Notes From The State of the Union

Let me start off by saying, watching the State of the Union address in High Definition is far better. With the surround sound on, the applause makes me feel like I'm sitting front and center.

"We love our Freedom and we will fight to keep it." Out-freaking-standing! How in the world does any member of Congress sit after that? Freedom hating bastards!

Talking about decreasing troup levels, the President said "Those decisions will be made by military leaders and not by politicians in Washington DC" And the entire democrat side of the Congress remained in their seats. This demonstrates exactly why they should not be in charge of our national security. The democrats want to control the military and not let it do what it's supposed to do, kill the bad guys and break things.

Hindsight is not wisdom and 2nd guessing is not a stradegy. Ain't it the truth...

God Bless those family members who lost a husband and a son.

"Terrorist surveillence program" That's a new name that I haven't heard. I like it. Call it what it is, not what the media has dubbed it. "We will not sit back and wait to be hit again" and again the left sits on their ass!

Calling for bipartisan support in leading the world to freedom. Fat chance he'll get that. The democrats fight this president on everything he stands for or proposes.

"Make the Tax Cuts permanent" Amen brother.

The left is applauding their own inaction on Social Security. The problem exists and they're actually applauding their own inaction. That says a lot about them.

Border security. Come on Mr. President, don't just tell us what it should do, tell us what you plan to do. Nothing? He's on to healthcare. Not good. Not good at all.

Nice ending.

And now the talking heads...

Look, it's clear we as a country have to finish what they've started. We have to allow freedom to spread across the middle east or we face very serious issues in our children's future. The only thing that has conquered that which is evil over the past 1000 years has been freedom. This is the single most important issue we face in our lifetimes and this President is very serious about it. He intends to stay the course and do what is neccasary to secure long term peace. He realizes that sometimes to achieve long lasting peace, you have to kick the ass of those that oppose it. And I don't care want anyone says, the terrorists in Iraq and around the world have no desire for peace.

We have many issues to face in this country. Our education system is a joke. We are too dependent on foreign oil. There are far too many taxes. Even if the tax cuts are made permanent, we still have too many taxes to pay. These are important issues. But they are nothing if we allow terrorists from around the world kill our people. Nothing is more important than our freedom. And that freedom will continue to be threatened buy those who want us dead until we either change their minds, or kill them first.

And give me a break there governor of Virginia. This freaking idiot is trying to convince me that the Democrats are trying to get rid of the division between the two sides? They are by far the ones created that division. They have attacked this president on every front and then accuse the Conservatives of partisan politics? They have proved once again that you should pay close attention to what the left is accusing the right of doing. Because it is exactly what the left is doing.

Wow, Who Knew?

Everyone on the planet?

The following photo is a video captured from a security camera located in the North Corridor that leads to the Senate floor in the US Capitol Building. This is classified material, so please do not ask how or where I got it. Also, please DO NOT forward this to all of your friends. The repercussions could shake things up more than you can imagine.

Dr. King Would Not Be Proud

And rightly so...

This past Monday, the nation celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I say celebrated, the word is actually observed... Anyway, no I didn't do anything in recognition of Dr. King. I didn't attend a rally or a speech. I didn't read any of his speeches. I actually spent the day driving home from the great state of Indiana. Now, that being said, I'm not against celebrating the life of Dr. King. He did some great things, not just for black Americans, but I believe for all Americans. So if that's what you like, by all means, celebrate. But for me, I don't get into what I call "man worship." (I'll explain that in a minute) I know it may sound harsh that I don't do anything to celebrate the life of Dr. King, but before you report me to the PC police, you should know I don't do anything special on Presidents Day either. (unless Sears is having a really good sale on tools, I might go check that out.)

What I consider to be "Man Worship" is just that. When people and politicians go above and beyond logic to praise a man for things they've done. I find it really disturbing. The idea of going on and on about somebody that was indeed just a human being seems a little odd to me. To hear people talk about Dr. King, you'd think the man was perfect in every way shape and form. I'm sure if he were around today, he'd be the first to tell you he wasn't anywhere near perfect.

Now, I'm not hear to rag on the man, like I said, he did great things. But I'm not going to worship him like he's the second coming either. I think there are important figures in American History. For me, I truly believe Chesty Puller was one of the greatest Americans that ever walked the planet. (Click here to read about Chesty) Here's a man that won 5 Navy Crosses in the course of his military career. The Navy Cross is 2nd only to the Congressional Medal of Honor. And this guy won 5 of them! Talk about an American Hero. But yet, we have no Chesty Puller Day. Why is that? Do I think there should be a day named after him? No. Am I going to make speeches about what Chesty believed on his birthday every year? No. I honor Chesty with the way I conduct myself as decent American, enjoying the freedoms that he fought so bravely to give me. That's how you honor an American Hero, by living a good and productive life.

My point? We as Americans have gotten into this "man worship" mode and I truly believe it demeans the man we're supposed to be worshipping. Look at the state of our nation today. On the day we're supposed to commemorate the life of Dr. King, we have liberals in our federal and city governments making a mockery of what Dr. King stood for.

Hillary Clinton, in a speech on Monday talked about how the United States Congress is being run "like a plantation." Now, this was a clearly divisive and inflammatory statement aimed at Republicans and to serve what purpose? To score political points with the extreme left in this country. Making divisive and inflammatory statements like that on a day set aside to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King? Dr. King himself would be ashamed of Senator Clinton. He preached of little black girls and little white girls playing together, not ripping each other apart.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin referred to making the city of New Orleans a "chocolate city" once again, meaning the city should return to pre-Katrina numbers with a majority of black Americans living in the city. Let me ask you this. If the city of Los Angeles were to endure some huge natural catastrophe, an earthquake let's say. And the clear majority of people that were displaced were black. And let's say that all of those black Americans temporarily moved to Beverly Hills, a predominately white city. Then, on President's day, the mayor of Beverly hills gives a speech calling for Beverly Hills to once again be a "Vanilla City." How long do you think it would take for that mayor to be run out of town? Does the phrase, "New York Minute" mean anything to you?

So why is it that Mayor Nagin gets a pass? What he said was very racist. But because he's black, he gets a pass? I submit to you that Dr. Martin Luther King would not think so. Dr. Martin Luther King would have a real problem with the Ray Nagins and the Hillary Clintons of the world. That is because he didn't stand for supremacy. He stood for equality. He didn't stand for divisive and inflammatory. He stood for peaceful resolution. These liberals have lost everything that Dr. King had preached. They have lost what it means to be free.

I will tell you, what I've told people for years and years. The only way we end racism in this country is to stop focusing on race. Once we all get over the fact that we come from different backgrounds, then we may have a shot at forward progress in terms of race relations. My ancestors come from all over Europe, but I do not call myself a European-American. And if anyone ever referred to me in that way, I'd probably hit them. I am just an American. Am I proud of the fact that one of my great-grandfathers left his village in Transylvania when he was 15 with nothing more than $10 in his pocket? Yes I am, because that took guts. I'm proud of the courage. Does it really matter where his journey started from? Or does it matter more where his journey ended? I say it matters where it ended, in the United States of America. Notice they didn't name the country the Divided States of America. One America, that was the idea.

As long as we continue to focus on individual races, and focus on the differences between those races, we will never get past those races. This will be a turmoil that lasts as long as the fight between the Arabs and the Jews. Look what has happened to them over the past thousand years because they couldn't stop focusing on race. They have kids blowing themselves up in pizza parlors just because their may be some Jews enjoying a pizza. Is that what you want for your great-grand children? I will say this again and hear me when I say, we need to stop focusing on the man, and focus on the mission. We will never accomplish the mission Dr. King set for us if we continue to focus on what makes us different. We need to focus on what makes us the same.

He's Back Baby, He's Back!

Well, he never really left...

He just hasn't been writing much. You know him as Woody and he has just decided to start writing again. So we've upgraded his blog and have it going. So check it out from time to time and see what has him pissed off this week. Click Here to see his blog or you can click the "Woody's Blog" button up above.

Hey Woody, welcome back! About time you lazy bastard...


Enjoy,

This is Scary Even for Political Nightmare

Just when you thought it was safe to vote in Minnesota...

Following politics the way I do, exposing myself to some of the scariest ideas known to man, I thought nothing would surprise me in the world of politics. I was wrong. A frequent reader of the Nightmare, a future Marine I might add, sent me this story and it was too amusing to resist.

Vampire Candidate 'Won't Hide Evil Side'

Jonathon Sharkey, the 41-year-old leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party" is planning a run for Governor in the state that once elected a professional wrestler to the vaulted office, the great state of Minnesota. Sharkey, also known as "The Impaler" will kick off his campaign on, wait for it, Friday the 13th. Imagine that...

"I'm not going to hide my evil side" says "The Impaler." He also plans to actually impale terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals on the public sqare. Now, those are not horrible ideas in my opinion. I say getting impaled would have to be a pretty good deterent. I see a guy getting impaled at City Hall for dealing drugs, that might change my mind if I were to consider going into that line of work. (Jail is a big enough deterent for me, but I'm having some fun here...) His platform also includes emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans. Wow, this guy seems good to go.

Ok, perhaps not, from the story:

Sharkey said he worships Lucifer and, while he says he has nothing against Christians, he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy."

An enemy of God? He needs to make up his mind. Is he a liberal or a conservative? Tax breaks are a conservative idea, but it seems to me that an enemy of God would have to be a liberal.

I love this story. Not only because my ancestors come from Transylvania, but because this guy is a complete loon. He told the Star Tribune in an email that he drinks blood. Yeah, that's what you want in a governor. A blood sucking God hater. My God, except for this guy's strong stance on crime and tax cuts, he could be Teddy (hiccup) Kennedy...

Saddam's Terrorist Training Camps...

Wait, I thought President Bush created all the terrorists in Iraq...

Imagine my surprise to read that the former Butcher of Baghdad had infact had terrorist training camps in Iraq. That's right boys and girls, as usual the left is on the wrong side of history with their countless claims that the President created the terrorism problem in Iraq.

From The Weekly Standard, according to documents and photographs seized by the U.S. military in Iraq, Saddam's regime trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq from a period in 1999 to 2002. That's right boys and girls, that's before we invaded.

From the story in the Weekly Standard:

"The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator."

The story also says that only 50,000 of the 2 million documents siezed have been examined. What's the hold up on that? That's 2.5% of what could be considered crucial intelligence. Seems to me that this is important data and perhaps we should get on it. Seeing how those 50,000 translated documents "relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists."

I could go on and on about this story, but I think you get the picture. If you don't, you just don't want to see it. Click the link above and read the story for yourself and then ask yourself the question: Where is the Main Stream Media on this story? I'll tell you where; They're hiding from this story because it vindicates the President and destroy's the leftist notion that we invaded for bogus reasons.

And While I'm Thinking About It...

The ladies at Code Red posted a piece the other day that got me thinking. We keep hearing from the left that exposing terrorists to loud rap music is a form of torture. If that is true, shouldn't we ban rap music?

Make up my mind already. One day we're told that rap music is art and should be appreciated. But then Dick "The Turbin" Durbin tells us that "not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before."

So it looks to me as Durbin sees rap music as a form of torture. Now, I can see his point as I too think rap music is cruel and inhumane. But I feel that way about country music too. Seems to me that in the interest of international relations and diplomacy, we should indeed ban both country and rap music.

Who's with me? shouldn't we immediately begin to charge teenagers that play that crap from their car stereo's at an unbelievably high levels with war crimes? Honestly? I have no problem with that.

Joe Paterno Under Attack from NOW

Joe Pa? Come on, who attacks Joe Pa?

According to the Washington Post, the National Organzaition for Women chapter in Pennsylvania is asking for the resignation of long time Penn State coach and legend, Joe Paterno for comments he made in reference to a sexual assault case involving a football player from Florida State University.

Here we go, more political correctness gone mad. This is a man that has coached Penn State football for 55 years, 40 of which he was the head coach. And NOW thinks they can get him to step down? Talk about arrogance.

Now, let me state for the record that I am a long time Penn State football fan, but I feel I can be objectively conservative on this. Ah, to hell with it. I don't have to be objective, this is my opinion, like it or leave it, what do I care?

Here's what Joe Pa said when asked about the player from FSU and keep in mind, he was talking about past suspensions of Penn State players and then said:

"There's some tough _ there's so many people gravitating to these kids. He may not have even known what he was getting into, Nicholson. They knock on the door; somebody may knock on the door; a cute girl knocks on the door. What do you do?"

Well, isn't that a legitimate question? What do you do? Now, I don't know all the particulars of the case but I do know the incident took place nearly 2 weeks ago and no charges have been filed. The player was suspended from the Orange Bowl game which Penn State won by the way! In reference to the situation, Joe Pa continued:

"Geez. I hope _ thank God they don't knock on my door because I'd refer them to a couple of other rooms," Paterno continued. "But that's too bad. You hate to see that. I really do. You like to see a kid end up his football career. He's a heck of a football player, by the way; he's a really good football player. And it's just too bad."


What is wrong with that? He's obvious speaking from a coaches perspective. Remember, this caliber of coach wants to play his opponent at their best. He doesn't want any excuses coming from the other side about why they lost. This kid that has yet to be charged was FSU's leading tackler and this had to hurt FSU. Could it be that Joe Pa was thinking from that mindset and not trying to excuse the player from any allegations? Could be? Maybe? Ya think?

Look, I'm sure the NOW ladies have only the best intentions. But demanding the resignation of one of the most highly respected men in PA over what you perceive to be "insensitive" remarks is the most rediculous and self promoting BS I've ever heard. How important does this PA chapter of NOW think they are? Give me a break. I say quit all your bitchin and get back in the kitchen! Or wherever you want to go. But stop hating men because we're men. We're going to end up with a nation of pansies that sit around and watch Lifetime all day. I know you want us to watch that awful channel with you, but we're not going to because it sucks! But what if we did? What if we did allow you to feminize us like you are trying so despartely to do? Who's going to fix all the cars? Who's going to build all the houses? This movement to feminize and sensitize men has got to stop! We're not trying to make you gals into men, you gals started that on your own. So stop trying to turn us into snivveling sissies that believe we have to apologize for having testicles! I will not apologize for my testicles. I like them where they are and they are staying right there! That's right, I'm madder than hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!

Rock on Joe Pa, you stand tall.

Steelers V Cinci, I Couldn't Resist...

Update: Who Dey? I believe the answer to that idiotic question is, "The Pittsburgh Steelers." Steelers 31, Bengals 17 and it is beautiful.

Hey Indy, when I was there in November for the Monday Night game, I told you we'd be back. Here we come! And we're going to come swinging.



The coffee is hot, the breakfast being cooked,
Shaking off my dreams, through the window I looked.

Cold outside, snow on the ground,
No sign of Bengal fans can be found.

For I'm in Steelers country, where life is great,
Not like in Cinci, where losing is fate.

Ah Pittsburgh, we've been here before,
Back in October, remember the score?

The Steelers did win, and this may be mean,
Pittsburgh 27, Cincinatti 13.

We're tough on the road, much harder to beat,
Terrible Towels waving, from every available seat.

So what's the story, Chad Johnson won't say,
He's keeping his mouth shut, not normally his way.

Is he scared of the Steelers, he probably should be,
we never got to see, his iron city jubilee.

They say it doesn't matter, who loses, who wins,
But this is the playoffs, one season will end.

Will it be over for Pittsburgh, or Cincinatti,
The Steelers will go to Indy, Palmer will call his caddy.

Though it's been a good year, for the Bengals fans,
They've had parties galore, even painted some vans.

They're cheering real loud, "Growl Towel" in hand,
But the party is almost over, in South East Ohio land.

For the Steelers are in town, The Bus has rolled in,
We'll see him score, we will see Hines grin.

Randle El is too fast, Joey Porter too mean,
Big Ben is too strong, to let down his team.

We love you Cinci, so don't feel bad,
Your time may come, to stop feeling sad.

Not this year, as shortly you will see,
He who laughs last, laughs with glee.

Enjoy the game, as long as you can,
better get some beer, keep it on hand.

When the Steelers win, you may shed a tear,
But just remember, there's always next year.


Here We Go Steelers, Here We Go!

Spying on Bad Guys is a Bad Thing?

Since when?

We're all very aware of the recent story published in the New York Times about the National Security Agency, (NSA) listening in on phone conversations between al Queada suspects within the U.S. and someone overseas. And we've all heard the "outrage" from the left about this "Domestic Spying." The supposed problem is that the President authorized these wiretaps without a warrant from a judge. And the "without a warrant" aspect would normally present a problem for me if we were talking about criminal activity. That's important, criminal activities. Keep that in your mind as you read on.

I want you to think back to a time before 9/11/01, when we as a nation and a government viewed terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. We were all perfectly content trying to arrest terrorists and charge them under our legal system. Yeah, sure, they had done some bad things, but those things were all done overseas. Not really within our jurisdiction. But we never considered these acts of terror as an act of war even though they had hit military targets on numerous occasions. We as a people decided to follow the nation's leadership on this and just go along. I mean, why wouldn't we? They must be smart right? They got elected by people probably smarter than me right? They have all the information, we don't... Right?

This is were we screwed up. We as a general rule didn't look at preventing terrorist attacks, we looked at retaliating against those we felt had some play in the attack. Or we treated it as a criminal matter, not an act of war. Sure, we'd launch some missiles into the Sudan and blow up a factory, or blow up some training camp in Afghanistan. But the truth is we were consumed with having an "appropriate response" to somebody blowing up one of our military barracks in the middle east, or floating a bomb into the side of one of our Naval ships. Blow a hole in our boat? We're going to blow up a training camp, case closed, problem solved. That was the message we sent. The message of, "we're not going to get too dirty on this because Americans don't have the stomach for it."

That message was sent loud and clear from the time of the Vietnam War up to and including when we sent troops into Somalia. The message of, we'll do something until we have to fill an American body bag, then we're done.

The end result of that message to the bin Laden's of the world: It just made us look weak. It made us appear to the rest of the world that the politicians of this country won't risk political failure. If Vietnam and Somalia taught them anything is that with enough dissent, politicians will fold and pull out. Our leaders won't do what needs to be done because politically, they will have problems.

So why not keep hitting us? We were never really going to do anything about it. So like a bully, the bad guys kept hitting us and we didn't really do much to prevent getting hit. I think partially because we were the loan super power in the world and we could not allow ourselves to be viewed as a big tyrant using the full force of our military against some two-bit terrorist organization. We need to be diplomatic and lead by example, right? I mean, how would that look to the international community if the big bad super power, the only remaining super power, were to go picking on some little group of terrorists that couldn't even sink a ship? If we were to seriously go after them and kill each and every one of them with the force of the God All Mighty, that wouldn't be a fair would it? People might view us as the bully. We couldn't have that. So we didn't make an example of some captured terrorists that have killed Americans. No, we let the Europeans put them in jail. So, why shouldn't the terrorists continue to hit us. What's the worse that could happen? Some time in a European prison?

And look what that got us. Nearly 3,000 of our people died because we were afraid to look too powerful.

President Bush has decided to take a different approach. He has decided that by every means possible, he's going to prevent another attack on American soil. And for purely political reasons, the left in this country is now fighting him every step of the way. For purely political reasons, they are doing everything they can to undermine and distract this President from his primary task, defeating terrorism. After 9/11, we all agreed these terrorists must be stopped. We all agreed the American people must be protected from another attack. And isn't that what this President has done?

OK, now let me ask you this; Did you have a problem with the U.S. spying on the Nazis during WW II? Did you have a problem with the U.S. spying on Japan during WW II? Did you have a problem with the U.S. spying on the Soviet Union during the Cold War? I'm guessing your answer is no. I'm willing to bet you are very grateful for those efforts. So please tell me the difference between spying on the Nazis in Germany and spying on suspected terrorists inside the U.S.? Both are enemies of this country. Both wanted to see Americans die. Both were taking aggressive action to kill Americans. And we shouldn't spy on terrorists why? Because they may be inside the U.S. and not in Germany, or Japan, or the Soviet Union? So it's ok to spy on people outside the U.S., but not inside the U.S.? I'm sorry folks, but when you have an enemy inside your borders, you have every obligation and I say every right to spy on them and get every piece of information about them that you can. As the leader of country, you not only have the legal authority, but the moral responsibility to do whatever it takes to save American lives.

It's very simple. The President took an oath. "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I know a little bit about that as I took a similar oath when I joined the Corps. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a Constitutional scholar. But I am an intelligent man and I like to think that common sense should still apply to our laws and our government and by all means, to our national security. I'm going to tell you this, and feel free to quote me. If we are too concerned with the civil liberties of terrorists, many of us will most definitely lose our most prized civil liberty. The liberty of life.

I know, I know, Benjamin Franklin... For those of you that don't know, Ben Franklin once said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." I'm so sick of that quote. Know this: Ben Franklin was not around to see the devastation of a nuclear bomb. The worse thing he faced from a security threat was a few hundred Red Coats marching slowly towards his position with their guns not even loaded. An Army of Red Coats that had rules of war and honor to abide by. He had no concept of a surprise attack from a dirty bomb going off in a city of 8 million people. So who gives a shit what Ben Franklin said 220 years ago. I'm willing to bet that if he were around today, he'd see it my way.

We as a nation had better stop fighting amongst ourselves and recognize the fact that we are at war with an enemy that wants every one of us dead. They don't just want to kill conservatives. They want the liberals too. And you liberals out there, had better put aside your desire for political power and accept the fact that we are at war. We need to work together and we need to fight the real enemy. President Bush is not your enemy. The terrorists are the ones that want you dead.

The Truth About The Crusades

You mean we've been lied to? Imagine my surprise...

The Truth About the Crusades

From our friends at Terror-Watch.net, this is a fascinating piece by Professor Thomas McFadden explaining the truth about the Crusades that the Main Stream Media and the politically correct of the world don't want us to know about. Professor McFadden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. So I say he's qualified to write about this...

I've never really been a student of the Crusades. I think it was my Freshmen year in high school that I studied it. And sadly, my Freshman year is all but a blur now. But with the event of the last four years, 9/11 in particular, the Crusades have come up in the media as well in discussions. Unfortunately, I've always been sadly misinformed and have bought into the generally accepted idea that the Crusades were the result of Christianity trying to spread throughout the Middle East by force. The idea that Christians in that time period were trying to conquer the Middle East to spread Christianity. (You know those evil Christians...) But I'm seeing things a little differently after reading this piece. Here's a snippet of the lengthy piece:

"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammeds death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt once the most heavily Christian areas in the world quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."

Hmm, never heard that version before... Take the time to read the entire piece linked above. It will change your perspective a bit and it is quite relevant in today's world.