by no means overshadows that of her siblings. Ben and Becky are each top-notched musicians and singers in their own right. That goes for Lily as well.

The group has been turning heads across several musical genres as they have gained more recognition and popularity. They have appeared on the Grand Ole Opry and their CDs and DVDs are top-sellers. The Isaacs' trademark sound is not only the expertly-crafted instrumentals for which bluegrass is known, but also the Christian lyrics and the close, tight-knit harmonies that one associates with the Gospel genre.

In the late 1990s the Isaacs began appearing with Gospel music icon Bill Gaither on his traveling road show, 'Bill Gaither's Homecoming Friends,' which in 2005 outsold secular concert acts such as Elton John, Rod Stewart, and Faith Hill. The exposure that the Gaither connection brought to the group resulted in instant worldwide recognition. Their CDs and DVDs can be found at outlets such as Walmart and, as well as Christian bookstores around the world.

For more information on this exciting group, visit their website at:

'Gun Owners of America' Analysis of Gun Issues in New Congress

The organization 'Gun Owners of America' has issued a detailed analysis of the prospects of gun control in the new Congress. You may read the full report at:

A few excerpts from the report are provided here.

GOA reports that very few of those who ran and won during the midterm elections had a stated position on 2nd Amendment issues, with notable exceptions such as James Webb of Virginia, who may or may not actually vote for gun rights. However, those who will be in leadership positions in Congress certainly DO have stated positions on gun rights. And this is where the problem begins.

Nancy Pelosi has received a rating of 'F' from the GAO due to her consistent stance against gun owner rights. John Conyers has received a rating of 'F' due to his support of an outright ban of all handguns. Conyers is slated to become the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where he can do significant damage to the rights of citizens.

Other leaders of the Democrat majority that have received an 'F' from the GAO include Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Joe Biden.

All of these will be major power-brokers in the new Congress, and all have a verified history of supporting measures that strip the citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms. A few of these even call for an outright ban of gun shows in addition to their assault on handguns.

As I have been telling you all along, the election of a Democrat majority in Congress is a watershed event that signifies a renewed assault on personal liberties. It is not that I am a big fan of all Republicans. A few of them, such as Lincoln Chafee, were just as bad as the Democrats. However, the loss of the Congress by the Republicans is a tactical nightmare because of the persons who will be in positions of power under Democrat control. The Democrat leadership is in the hip-pocket of anti-gun groups, supporters of expanding the Brady bill, and those revisionists in legal circles who claim a provision in the Bill of Rights is not really a right.

The GAO states that gun owners will now be on the defensive as the Democrat leadership unleashes an avalanche of anti-gun measures that will further erode individual liberties. For the full report, please visit the website of the GAO listed above.

Remembering the Veterans

Today is Veterans Day. We remember and honor those who have served in our nation's military, both living and deceased.

On this day remember to say thanks to a Veteran. If you see a man or a woman in uniform in a restaurant, tell them how much you appreciate them. If you have a Veteran in your family, be sure to give them a hug and tell them how deeply appreciative you are of their service to their country.

And if you know of a deceased Veteran, go to their grave and give them a moment of silence, or offer a prayer of thanks to God for all they meant to our nation. Remember to take a flower or some other symbol of remembrance.

The men and women who serve in our nation's armed forces, both past and present, keep our nation safe and free. Were it not for them tyranny would surely destroy us. We owe to them a great debt.

May we never forget!

The Week In Review--The Nightmare the Midterm Elections Created

Let's recap the events of this past week.

The Democrats took both Houses of Congress, narrowly putting together a one-seat majority in the Senate and a 16 seat majority in the House.

Leftist extremists, however, in this country and around the world have viewed this as a signal that Americans have suddenly become a nation of wild-eyed liberal activists who support the goals of terrorists, who agree with the views of the U.S. Communist Party, who pit one region of the country against another, who want the impeachment of President Bush, who believe that Donald Rumsfeld is somehow accountable to a foreign court in Germany, and who burn flags and ban the Pledge of Allegiance.

Have you ever wondered why they would get such a notion?

Look no further than the activists who have supported putting the Democrats back in power. Check out their statements for yourself. Do the research. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Their statements are there for all the world to see.

Check out Do a thorough research of the background, statements and views of George Soros. Look up the record on what John Conyers, Charles Rangel, and Henry Waxman have been saying over the past six years.

Once you see the record there will be no doubt as to why the rest of the world views this election as a victory for dangerous extremists.

Thus, terrorists are emboldened and dancing in the streets. German courts think they have jurisdiction over American citizens and government officials. College students in California now believe they have allies in Washington in their decision to ban the Pledge of Allegiance. Henry Waxman, the hatchet-man of the congressional Democrat leadership, is contemplating trumping up a scandal, which may include impeachment proceedings against the President, despite the denials of Pelosi and Schumer.

Pelosi and Schumer, however, apparently have not been paying attention to the statements of Waxman, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, and other Democrats who have repeatedly demanded impeachment hearings even before the Democrats gained a majority.

All of these bits and pieces of events and statements during the past week have created a scenario that sends a definite signal to the world. Right or wrong, various and sundry groups around the world view the midterm election as a victory for the goals of Jihadists, for a new world order of globalism where the U.S. Constitution is subservient, and for the views of environmental extremists who ignore scientific evidence and blindly follow the dogma of 'human beings created global warming with the burning of fossil fuels.'

John Murtha even stated in the Press that the Democrat victory for the control of Congress means the President has been stripped of the power of the Executive Branch of Government!

How do such lame-brains who are lacking even an elementary knowledge of the Constitution get elected to office?

In short, we see just how important each election really is. The slightest shift, even by a few seats in Congress, sends a definite message to the world. This time, unfortunately, the forces that wish to destroy the American way of life, the ideals of liberty, and the creation of a higher standard of living through capitalism are viewing this election as a victory for their subversive desire to unleash on American citizens an ideology that will take us several leaps forward toward a global, neo-totalitarian government where individual liberty is non-existent.

Friday, November 10, 2006

California Student Group Bans Pledge of Allegiance

Taking its cues from a ruling by the Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco which declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in 2002, a student group at Orange Coast College in California has banned the reciting of the Pledge at the beginning of its meetings. The student trustees stated that there is no place for 'swearing an oath to the government and the flag' at their meetings.

The newly-elected student trustees ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets, according to Reuters' News Service.

Some of the classmates of the student trustees are up in arms, however. 18-year-old Christine Zoldos, a political science major, showed up at the meeting to recite the Pledge at full voice, in open defiance of the decision. She stated that she would attend each and every meeting in order to recite the Pledge and honor the flag.

One of the student leaders who voted for the ban is Jason Bell, who said that because he is an atheist and a socialist, the Pledge is offensive to him.

Apparently he is now in very good company in America. With the U.S. Representative of the San Francisco district--the same district of the Federal Appeals Court that issued the ban on the Pledge in 2002--slated to become Speaker of the House, and with Henry Waxman hinting at impeachment proceedings against President Bush, and with a German court bringing criminal charges against Donald Rumsfeld, much to the delight of his Democrat detractors, it would seem that a student group of America-bashers is merely one more indication of the direction in which we are now headed.

Heaven help us...


The German Flag

Germany is presently looking into bringing criminal charges against Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials over allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantanimo Bay. Clearly this move is a direct result of the continuing fallout of the midterm elections that sent rabid anti-war extremists to power in Congress.

German law gives their courts 'universal jurisdiction' when prosecuting certain individuals for certain crimes. A former U.S. Brigadier General, Janis Karpinski, is said to be cooperating with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit in Germany.

Germany attempted to bring charges against Rumsfeld once before in 2004 but dropped the charges under threats from Rumsfeld to snub a summit held in Germany. The German court dropped the suit stating that it appeared U.S. courts would prosecute the Defense Secretary. Now that Rumsfeld is no longer a government official, and now that leftwing extremists all over the world have a sympathetic ear in Congress, Germany obviously felt it could proceed with the charges since the U.S. courts failed to do so.

So, it now comes to this. U.S. Courts are obligated to do the bidding of a foreign court in Europe, the result of the growing trend toward a new world order under the control of the United Nations and the European Union. And if our courts fail to do their bidding, they then bring charges against U.S. government officials.

The move casts a dire dark cloud over the horizon. If a German court can do this, then no U.S. serviceman is safe from the threat of international prosecution.

Germany, like the rest of Western Europe, is gradually sinking into the abyss of Muslim Jihadist uprisings, the result of the refusal of European governments to directly challenge the tenets of Islamic extremists in the name of 'multiculturalism' Rather, Germany would prefer to go after U.S. government officials than deal with the growing problem of Jihadists that are on the march throughout Europe. In fact, this move shows that the German government is now solidly under the influence of the Jihadist mindset. To prosecute Rumsfeld will be viewed as a victory for Muslim extremists, just as the Democrat rise to power in Congress has Jihadist insurgents dancing in the streets throughout the Middle East.

So now we have reached the precarious situation where Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, North Korea, the U.S. Communist Party, and Germany stand together as comrades at arms.

The question is, what will our new fearless leaders in Congress who are at least partially responsible for the fact that we have reached this dreadful state of affairs say about all this?

Don't be too shocked if you hear at least a few say that President Bush and the entire Administration should be hauled in before the International Criminal Court to face charges. After all, Bill Clinton and the Democrats were pushing for the U.S. to join the ICC before the election of Bush.

Barbara Boxer Whistles Off on Global Warming

Like a nightmare out of a George Orwell novel, the prospect of a Democrat-controlled Congress is shaping up to be all we feared it would be--and worse. One by one the Democrats are rolling out their heavy-hitters who have drawn lines in the sand over the past 24 hours. From Murtha to Rangel, and now, Barbara Boxer, they give us a not-so-small glimpse into the train-wreck they intend to create in the country.

This time it is Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., who takes center stage. Like a teapot sending its narrow funnel of steam into the air, Boxer has whistled off on global warming, making it clear that she, like Al Gore, ignores the evidence of science and buys into the notion that planetary warming has nothing to do with the sun or natural shifts but is entirely the work of evil human beings.

People like Boxer and Gore believe that global warming has one singular cause--mankind and his use of fossil fuels. Nevermind that the end of the last Ice Age, which was precipitated by 'global warming,' occurred thousands of years before one drop of crude was extracted from the ground. Yet these guardians of the evil and mindless masses of humanity must burst forth to save the day, to redeem mankind from himself.

Let's take a brief look at what their efforts have produced thus far. California has always been at the forefront of fads of various kinds, including political ones. The fashionable view among the Liberal bastions is that the use of fossil fuels is always bad, despite the fact that the Leftist politicians and Hollywood stars who spout such nonsense drive around in gas-guzzling vehicles that dwarf the average consumption of most Americans.

It's like their view of guns. They want confiscation. But that applies to everyone but them. We can never forget the fact that Rosie O'Donald's body-guard packs heat in spite of the fact that his employer claims she wants all gun owners jailed.

So why is Rosie's bodyguard not in jail? The hypocrite.

The Left's vendetta against oil consumption and nuclear energy has led to dire consequences in California in particular. Environmentalist extremists have succeeded in banning any construction of new refineries. In fact, there hasn't been a single new refinery built in the entire nation in 30 years. This is in spite of the fact that Americans began buying and driving monster SUVs that guzzle gas during the eight years of the Clinton administration.

We Americans sure love our gas-guzzlers as long as we pretend not to remember what fuels them. And let's just pretend that with exploding consumption we don't need to develop more oil resources to fuel our addiction.

Denial is such bliss.

The policy of no new refineries, no development of nuclear energy sources, and the like led to massive rolling blackouts in California several years ago. The only way the state can supply its exploding energy requirements is to get it from other states and the federal government.

With people like Boxer in power, the environmentalist extremists will rise to a place of prominence, further thwarting any rational attempt to address the nation's energy needs. To develop alternative sources of energy is a good thing. Nobody is suggesting that we should not develop, produce, and market hydrogen-based products, bio-diesel, and the like. But we are not in a position to supply the nation's energy requirements with this alone. Until we get there we must continue to build refineries and explore and drill for oil. Nuclear energy must continue to be developed. With modern advancements in technology this could well be a highly acceptable source of clean energy, despite the objections from environmental extremists.

With Democrats such as Boxer firmly in control, however, it is doubtful that we will see any significant progression toward a rational energy policy. Instead, she and her ilk will be content with scaring the public about global warming and sending them on a guilt trip for driving automobiles.

This, of course, will be done as Boxer, Streisand, and others on the Leftist fringe drive off in their monster SUVs that the general public isn't supposed to have.


It has become the standard tactic of the Left, Democrats in particular, to make anyone in their ranks who served in Viet Nam the ultimate authority on war. This is in spite of the fact that the Left hated our involvement in Viet Nam and succeeded in turning public opinion against the troops.

I remember those days very well. I remember service men and woman being spat upon by citizens back home when these brave soldiers returned from their tour of duty. Insults were hurled their way by long-haired, nasty, and smelly freaks who called them 'baby killers' and the like. These people voted with Democrats and supported people like George McGovern, who, by the way, has been tapped by the new Congress to give them 'counsel on how to conduct the war in Iraq.'

Remember that it was George McGovern who stated during his Presidential campaign against Richard Nixon in 1972, 'I would go to Hanoi and get down on my hands and knees and beg the North Vietnamese to release our prisoners if elected.'

John Murtha is one of the ones the Democrats love to roll out before the public in order to blast the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq. No one is supposed to question his views, however, because 'he served in Viet Nam.' It was the very same mantra that was meant to shield John Kerry from criticism on his views on Iraq, i.e., 'But, Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam.'

This is no guarantee, however, that a person possesses intelligence or rational insight. People of all stripes fight in wars, from geniuses to imbeciles. One wonders which category Murtha fits into when one takes a look at some of his statements.

Murtha, when speaking about our strategy in Iraq, stated, 'Winning is not a strategy. Victory is not a strategy.'

In addition, this is what Murtha said when the Democrats won control of Congress:

'Listen, this is not a dictatorship. The President can say all he wants to. The President has, has no power. The President is a, a perception of power. And heÂ’s lost that power in this election.'

Apparently Murtha has never bothered to read that much-ignored document called the U. S. Constitution, or if he did, he did not comprehend. The Executive Branch has equal power to the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch no matter who wins in midterm elections.

This is the kind of rhetoric that is very dangerous because there are people in the electorate who will believe Murtha without checking into the facts. With the dumbing down of our educational system many of our citizens have no clue as to what is contained in the Constitution, and frankly, they don't care. They have been brainwashed by the Left, by judicial activists, and by demagogues like John Murtha to believe that the Constitution is only a part of history, that it has no real power today, and that the rule of law in this country is only what Judges say it is.

Therefore, who cares that the Constitution has created a careful balance of power between the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court? The Democrats picked up seats in the midterm elections, after all. This means that the President has been stripped of all of his Constitutional power, according to Murtha.

If Americans accept statements such as this without question, then we are in more trouble than I thought as a nation.

Murtha has indicated he will run for Majority Leader of the House. I think it is wonderful and I hope he wins. This will mean that his alarming lack of comprehension of basic Constitutional principles will be on full display for the next two years. The American people need to become aware of the astounding ignorance exhibited by our new leaders in Congress.


Charles Rangel, D-NY, has started a firestorm of controversy over remarks he made about the state of Mississippi. The New York Democrat, who is set to become a very powerful man in the new Congress, said to the media, 'Who wants to live in Mississippi?' when answering questions about appropriations.

Is this what we can expect from the Democrat leadership now that they have duped the voters and hoisted themselves back into power?

The inflammatory words produced a sharp, quick response from U.S. Congressman Chip Pickering, R-Miss., who said, 'I hope his remarks are not the kind of insults, slander and defamation that Mississippians will come to expect from the Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C.'

Elbert Garcia, a Rangel spokesman in New York, sent The Associated Press a response from Rangel: "I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. I just love New York so much that I can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to live here."

Yeah, right. Imagine if Trent Lott had made similar statements to the Press about New York.

The original Rangel insult appeared in an article in the New York Times about the new political clout gained by Rangel since the Democrats took over Congress. Rangel is in line to become Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Feeling his oats over his newfound power, Rangel told the Times he wants more federal money to go to New York. But apparently to Rangel's way in thinking, this means that he must pit one region of the country against another, since his critical remarks were made in the context of criticism about the amount of federal money that goes to Mississippi.

To most people who live in the South, however, the statement is just one more example of the elitist Northeastern snobbery that is so often directed toward the region.

The attitude of many in New England toward the South is one of 'northeastern supremacy.' By no means is this elitist snobbery unanimous. There are probably more people living here who clearly do NOT exhibit the veiled disdain for the South that one finds among people like Rangel, Kerry, and Kennedy. But many certainly ARE Northeastern Liberal Elitists, and some of them are set to become very powerful in the new Congress.

Rangel heads the list.

The Rumsfeld Departure

It was probably necessary for Donald Rumsfeld to go. As a true American patriot, emboldened by the attempt to stop Islamic Jihadists on their own turf, Rumsfeld was viewed as a polarizing figure with a single-minded determination rarely seen in American politics today. The realm of politics is not usually kind to patriots with convictions, values, goals, determination, and grit.

Thus, a person who became the focal point of much of the negative rhetoric about the war was increasingly viewed as a liability, not to mention the fact that our present crisis of control over the insurgents gave rise to the perception that it was time for new leadership.

Some pundits have suggested that Bush made a gross miscalculation in not replacing Rumsfeld in August or September so that it would help Republican prospects of retaining Congress. Bill O'Reilly is one of the leading critics of the timing of Rumsfeld's departure.

I am not going to speculate on such musings for the simple reason that decisions like this during wartime should not be made for political gain. The timing is not an issue.

The real issue is who is replacing Rumsfeld and the circumstances that led to this person's choice as Secretary of Defense.

Gates has served several Administrations and is a close confidante of Bush the elder. He is also part of the inner circle that includes James Baker, who is heading the Iraq Study Group that is charged with the task of making recommendations to the President on how to bring the war to an acceptable conclusion. Baker is purely a pragmatist who may well make recommendations that are designed to save the President's political hide rather than to do the right thing.

I have been suspicious of Baker going all the way back to the Reagan Presidency, when Baker's loyalty to the 'Reagan Revolution' was questioned. In addition, Baker's role in the Administration of Bush the elder is suspect, given the fact that it was their tactical error in failing to depose Saddam during the first Gulf War that led to the present problem in the region. Baker wants to emphasize diplomacy, advocating for the inclusion of Iran of all places in such talks.

The mere suggestion that Iran should be included in diplomatic efforts to bring the war to an end makes the entire enterprise of the Iraq Study Group suspect. It is for this reason that Gates is a questionable choice for Secretary of Defense. We are facing global Jihad. I do not see any willingness of this study group to truly take seriously the threat posed by the Jihadists.

Therefore, I am highly skeptical of the entire scenario. Only time will tell if my suspicions are given credence.

At this point, I can only say that Americans owe a great debt to Mr. Rumsfeld for his admirable service to his country. Here's one who hates to see him go.

What To Expect From the New Congress

In spite of all the conciliatory talk between the White House and the new Congressional leadership, don't expect this upcoming Congressional session to be a game of 'let's play nice in the sandbox.' The Democrats today fired the first shot across the bow by issuing nothing less than a 'warning.' First they warned the White House not to send up judicial nominees that may revisit Roe v. Wade. Naturally they couched this warning in carefully-chosen inflammatory words, never mentioning Roe v. Wade specifically but warning the President not to send them 'extremist nominees' for the Court. Second, the Democrats sent a not-so-subtle reminder to Republicans that they run the show now in Congress.

In other words, if I may paraphrase this warning, taking out the spin, they said, in effect, 'Sure, Mr. President, we will work with you cooperatively, provided you do it our way.'

So much for conciliation and bipartisanship. It took the Democrats all of 48 hours to show the country that all their election night talk about 'reaching across the aisle' was nothing more than talk. Today they showed us their real intentions.

The Democrat-controlled Congress will block any nominee to the Supreme Court that adheres strictly to the U.S. Constitution. 'Strict constructionists' who show serious respect for and adherence to the principles of Constitutional law as the Founding Fathers intended will be 'Borked.' To merely hint that there is no Constitutional guarantee for the right of a woman to have an abortion will be viewed as judicial blasphemy. The next step is the excommunication of any judicial nominee who dares challenge the hallowed dogma of the religion of the Left--a woman's right to an abortion under practically any circumstance. The only thing missing from such an excommunication that separates the modern Left from the medieval Crusaders is that there is no actual burning at the least not literally.

Don't be surprised if the new Congress also unleashes a new assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as well.

Judges are supposed to be the ecclesiastical guardians and enforcers of Leftist dogma. If the Constitution is silent regarding some of precepts of this dogma, then the Judges are supposed to either make it up and insert it by judicial fiat, or 'command' the legislative branch to do so.

Let's not forget that in our system of government the judiciary has no more power than the executive branch or the legislative branch. Due to the inroads the Left has made in this country over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has come to be seen as the final great authority in the land, forgetting that each of the three branches of government are EQUAL in authority and power, and possessing a system of checks and balances on the other two.

In addition, the 'warning' from the Democrats that they are the ones in control is meant to send a signal. They have a full agenda that goes far beyond blocking good Judges from the Supreme Court or micro-managing the war in Iraq. We can expect taxes to go up. That is a given. Democrats have always hated the Bush tax cuts, and they have promised to end them. This, along with other tax hikes they plan to unleash will mean the average American family will pay roughly an extra $1200 per year to the government. They will also raise the minimum wage, which will force businesses, especially small, family-run enterprises, to cut jobs. This, of course, they will blame on Bush when the unemployment rate goes up. They are going to attempt to garner and solidify government power in the country's healthcare system. Since Hillary's failed socialized medicine plan in the early 90s cost the Democrats dearly in public opinion, the Party has walked gingerly around this issue, choosing not to mount a frontal assault on the present system but gradually increasing government oversight and control.

All of this, among other things, will be topped off by an attempt to pass measures that will prevent citizens from having control over their Social Security investment. Democrats have always hated the notion that the citizens who pay this money into the plan should have the ultimate control over how they want those funds invested. They do not trust the citizens to make these decisions, and thus, they must make it for us. Big Brother has never trusted the intelligence or wisdom of the underlings in the citizenry. Big Brother has to force us to do what's best for us since we are too stupid to control our own destiny.

We can also expect this Congress to produce a scandal to put in the news during the last two years of the Bush presidency so that they can enter the 2008 Presidential campaign with the charge of 'corruption' against the Republicans. Such a manufactured scandal will be complete with investigations, hearings, charges, accusations, etc, etc.--all in the attempt to cause voters to link the words 'sleaze' and 'Republican.'

Who knows, we just might have a few scandals to scare up ourselves. Let's start with Harry Reid, for example, who has yet to explain how illegal campaign contributions wound up in his coffers, all while he was blasting the Republican leadership over supposed corruption. Merely stating that he will 'give the money back' is not enough. That should have been done before he was caught with it.

Since the Democrats decided to take the first shot across the bow a mere 48 hours after the kind and gentle talk of making nice on election day, I decided I would fire one back at them. In other words, we are ready. We will meet them head-on on each and every issue, eyeball to eyeball, toe to toe.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Muslim First Step Toward Bringing Jihad to U.S. Soil

Don't dismiss the potential looming danger that Tuesday's Democrat sweep of Congress signifies. It would be all too easy to point only to the conservative Democrats who won. But make no mistake, the Party is still home to some of the most dangerous, and even subversive, human beings in America today.

And they are starting to make inroads into the U.S. political system.

Pamela Gellar Oshry over at Atlas Shrugs has posted some disturbing information today that should cause Americans to shiver. Extremists Muslims have now taken the first step toward gaining a foothold not only in American politics but the American judiciary!

The state of Minnesota has elected an extremist Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives. Keith Ellison (D-MN) received the endorsement of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which avidly defends Osama bin Laden and his organization of terrorists. The group forced the City of Los Angeles to remove a billboard that referred to bin Laden as our sworn enemy, because, according to the group, it is 'offensive to Muslims.' Ellison also has ties to Louis Farrakan's Nation of Islam. As if this were not enough, Ellison has supported and defended cop killers, one of whom is the infamous Assata Shakir, who now resides in Cuba. Shakir remains on the FBI's most wanted list.

Not only did Democrats succeed in placing into office a militant Muslim extremist, but they pulled off a double-whammy by getting elected to the judiciary an extremist Muslim and Hezbollah supporter by the name of David Turfe. Turfe was elected Michigan District Court Judge in the Dearborn Heights' 20th District.

The following is the shocking revelation about Turfe as described by Pamela Gellar Oshry:

'Dearborn Heights is home to North America's second largest mosque, headed by the former spiritual leader of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Navy, Imam Mohammed Elahi--a domestic agent of Iran & Hezbollah.

Remember the Hezbollah rally I attended at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center a/k/a the Hezbollah Social Club, at the height of the war between Hezbollah and Israel--where speakers made a plethora of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian speeches? Turfe was there campaigning, and openly supporting and cheering all of those statements. Not surprisingly, the Pro-Hezbollah/pro-HAMAS, Islamist Arab American PAC, which denies Israel's right to exist, endorsed Turfe. (AAPAC's then-Secretary Lola Elzein sent me and my family death, torture, and rape threats, coupled with Holocaust denial.)'

Thanks, Pamela, for providing us with this most enlightening and shocking information!

And thus, my friends, the Democrats have placed into office two of the most dangerous and subversive individuals that could ever make their way into America's political and judicial system. Turfe and Ellison represent the push by Muslim extremists to infiltrate the U.S. branches of government, and they have used the Democrat party to do it.

Remember, the present growing Jihad in Western Europe started out as a small ripple years ago with the gradual immigration of Muslims into those countries. Little by little they made their way into sectors of society, until today they are spearheading massive acts of violence against police, paramedics, fire-fighters, and other citizens of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

If Americans are willing to elect such persons to public office, including a District Judge, then we are in grave danger of being destroyed from within by Muslim extremists who have every intention of dismantling our way of life and our form of government.

So far, there are only a few lone voices crying in the wilderness, such as myself, Pamela, Bill Levinson, and a few others. Our voices, unfortunately, are going largely unheeded. But remember, we have issued the warning. There is big trouble on the horizon for our nation. If you are reading this article and others like it, then you cannot say you were not informed.

But being informed is only the beginning. We must ACT. ACT to stop the growing threat of the Islamic Jihad by resisting any and all efforts to place persons with any connection to that movement in public office.

If you elect an Islamic extremist to public office, that person may well be one of the very ones who carry out the next terrorist attack on our country.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Now that the Republicans appear to have lost not only the House but the Senate, the question becomes for those of us who deplore the Democrat Party record on taxes, weakened defense, the gun rights of citizens, and their basic ideology of expanding big government, where do we go from here? What's next?

First, we must never give up fighting for what we know is the truth about what this nation has stood for ever since our Founding. The vision of the Founding Fathers is still relevant today. Human liberty is the highest ideal to which a human being can aspire, and the forces of tyranny constantly attempt to either prevent liberty from expanding or to take away the liberties we have already gained. Diligence is never a finished job. If we take even one brief break from the diligent protection of our rights, big government and those who march in its oppressive army will seize yet one more liberty while we are not looking.

Second, we have allies in this fight in strange places. Most of the Democrats elected to office yesterday are clearly NOT in the ideological camp of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. These are staunch conservatives who believe in small government, strong defense, fighting war to win, lowering taxes, and in some cases, prayer in schools and limiting abortions. Libertarians and Republicans who hold to the age-old Jeffersonian conviction of small government can forge strong alliances with this new breed of Democrat. I can see a resurgence of what used to be called 'the Scoop Jackson wing of the Party,' named after the famed Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson who was one of the more conservative members of Congress. The Party leadership has managed to marginalize and nearly kill that wing of the Party over the last 25 years. Perhaps the grassroots are rising up to demand that the Party retreat from its fast track to socialism and pacifism.

Third, we who consider ourselves American patriots in the fight against global jihad can mount a massive offensive against this scourge of humanity. Muslim extremists, i.e. Jihadists, are on the march. Europe is increasingly a daily battleground as the Jihadists set cities ablaze. If we do not stop this insidious movement in its tracks NOW, then we too will be fighting the punks in our major cities.

The question is, do we want urban warfare in Manhattan? D.C.? Los Angeles? Houston? Miami? Chicago? It is better to fight this global war in a contained area overseas than to let it spread to our shores. Believe me, if it is happening in Paris and Amsterdam, then the time is coming when it will be happening here. This is due to the fact that America is inflicted with the same disease that has now nearly strangled Western Europe, and that is the politically correct movement that prevents rational people from identifying, profiling, targeting, and incarcerating individuals of the Muslim faith from Northern Africa and the Middle East who wish to convert us or kill us. Their vision of society is oppressive, violent, and dangerous. We must never allow people of this kind to so infiltrate society that we are essentially impotent to stop their madness from advancing. France is a perfect case in point.

Multiculturalism as an ideal has to go. The sooner we bury it the better. It is time we recognized that some cultures ARE superior to others. A culture that promotes and glorifies suicide missions that use babies, children, and young men to blow up groups of people is far inferior to other cultures that value human life and liberty. It is quite as simple as that.

And until we as Americans can state forthrightly with pride that our culture is far superior to theirs, then we will continue in our path down into the abyss that leads to world war on a scale we have never witnessed. We must stand up to the Jihadists and say, 'Not only are you wrong, but your views are sick, and your culture is inferior to ours. It is time you grew into some semblance of civility and leave your bloodthirsty savagery behind.'

Do Americans still have the guts to hold to this kind of blatant truth? Or are we too far gone, like France?

Eating Crow

I admit when I am wrong. And I was wrong about the close races in Virginia and Montana. It appears that Republicans have lost their Senate seats in both states, giving the Democrats a one-seat majority. I was right, however, about Corker in Tennessee.

As it turns out Barron's Online was wrong in their predictions about election for the first time in many years. This of course meant that I, too, was wrong since I based my hunches on the usually sound work of Barron's. My hunch is that scandal and the war skewed the projections. For some reason the voters chose not to base their votes on the strong economy as they have in the past. This is probably due to the success of the Democrats in whipping up the voters into a hostile frenzy about the war--all directed at George W. Bush. And, it just so happens that this year the majority of the ones who decided to vote were the angriest. Hostile voters rarely make rational decisions.

We will have to live with the consequences of these poor choices for the next two years.

In spite of the times I was wrong, I did turn out to be right about one thing--polls. Generally speaking the pollsters did predict some Democrat gains, but very few predicted a complete sweep of both the House and the Senate. Actually, the pollsters and pundits were all over the board, predicting anything from minimal gains in the House all the way to a 50 seat gain in the House and a 10 seat gain in the Senate.

Based upon my informal conversation with some voters in a restaurant recently, I still think there is a significant segment of the electorate that feeds bogus information to pollsters.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Look Who's Cheering the Democrat Majority

Interesting. Very, very interesting. It never ceases to amaze me as to the allies of the Democrat party that come crawling out of the woodwork at critical times. Such is the case today, the day after the big change-over of Congress.

Hugo Chavez, that great statesmen and guardian of human rights and liberties, hailed the Demos' win but saved his most inspiring words for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Hugo stated, 'The resignation of Rumsfeld is further evidence that American government is disintegrating.' Chavez, of course, referred to President Bush as 'the Devil' in a speech before the United Nations.

The U.S. Communist Party is celebrating the Democrat win, since they have stated repeatedly that the Party's goals are similar to theirs.

Middle Eastern terrorists, most of whom are Islamic Jihadists, are dancing in the streets as they contemplate the prospects of a Party coming to power in Congress that falls right into their desire that we retreat from our resistance to their openly stated push for world domination. Nothing will embolden terrorists any more than to adopt a policy of appeasement toward those who will not stop until they see the West smoldering in a pile of rubble.

If left unchecked, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Feinstein, Boxer, Reed, and company will help them get closer to realizing their dream.

Your New Speaker of the House

The Americans who bothered to vote have spoken. Nancy Pelosi, one of the most liberal members of Congress, representing the San Francisco district, will be the new Speaker of the House.

When I say that this is due to the Americans who bothered to vote, I choose my words very carefully. Surprisingly, Karl Rove's drive to get out the vote failed. Other than in rare instances such as Virginia and Ohio, voters stayed home for the most part. Despite predictions of a large voter turnout, only about 40% of registered voters went to the polls, putting this election on par with most other midterm elections.

Thus, the common mantra, 'The American people have spoken,' is not quite true.

Be that as it may, those who bothered to vote chose candidates on the basis of very faulty logic, not the least of which is punishment for scandal, as if the Republicans are the only ones who have been soiled. Iraq loomed large in voters' minds as they bought into the empty rhetoric of 'a change of course,' although Democrats have never really offered an alternative plan other than to vilify Bush for the present plan.

Now the Democrats are in position to reap the consequences of the voters' ire over Iraq, fairly or unfairly. Clearly the Demos will not withdraw and leave the entire area at the mercy of individuals who could conceivably blow up the entire world. What, then, are they going to do about it, given that they have raised the expectations to an unreasonable level and have thus set the bar very high?

Pelosi is not in an enviable position in her new role. Not only has she carved out for herself a dismal record on issues, but she has been one of the most harsh, shrill, and vitriolic critics of President Bush, referring to him as incompetent and dangerous. This does not bode well for her supposed desire to 'work with the President in a bi-partisan fashion.' Nancy Pelosi has never worked in a bi-partisan fashion. There is absolutely no reason to believe she will start now. Yet she and her Party's reputations are on the line when it comes to Iraq for the mere reason they ran on the issue, and now they must deliver. This will be a highly difficult prospect.

The Democrats are a very divided Party all of a sudden. At least two dozen of their candidates ran as conservatives and won. These new Democrats will hardly stand by for Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Reed, Feinstein, Boxer, and Dodd to unleash on the citizens their ultra leftwing agenda. They are also smart enough to know that to 'cut and run' in Iraq, as most of the Demos' leadership and core base wants to do, will only set up the entire Middle East as a bastion of nuclear-armed terrorists who will hold the world hostage.

Thus, not only will Pelosi face discontent and disarray within her own Party, but she will have great difficulty reaching out to Bush and company in light of her personal attacks on the President. The President could even forge an alliance between the new conservative Democrats and the Republicans to form a 'new majority' that will thwart each and every measure that Pelosi and her ilk attempt to unleash on the citizens.

Such a new majority--Republicans and conservative Democrats--could potentially be an even more powerful force in Congress than the Republican majority. And with Joe Lieberman in a perfect position to mentor the new independently minded Democrats, Pelosi and company may well find themselves in more of a diminished position now than ever before.

All the talk about the Demos being 'ready to govern' may sound nice in a victory speech on Election Day, but the truth of the matter is the Democrats are going to have a very hard time over the next two years.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

My Predictions in Close Races

The networks claim that three key races are too close to call. However, I will go out on the limb and make some predictions.

Senator Allen leads James Webb in Virginia, and I predict he will hold onto that lead.

Corker will win over Ford in Tennessee.

Tallant will win over McCaskill in Missouri, as early results show him pulling ahead.

These wins for the Republican will make it virtually impossible for Democrats to take control of the Senate.


Great news here in Connecticut tonight. Senator Joe Lieberman has won big over his Democrat challenger Ned Lamont. Despite the overt attempt of the media and the Democrats to make this a referendum on President Bush and Iraq, the one Democrat in the nation that has been the President's closet ally on national security and the war on terror has won big.

Some say Lieberman is merely another Democrat in spite of his running as an Independent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats snubbed Lieberman and worked for his defeat. He is in no way obligated to them at all.

Lieberman's independence has been a campaign slogan for the Senator. So has his history of voting his conscience in defiance of Democrat party bosses.

The Senator's victory tonight is a refreshing bright spot in the election results.

We Have Just Begun To Fight

Well, my friends, this is it...Election night. It's exciting, isn't it?

I have noticed the dire predictions all day long about the pending change in Congress. Yet the votes are still being counting. 'It ain't over till it's over,' as Yankee great Yogi Berra used to say.

No doubt there will be some surprises this evening, on both sides. Some predict a Democrat controlled House based upon exit polling data. But remember, increasingly these polls are wrong because Americans are rebelling against their use!

So what if we wake up in the morning to a Democrat controlled House? Or both the House and Senate? We have only just begun to fight. We will never raise the white flag of surrender to forces in this country who have aligned themselves with our nation's enemies. Nancy Pelosi will do nothing but embolden American patriots who value liberty!

But hang on. The battle is not over. We know the truth is on our side regardless of media-produced false issues fueled by the likes of George Soros and

So stay tuned. This website is connected to a network of citizen soldiers who are committed to truth and libery. Check back for regular updates!

Monday, November 06, 2006

Before You Vote You MUST See United 93 (NEW UPDATES FOR MONDAY 2 PM EST)

**VOTER ALERT! U.S. Communist Party endorses Democrats
**The DEAD are voting in New York State! A special investigation by the Poughkeepsie Journal
**How the electorate has figured out how to dupe political pollsters
**Saddam's death sentence condemned by the 'PC' police
**Pelosi resurfaces after days of hiding
**Buckley and Lieberman, and the George Soros scheme to elect Lamont
**How the U.S. Supreme Court is the main battle front in this election!
** racist hate-speech
**How President Reagan's assessment of Viet Nam speaks to the present War in Iraq
**Democrats 'no comment' on terrorist endorsements
**Overseas terrorists endorse Democrats for Congress!
**The shocking report from California on Democrat candidates and the 2nd Amendment
**How the New York Times sold out to Anti-Jewish groups

The film 'United 93,' which details the bravery of the Americans who were aboard the ill-fated airliner that was headed for the White House on September 11, 2001, is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it is excruciatingly draining. Yet it is a MUST-see for all Americans, especially before Election Day next Tuesday.

As a living testament to the men and women aboard that plane who were willing to die before allowing the aircraft to crash into our nation's capital, the film is stark. One passenger, Todd Beamer, after telling his wife on his cell phone that he loved her, whispered to his fellow patriots, 'Let's roll,' just before they stormed the hijackers, burst through the door to the cockpit, and attempted to wrest control of the plane from the hijacker pilot before the aircraft plowed into the Pennsylvania countryside.

The four hijackers, all young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent, stabbed one passenger in the neck with a long knife before butchering the pilot, the co-pilot, and a stewardess. As the events unfolded the passengers became aware through their phone contacts that the Twin Towers had been hit and that another plane had crashed into the Pentagon. They each tearfully bid their loved ones goodbye.

My reason for highlighting this film now, at this point in time, is very simple. Americans have either a short memory or a bad case of denial. A mere five years after that horrific day many of us have forgotten why we were attacked, who did it, and the task that is before us. Some of us conveniently allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep by politicians who are so brain-damaged by the 'politically correct' movement that they refer to terrorism as merely a 'law enforcement issue' rather than a war.

The attackers and the masterminds behind them had already declared war on America. It is called 'Jihad' or 'Holy War.' In the name of Allah and while mindlessly repeating Islamic gibberish these blood-thirsty barbarians proceeded to take 3000 American lives and blow to smithereens the hopes and dreams of their families in one single morning.

So when the mainstream media hits us with the total count of American soldiers killed in Iraq, remember it has taken us five years to get there. The Jihadists mangled 3000 Americans in one day.

As election day approaches, Americans need to remember what happened. We need to watch 'United 93' before voting. The mantra of 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11' is like saying Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. That entire area of the world is infested with the barbarism of the Islamic Jihadists, from Afghanistan to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, to Lebanon, to Saudi Arabia and beyond. Iran has nuclear weapons that they demonstrated could reach Israel, and they are financing and fueling the Islamic insurgency in Iraq.

The naive and cowardly statements and views of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Conyers, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and many more are totally unacceptable. It is no accident that the Jihadists want a Democrat-controlled Congress.

As a matter of fact, any American who is worth his salt will hang his head in shame for even THINKING about voting for these befuddled clowns.

Am I angry? You bet I am. This nation is involved in a war that will determine the future of civilization and western culture. When I hear the cowardly, putrid rhetoric coming from the Democrat leadership concerning the dangers we face, I want to ask them, 'Who's side are you on, anyway?'

Yes, I question their patriotism. They want us to lose. Our politically-motivated, yellow-bellied defeat in Viet Nam was not enough. They want us humiliated all over. It is interesting that some of the very same players that figured into our loss in that war are now the major players in the Democrat Party who, once again, believe that the only option for America is to play the role of the weakling.

Thus, when you are ready to vote next Tuesday, before pulling that lever or marking that box beside a candidate's name, quietly ask that candidate in your mind's eye, 'Just who's side are you on anyway? Are you one of the ones the Islamic Jihadists want to win? Or are you a true American patriot?'

We owe it to the men and women who lost their lives on United Flight 93 and the other aircraft, as well as those who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, to vote for those who have made it clear that nothing less than a decisive victory over Muslim Jihadists is acceptable.

U.S. Communist Party Calls for Democrat Sweep

As I have been reporting to you on The Liberty Sphere, the terrorists overseas are not the only ones who are hoping for a major win for the Democrats tomorrow. We can add the U.S. Communist Party to that list.

The Communists view the Democrats as philosophical and political allies whose goals and objectives for the country are similar.

But don't take my word for it. You can visit their website and see for yourself. At the following URL address you will find the website for the U.S. Communists. In great detail they have delineated their reasoning for their support for Democrats.

Before you vote, get informed. It is vitally important that Americans know who they are crawling into bed with when they pull that lever for Democrats in the voting booth.

Here is the Communist website with their endorsement of Democrats--

Smarter Than They Think--How the Electorate Dupes Pollsters

A Pew poll released over the weekend shows a significant last-minute tightening of the race for the control of Congress, with Republicans making significant gains in the past few days. The results provoked one House Democrat to muse, 'It is making me nervous.'

The fact is that pollsters have been regularly shown to be in error over the past 3 elections. Pollsters miscalculated the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, and the 2002 midterm Congressional elections. The 2002 races proved to be the most problematic of all for most pollsters, who predicted gains in both the House and Senate for the Democrats. The opposite turned out to be true.

A pattern is definitely developing among the electorate. They have wised up. Fed up with the practice of pundits, pollsters, and network news talking heads projecting winners based upon 'exit polls,' the voters have begun giving false information to those conducting the polls.

In short, voters who believe in the privacy of the individual ballot and the in the citizens having the last word after the votes are counted has led to the deliberate and calculated misleading of pollsters by the public. Yes, they lie about who they voted for.

This was brought home to me several weeks ago when I was having lunch with several colleagues. As we sat in an open area where conversation could occur with other customers from every conceivable walk of life, more than one admitted to having lied to a pollster. Either by phone or during an exit poll these persons admitted to withholding the truth about the nature of their votes.

When pressed as to the motivation, the reasons were similar. 'I am sick and tired of them calling an election before the polls close. What better way to stop it than to make them look like a bunch of asses?' 'It is none of their business who I voted for. If they are dumb enough to ask, then they are dumb enough to believe a lie.'

My favorite answer was this one--'I want them all fooled. They think they know so much. So I figure I can shoot them a bunch of crap, and if enough others do it, then they think the election is going one way when it is actually going another, the suckers!'

There you have it. Who said that people in the heartland are clueless? Believe me, they know the score. They have figured out how to dupe the Press.

I must admit I am impressed. Leave it to American ingenuity.

The Dead Are Voting in New York

Poughkeepsie. The Poughkeepsie Journal, one of the leading newspapers of the Hudson Valley, is reporting that its investigation of New York States' registered voters found that over 77,000 deceased persons are still on voter registries. Of these, 2,600 have cast ballots!

That's not all. Most of these votes from the dead came from Manhattan and the surrounding area of NYC. Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the dead voters 4-to-1.

This is not the first time such shenanigans have surfaced. Going all the way back to the 1960 Presidential election between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, it was discovered that fraudulent votes cast in Illinois, particularly in the area around Chicago where the political machine of Mayor Daley held sway, could have effected the outcome of the Presidential race. In that election it was discovered that ballots were cast by persons who were confirmed dead.

The fact that this was one of the closest elections in history means that a few thousand fraudulent votes scattered about could have tipped the election one way or the other. In this case it was tipped in favor of Kennedy.

Despite all the rhetoric about Republicans stealing elections in Florida and Ohio, the Democrats have a long history of sleaze when it comes to voter fraud. Reports of persons using the names of dead persons to vote more than once, the practice of registering convicted felons and illegal aliens, and other such subversive activity all point to dirty hands on the part of those who wish to cast the blame upon Republicans.

New York is the latest example.

How many fraudulent ballots will be cast in New York City tomorrow?

This in addition to the stolen smart cards in Memphis, home to the campaign of Harold Ford, Jr., should make for a very interesting lesson in the attempt to steal an election.

Pelosi Comes Out of Hiding

For the past week Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) has been missing in action, ducking any opportunity to appear before the media in the waning days of the campaigns. The reason is not far to find. Pelosi represents one of the most liberal districts, if not THE most liberal district, in the country--the infamous 'people's republic of California' that includes San Francisco. Her views are so far outside the mainstream that voters wince at the prospect of her becoming the next Speaker of the House if the Democrats win control.

Seeking to put a more palatable face on the Party, Democrat operatives have paraded before the public those few candidates who views are consistent with those of the heartland. This tactic would be laughable if it did not work with a few misguided Americans who are vulnerable to such slights of hand.

Pelosi is still there just waiting in the wings. Ted Kennedy is still part of the Party's senior leadership, along with John Kerry (who has also been in hiding), Christopher Dodd, Diane Feinstein (who wants to confiscate your guns), and Harry Reid.

The would-be Speaker of the House emerged from her cocoon today to make a campaign appearance on behalf of Democrat candidates. This comes only after a battalion of news reports surfaced questioning Pelosi's absence.

As if to say, 'Look here! We are not ashamed of our leaders,' the Democrats rolled out Pelosi just 48 hours prior to election day.

I'm glad they are not ashamed of their leftist leaders. Let's hope Americans remember that when they go to the polls.

Meanwhile, PC Police Reel Over Saddam Death Sentence

As expected, most of Western Europe and its PC police allies here in America and around the world are condemning the Saddam death sentence. Our true allies, Great Britain and Australia, applaud the decision of the court.

In all fairness Western Europe has given its approval to the guilty verdict. The rub comes in at the point of the death penalty.

People and organizations that are part of the global 'politically correct' movement have a decided loathing for the death penalty. It is common for Western Europe, for example, to refer to the American retention of capital punishment as evidence of our savage mentality. And then there are organizations such as Amnesty International that view capital punishment as a human rights issue.

Very well. Honorable people of conscience can disagree about the death penalty.

As I have reported to you before here on The Liberty Sphere, I too have my reservations about the use of capital punishment, mainly for pragmatic reasons rather than moral and ethical concerns, although I do believe that morally speaking the consistent philosophical stance is one that promotes the dignity and sanctity of human life from conception to the grave. Ultimately only God can make decisions about life and death. To entrust that decision to flawed human beings is potentially very dangerous.

Yet there are notable exceptions. An intruder into your home, for example, who threatens to murder your spouse or child is a perfect case in point. Who wouldn't attempt to take the life of such a person to prevent such horror?

The fact that there are notable exceptions based upon both pragmatism AND ethics leads me to conclude that the case of Saddam Hussein fits into that category. Some people are simply too dangerous to allow to live. To allow Saddam to serve his sentence in a prison will only strike continued fear in the hearts of his detractors, thus putting a damper on the resolve to fight Islamic Jihadists. Their fear is not totally without merit. Saddam could well escape or at the very least find a way to direct his supporters from a jail cell.

I would hope that the court in Iraq would find the courage not only to find Saddam guilty, which they did, but to carry out the sentence they imposed, which is death.

More on the Subversive Nature of George Soros and

Bill Levinson has done Americans a great favor on his website, 'The Stentorian.' Levinson has carefully and meticulously chronicled the hate speech that promotes under the direction of billionaire Democrat operative George Soros.

The hate speech that one often finds on its community forum, receiving a 70% approval rating from's membership, includes diatribes against Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians. This is not surprising given that Soros grew up under Nazi rule where such things were commonplace. Soros also admits that his family stood by while the Nazis confiscated the private property of citizens.

On the website it is common for Jews to be vilified with a vengeance one has not seen since the Nazis came to power in Europe. In addition, African-Americans are referred to as 'house slaves,' American Catholics as 'Catholic Pedophiles of America,' and other such terms of hate.

This hate speech is applauded by the vast majority of those who write on the forum.

It is to be noted that George Soros is funding the campaigns of Lamont in Connecticut, Webb in Virginia, Ford in Tennessee. In addition, Soros has held daily briefings with the top execs at the three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, to urge the burying of any story that casts a positive light on George W. Bush and the headlining of any story that puts the President in a negative light.

Connect the dots. ABC, NBC, and CBS are the propaganda arm of, and is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

Mr. Levinson at The Stentorian provides some shocking facts concerning George Soros, including Soros' push to subvert the U.S. Constitution and U.S. foreign policy to the United Nations. It is absolutely essential that Americans do the research on Soros and his goals. With his millions pouring into the campaigns of Democrats, it is important to know just what Soros has bought. What are these candidates obligated to support in exchange for the Soros bankroll?

Visit Mr. Levinson's website at

SUPREME COURT HANGS IN BALANCE (Schumer, Webb, Tester, Ford to Filibuster)

The importance of this midterm election has been overshadowed by the diversion of Iraq. While the war and the manner in which it is fought is an important consideration, the near hysteria over the subject has overshadowed the real significance of this election--the U.S. Supreme Court.

One thing the Democrats have succeeded in doing is burying the issue of the Court beneath the vitriolic rhetoric about the war.

A Democrat-controlled Congress would insure that any Bush nominee to the Court would be blocked. It is almost certain that the President will send up at least one more nominee, maybe more. Rumors about the health of Justice John Paul Stevens have been swirling of late, not to mention the fact that he is the Court's oldest member.

Pamela Gellar Oshry over at Atlas Shrugs reports the following:

'The Democrats have big plans for the SCOTUS and they will filibuster while spitting in America's face, no doubt. Over at Stop the ACLU;

'Casey, Webb, Ford & Tester Agree To Schumer Filibuster Pact

'For those involved in GOP-GOTV, it is very important to know the rumors on John Paul Stevens:

'For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end.

'Then the GOP-GOTV dynamite is just what would these “moderate democrat” Senator wannabes do if elected:

'Schumer is reported to have assured Democrats that Bob Casey Jr. — despite running as a moderate Senate candidate — would be supportive of Democratic efforts to block constitutionalist judicial nominees. “There’s no worry on judges,” said Schumer. “And judges is the whole ball of wax.” Other supposedly centrist Democratic candidates including Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees.'

Many thanks to Pamela for this eye-opening information.

In short, Schumer has secured the agreement of Webb, Casey, Tester, and Ford to filibuster to block any Bush appointee, that is, if these candidates win.

What does this mean in terms of specific court cases? A Democrat-controlled Congress would demand nominees that would support abortion on demand, for one. In fact, this is THE litmus test of the Left when it comes to judicial appointments. Any potential Court appointee who as much as voices the slightest hint that Roe v. Wade should be reexamined is automatically ejected without regard to the nominee's credentials.

This is precisely why, with the exception of Lieberman, I call for the election of only Republican candidates. The Democrats will wreak havoc on the Supreme Court and remove any vestage of judicial restraint from the practice of Constitutional law.

William F. Buckley, Joe Lieberman, and George Soros

William F. Buckley has an interesting column in National Review in which he describes his reasoning for supporting Joe Lieberman. Being a resident of Connecticut, Buckley's perspective on the state's U.S. Senate race was of great interest to the media.

A newsman approached Buckley and asked for whom he was going to vote on Tuesday. Normally Buckley resists answering such questions out of his staunch belief that voter choices should be private and by secret ballot. In this case, however, he quickly decided to suspend his self-imposed silence and simply answered, 'Lieberman.'

The newsman was surprised. A second question followed, 'But why?'

Buckley then gave the newsman the sound reasoning which I have been positing on The Liberty Sphere for weeks. The Republican candidate in Connecticut has about as much a chance of winning as Kennedy would in Yazoo City, Mississippi. The Democrats threw their support behind a Leftist, anti-war candidate in order to punish Lieberman's defiance of the Party leadership by following his conscience.

The result has been only two viable candidates--Lieberman and Lamont. Buckley's view is that the choice becomes abundantly clear. Lieberman believed that it was imperative that we go into Iraq, and he has stood by his decision in spite of widespread public discontent in Connecticut over the war. Lamont, who is endorsed by Democrat billionaire George Soros, wants to embarrass the U.S. by withdrawing immediately and 'admitting our defeat.'

Buckley was one of the classic conservatives who believed that going into Iraq was a mistake. But, like Goldwater and Reagan before him, he also believes that if we are going to fight a war we must do so to win. Cutting and running is not an option, for that would send a signal of defeat to Jihadists who would be emboldened by such a move.

Lieberman shares that point of view. His opponent would immediately withdraw troops, leaving Iraq at the mercy of insurgents and waving the white flag of defeat to the world. It is no accident that the Lamont campaign is heavily endorsed and bankrolled by George Soros and The mere fact that Soros opposes Lieberman is in itself indicative of the Senator's impeccable character.

Sunday, November 05, 2006


The 200-page verdict was delivered at 4 AM Eastern Standard Time...Saddam found guilty as charged and sentenced to hang. Observers had feared extreme violence in the wake of the verdict. Shiites celebrated. However, police reported clashes between Sunnis and law enforcement in the northern sector.

Declaring that the trial had been a travesty of justice, former U.S. Attorny General Ramsy Clark was ordered to leave the courtroom before the sentence was delivered.

Like Hitler and Stalin before him, if ever there were a man on the world stage who deserved to be executed, it is Saddam Hussein.

Let him hang.

The following is a reprinted article I wrote a while back on the execution of Saddam. As you will note, I am far from being an advocate for capital punishment. If anything, I have supported a moratorium on executions in America, given the state of our judicial system at present.

However, there are some persons whose acts are so brutal, so barbaric, so merciless, so bereft of anything we associate with being 'human' that they need to be permanently and physically removed from the planet. Saddam is such a person.

Here is my article:

Should Saddam Be Executed?

The trial of ex-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq has been viewed as a three-ring circus of sorts by observers all around the world. Part of this has to do with the prisoner himself, whose tirades have only served to solidify the notion that Saddam is brutal, volatile, hostile, and cunning. The revolving door of judges presiding over the trial attests to the manipulative maneuvers of Saddam, each intending to tip the balance of justice in his favor. Yet the trial itself, with all its shortcomings, is a testimony to the strides Iraq has made toward liberty and justice within a few short years.

There would have been no trial at all for anyone under Saddam's rule.

As the trial winds down and draws near to a close, the subject of the appropriate punishment has been discussed widely. This is assuming, of course, that Saddam will be found guilty by the court. For all intent and purposes no other verdict can be rendered given the voluminous documentation of acts of barbarism against humanity by the defendant, complete for all the world to see. This being the case, what then? What should be the terms of his punishment?

The subject of crime and punishment is not a simple matter but a highly complicated maze of complexities that boggle the mind. For example, should the Governor of Illinois have continued with the execution of those on death row when it was discovered that dozens of those very prisoners had been found guilty based upon false evidence when DNA samples were taken? The only prudent course to take in such a circumstance is the course the Governor took, which was to immediately place a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois.

This is one of the reasons that I have sided with anti-death penalty groups in the last few years. The criminal justice system is fraught with so much fraud, human error, and political shenanigans that many of the verdicts in murder cases can be viewed with suspicion. Regrettably, before the days of DNA testing we probably put to death countless innocent citizens.

My philosophy of pro-life is another reason I am reluctant to support capital punishment. If I am to be consistent in my stance for the sacredness of human life, from conception to the grave, then I must leave the ultimate decision of life or death to God alone.

Having said that, there are notable exceptions to any philosophical argument. At times there are crimes that are so heinous, so barbaric, so brazen, and so repugnant that we MUST abide by the old legal standard of the punishment fitting the crime.

One of those exceptions is Saddam Hussein.

Hussein should receive the death penalty if found guilty in a court of law. The man is such a danger to society that to incarcerate him for life would be risky...particularly in that part of the world. The jitters and whines of those afraid that his execution would spark a volcanic outburst of terrorism like we have never seen before pale in comparison to the travesty of justice that anything less than his execution would display.

If the terrorists wish to make us pay for ridding the globe of one of the most brutal and dangerous men the world has ever known, then so be it. We will be ready for them.

In fact, this may be the chance to rid the entire globe of Islamic Jihadists once and for all.

Saddam deserves his execution.

Ronald Reagan on War

President Ronald Wilson Reagan made many statements that will go down in history as exhibiting some of the most gripping and eloquent wisdom ever known since the beginning of this Republic. One of those statements had to do with war.

Nobody wants war, said Reagan, but if it is necessary then it must be fought to win.

The quintessential example of how not to fight a war was Viet Nam, said Reagan. In his stellar and moving tribute to the men and women who served in Viet Nam, Reagan stated in the campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980, 'These courageous men and women fought honorably in a war that the liberals in Washington would not let them win.'

No truer words have ever been spoken, and no more relevant words could be chosen to address the present War in Iraq.

Honorable men and woman can disagree on whether or not there was adequate justification for going into Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, the best intelligence we had indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know he was working on such a program, for his blueprints somehow wound up in the hands of Iran's government--the very blueprints which led to their development of nuclear bombs. Our intelligence, and that of Britain and Europe, indicated Saddam had the weapons. This same intelligence led various politicians such as John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton to vote to go to war.

That same intelligence led President Bill Clinton to state in 1998 that the day was quickly approaching when Saddam would have the bombs, and, to quote Clinton, 'If he gets them, we know he'll use them.'

How quickly Americans have forgotten the statements made by the very ones who today suggest that we 'cut and run.'

So why are we still in Iraq so long after our initial invasion? The short answer is that it is a difficult war like we have never fought in our history. A deeper look, however, reveals a similar scenario to the Viet Nam era--politics in Washington and the overt attempt of the 'politically correct' police to hamstring the operations of our military.

Presently we are not fighting to win. This is because we fear the repercussions of public opinion, goaded by the mainstream media, that would seize on the 'horrors of war,' the 'brutality,' the 'blood-thirsty American imperialists,' and other such nonsense.

In short, we would take a big hit in the media and in the court of public opinion that is always swayed by such things. Nevermind the images of the Islamic head-choppers who have videotaped the beheadings of dozens of hostages.

The PC police in America and throughout Western Europe would make sure America came out of an all-out effort in Iraq as the villain. They would be gladly aided by the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, and the three major networks. The slanted reports that would proceed from these bastions of liberalism would feed upon American squeamishness.

However, we are quickly approaching the day when such squeamishness and the condemnations of leftists across the globe will pale in the face of the real danger that is before us. The Islamic Jihad movement is on the march, and we, the 'Great Satan,' are its ultimate targets. We can either fight this war now in a land far away, or we will surely fight it in downtown Manhattan.

Reagan was right. We lost in Viet Nam because Washington would not let us win. If we allow the Democrat Party to control Congress and ultimately the White House in 2008, we can rest assured we will face yet another defeat. But this time we have much more to lose. Viet Nam was not involved in a global Jihad to destroy America.

The hand of President Bush must be strengthened to take on the Jihadists on their own turf, not here in America. Democrats must not be allowed to get into a position to weaken our resolve. We must fight this war to win and ignore the world court of public opinion.

Shocking Report from California

A fellow blogger in California has issued a shocking report concerning the upcoming election.

Captain Ron and the Damsel have a very interesting blog on which they write about various issues of the day, one of which is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They live in California.

Ron reports that not a single Democrat candidate on the ballot in California supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, a right that is guaranteed and protected in the Constitution.


Thus, Ron says that he and his wife will be voting straight Republican.

Make no mistake, the Democrat Party is no longer the Party of JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, or Harry Truman. Rather, the Democrat Party of today is the single biggest enemy to the rights of the people to protect themselves against intruders, home invasions, rapists, burglars, and the like. Little by little, law by law, state by state, Democrats have supported and implemented measures that limit and restrict the freedom to own and carry firearms.

Senator Diane Feinstein, the famed leftist who represents the People's Republic of California, stated that citizens should simply go ahead and turn in all their guns.

When politicians rob the citizens of their right to have guns, then only the criminals will have guns.

Don't be fooled during this election. We are in a fight for the very survival of this country. If the Bill of RIGHTS does not protect rights, then we are at the mercy of the whims of extremists like Diane Feinstein who would rob law-abiding citizens of every single liberty we have fought so hard to maintain.

Democrats Mum on Terrorist Endorsements

After placing several dozen calls to the offices of top Democrats, WorldNetDaily News is reporting that not a single one is willing to comment on the recent endorsements of terrorists who hope for a massive Democrat sweep of Congress.

But what can they possibly say? Their views are the views of the terrorists who hope for a weakening of the will of America to fight the global Jihad. To retract those statements now, or to attempt to explain them away in such a manner as to suggest that they actually support the continued War on Terror, will only play into the hands of Republicans.

Thus, the Democrats are in a terrible predicament. If they strongly voice support for America in this war they appear to back off from previous statements and risk alienating the Leftist extremists who form their core voting base. If they continue suggesting that Iraq was a mistake and imply we should withdraw they appear to confirm the notion of terrorists that they are the allies of Islamic Jihad.

However, the answer of 'no comment' speaks volumes when the enemy of your country, an enemy that has sworn your ultimate annihilation, proclaims to the world that they think you support their objectives.

Here is another excerpt from the WorldNetDaily News report:
Jaara and others told WND that they believe if the Democrats come into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

But WND was unable to get a single comment from dozens of telephone calls made over two days and messages left with various leaders' offices and press secretaries.

I repeat, the silence of the Democrats concerning the endorsements of terrorists speaks volumes.


As I have reported to you recently on The Liberty Sphere, overseas Muslim terrorists have openly called for Americans to elect a Democrat majority in Congress. Despite the views stated by Nancy Pelosi to the effect that withdrawing from Iraq will end the deadly insurgency, terrorist leaders say such a move will only embolden them.

Aaron Klein, Jerusalem correspondent from WorldNetDaily News, has interviewed dozens of known terrorists. Klein quotes the Islamic Jihadists as saying that a Democrat-controlled Congress will be a big step in the fulfilling of their ultimate mission, since the Democrats support policies in the Middle East that are consistent with the terrorists' objectives.

The following is an excerpt from Klein's report from Jerusalem.

JERUSALEM. Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S.– including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara.

This chilling assessment from a Jihad terrorist is very telling, to say the least. The enemies of America want Democrats to win.

I will go a step further and state the unthinkable--Americans who vote for those that our enemies support are themselves supporting our enemies and giving their tacit approval to the stated mission of Muslim extremists--worldwide Jihad.

Before you dismiss my contention, think about the logic of it very carefully. If your friend supports the tactics of your sworn enemy to destroy you, does that person remain your friend?