Join the 912 Project

The picture accompanying this story might look like a scene out of some late 1960's, Gump-esque, anti-Vietnam War rally with counter-culture hippies, radicals, and others disenchanted with the actions and policies of their government protesting those actions and policies.

However, the picture, one that many of you likely have never seen because the former mainstream media does not want you to know about these events and thus fails to cover them or underpublicizes them, is not from the 'Summer of Love' but rather it is from the end of this very past summer. September 12th, 2009 to be exact.

The Americans in this counter-culture demonstration, the new generation of 'radicals', gathered in the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and all over Washington, D.C. to demand fundamental change.

You might have heard that before somewhere, the "Change" idea? The one word slogan was deftly used in last year's U.S. presidential campaign by Barrack Hussein Obama. It was meant to galvanize those sitting on the fence in the election to support a change from the policies of the George W. Bush administration which had governed for the previous eight years.

But while Obama and his people sold that idea as a change from Bush policies to what they described as some new, more enlightened and peaceful era, what they were actually selling was a bill of goods. Their real motive was a change in the very fabric, culture, and traditional values of America.

During their first year with full control of the American political process since 1994 the Democratic Party has shown that it's transformation from a centrist, populist party fighting for the middle class to one that is completely dominated by it's fringe left and bent on massive social change is now complete.

Just since coming to power in January, Obama and his lock-step congress led by California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Nevada senator Harry Reid have driven America further into debt than the combination of every political generation before them. And while risking financial catastrophe they have begun to risk our very safety and security with their weak foreign policy approach.

All the while, they and their supporters in the puppet media have begun to tear away at the very fabric of American spiritual and institutional culture, lurching it ever closer to collapse and their ultimate goal of a communist/socialist, totalitarian, government-run life for all.

Tens of millions of American did not vote for Obama or for much of any change in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. Millions sat it out because they were not happy with the choices, even when they believed Obama was bad for America. And now millions more who did vote for that 'Change' have begun to realize that they were hoodwinked by these elitists masquerading as commoners.

In response to these mounting attacks on the American traditional way of life and value system, Americans from all walks of life, all races and social standings, began to mobilize at the grass-roots level, forming the beginnings of what has now grown into "The 912 Project" movement.

The movement began to organize with responses at a series of town hall meetings held by the Obama government meant to sell their socialist health-care program. Regular everyday people showed up and began to speak out against these policies. Then the 'Tea Party' movement was born, taking its name from the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protest action during the run-up to the Revolutionary War. This all culminated with the massive rally on September 12th, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, among others, devotes a great deal of time and effort to spreading the message.

The term '912' or '9/12 mindset' comes from the idea that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against our nation by islamofascist terrorists on September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the entirety of the population was together. We all were wounded, outraged, mourned, grieved. We all demanded and sought retribution and we all clearly saw the enemy and the dangers which they posed beginning on 9/12, the day after the attacks.

Since the first months after the attacks, however, the continued passing of time has seen many Americans drift away into a state of passiveness and apparent forgetfulness. They seem to lack the knowledge that the enemies who attacked us then continue to look for further opportunities to attack us now, and on a grander scale.

There also are some Americans who have intentionally moved past that post-attack period and are happy that many others have forgotten. These are actual Americans who believe that we simply got what we had coming to us on that fateful day in September 2001. They want a version of what the terrorists want, a complete change in American ideals and culture.

Only these Americans want the opposite direction of change. Whereas the islamofascists want America to become an islamic theocracy with the Koran as the basis of its laws and the ruling clerics as the interpreters of social and cultural doctrine, these liberals want an open, anything goes society. They want to force their version of equality and collective group-think, based on what the government believes is best for everyone. Both ways directly attack the very ideals that America was founded upon.

The organizers of 'The 912 Project' tapped into that feeling from the day after the 9/11 attacks, that remembrance that we are all one nation, that our freedom is unique and vital, and that the ideals which the Founding Fathers of our nation established are worth both fighting and dying for.

The project bases it's organization on 9 principles and 12 values upon which it hopes to begin the process of refounding traditional America. The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude. Pretty radical stuff, huh?

The 9 principles are even more radical, depending on whether you share the Obama-led view that government is the boss, knows best, has all the answers, is unaccountable, and that you should just shut up if you disagree. These 9 principles are:

1) America is good
2) I believe in God and He is the center of my life
3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
4) The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5) If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6) I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7) I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8) It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
9) The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

While admitting that I agree with the vast majority of these principles and values, I have not always lived up to some of them. That is going to change. I am looking forward to dedicating myself completely to these basic foundational ideals in my life, and a fight to return them to their rightful place at the center of American culture, society, and law.

If you share the belief that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that God has blessed America, and that we are supposed to be a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people then you need to look into 'The 912 Project' more deeply and consider dedication yourself in some way.

NOTE: As always, the title of this entry is a link to further information on the subject, in this instance taking you directly to 'The 912 Project' website.

The Bogeyman Enters Health-Care Debate

I know things have been getting really bad for the ultra-liberal Obama crowd lately, what with real Americans turning out in force and voicing their opinions loudly denouncing the President's policies at so-called 'town hall' meetings, particularly in regards to health care.

The policies instituted by the far-left, elitist Obama administration over the past six months have been staggeringly irrational and irresponsible, heaping tremendous debt on to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, many of whom actually went out and voted for Obama with delusions of some non-specific "Hope" for some specious "Change".

Is this what they voted for, really? They actually want to be burdened for the rest of their lives by the tax bills, higher prices, and fewer jobs that are coming from these Obama policies?

Polls are beginning to show the truth. A new poll from Time magazine showed that 62% of Americans believe that health-care reform will raise costs in the long term, 65% believe reforms will make things more complicated for regular folks, and 56% believe it will result in less freedom in choosing doctors or health plans.

At the same time, research by Pollster.com, which compiles the numbers of various high-profile polls to get a more significant number, shows that overall support for President Obama, his "approval rating", is plummeting, down now to 52% from a high of 64% just six months ago. These are significant developments, and the Obama administration and the Democratic Party-controlled congress are feeling the heat.

In almost every mid-term election, the party in power loses seats, and in next year's 2010 congressional elections the Democrats are poised to continue this tradition. If the negativity surrounding the health-care reform issue, and the issues involving bailouts/stimulus plans continues with no significant turnaround in the overall economy, the Dems will pay a heft price in the voting booths next November.

Today on my way to work, I was doing what many Philadelphians do on our driving commutes. I was listening to KYW News Radio 1060am, Philly's only all-news station. One of the stories that came on sometime around 7:20am was regarding an alleged growing "problem" involving militias.

Now don't get me wrong, some militia groups across the country are extremist in nature, that much is for sure. But the tone and tenor of this broadcast piece involved how militia groups are not only growing, and that some may be militant, but the groups are also opposing President Obama's proposals on universal health care and other of his policies.

The piece went on to also state that much of this opposition is taking on a 'racial tone', though they failed to elaborate on what that meant.

This is where things are heading. The Left has a big time loser on it's hand in the health-care reform issue. Obama's effort to send his congressional minions out amongst the people and sell us on it's merits has failed miserably. So now it's come down to the usual tactics of fear and negativity association. Time to break out the bogeyman.

Universal health care is opposed by those crazy, gun-totin', anti-government, conspiratorial militias. They are all against the President because he is black and they are all racist whites. These are the people that are against President Obama and the rest of us forward-thinkers. Are you on our side? On the President's side? On the side of 'progress' over 'failed policies of Bush' and the past?

If your plan is going down in flames, all you need to do is mention 'Bush' or equate it with some other perceived bogeyman such as evil 'militia groups', and you can turn things around?

The liberal Left and their political puppets that make up the vast majority of today's Democratic Party need to wake up and realize that their President has gone too far with his socialist-inspired policies and programs. They need to stop blindly supporting him just because he has a 'D' before his name politically.

There are many good, strong Democratic politicians whose overall policies I may not agree with very often, but who would not be turning America into a shadow of its former greatness. Democrats need to recognize the direction that their "Change" vote is taking the country, and recognize the scare tactics their pols and political supporters in the media are trying to foist on them.

America is very much in danger, but that danger is not from militias, multinational corporations, Republicans, or angry Nazi mobs at town hall meetings. We are in danger of sinking under the weight of the tremendous debt load, individual taxation increases, government controls on private industry, and increased burdens on businesses that the Obama administration has wrought.

Take a good, long, hard look in the mirror, Democrats. The real bogeyman is right there looking back at you, and only you can stop him.

2008 American of the Year: George W. Bush

George W. Bush is winding down the final three weeks of an eventful eight year Presidency. For the past seven of those years, the President has been under as heavy a burden as any American President before him. There have been many of his predecessors who have had to guide the nation in a time of war. Some notables include Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman during World War II, and Ronald Reagan in the 'Cold War', or World War III. Lincoln, Truman, and Reagan each had the faith, the strength, the moral courage, and the personal timing to bring these struggles to a successful close for the nation. Roosevelt, alas, did not live to see the fruits of his difficult labor, but his vision and courage, his willingness to stand up to the evils of Nazism and totalitarianism were vital to our American future, indeed the entire free world's future. Much the same can be said of President George W. Bush these past seven years. As we all know, on September 11th, 2001, just over eight months into his first term, the United States suffered a major attack on our continental soil by the foreign power of Islamism. The forces of Islamofascist terror had been at war with America and the western world for at least a decade to that point. They declared it against us, and they had previously taken action with attacks against our interests both abroad (Kenya, Tanzania, Lebanon) and here at home (the first WTC attack.) Still, while we knew they meant us harm, few understood the imminent danger in their ability to actually reach out and destroy serious targets on America's shores. That reality was slapped home on 9/11 when a pair of airliners flew into the Twin Towers and resulted in their destruction, and another flew into the Pentagon doing serious damage to our main national defense headquarters. A third airliner had been thwarted from doing even further damage thanks to the bravery of the passengers, who had learned of the earlier attacks. In the end, approximately 3,000 Americans and foreigners lost their lives as a result of the attacks. The Bush administration plans for the future, both in domestic policy and foreign affairs, was forever altered. The fact of the matter is that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States, of our national government in fact, is to preserve, protect, and defend the union. In his seven years in office following those attacks, the President has taken us on the offensive against the Islamofascists, and has thus averted any further attacks on us by an enemy sworn to inflict even further damage. In the aftermath he established what has become known as the 'Bush Doctrine', which is basically the combination of ideas stating that there is no 'moral relativism'. We are good, they are evil, and that is a fact beyond dispute. Further that the United States will go on the offensive in wiping out these organizations, and will also deal with nations who support them in an aggressive manner. And in doing so we will not only be reactive, doing something only after we are attacked, but will also be preemptive in hitting those who clearly state their intention to harm us. The President responded to 9/11 by sending our troops into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban regime that was both terrorizing its fellow Afghanis, and which also was harboring the terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, who had attacked us on 9/11. He followed that up by sending them into Iraq to rout Sadaam Hussein and his Baathist government, and to help Iraqis install a democratic government that would serve as both a launching pad and a beacon of hope for the entire region. All the while, our troops military actions in the Middle East would attract the attention of the Islamists, diverting them from America's own shores. Despite the ups and down of every major military struggle in history, the strategy has worked remarkably well. The seeds of freedom have been planted in a region of the world where they had not existed for centuries, and where it appeared just a few years ago that they would never take root. Perhaps most importantly, the President has clearly done his job of protecting the United States, as we have not been successfully attacked on his watch again since 9/11. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, the President and his team have been proven out to be consistently correct in their efforts to keep us safe. As he leaves office, he can also hang his hat on a pair of tremendous achievements: keeping taxes low and appointing constitutional SCOTUS judges. The current financial meltdown is a problem largely outside of the President's scope to control, the mistakes that led to it largely having begun in the Clinton administration anyway. But keeping taxes low has allowed the crisis from being even worse. And in his appointments of both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the President has hit a pair of homeruns that will benefit our nation long after he leaves office next month. It is true that he needed direction in the Alito appointment after initially wanting his friend, Harriet Myers, for the position. But he showed great leadership in his willingness to listen and in his ability to admit when he was wrong, and he ultimately made the correct decision and nomination. There were outstanding candidates this past year aside from the President, most notably the Republican VP nominee and Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who was the runner-up. It is very difficult to justify someone like President-elect Barrack Obama, whose only real action this year was in running for an office. Perhaps one of these individuals will be honored here in the future based on their actions, rather than for a political campaign. But in this past year, no one in the country had a more difficult job than President Bush, and he came through with flying colors. Despite an intensely negative media portrayal and the utter disrespect of the Democrats over almost the entirety of his terms in office that resulted in his low approval ratings, the President has kept his head high and his country safe. The day that he leaves office next month, the nation will likely become a far less safe place, and that will likely only deteriorate over the ensuing months and years. In the long term, it says here that Bush will be viewed in a positive light, and will be proven even more right in his positions. For his leadership, for his continuing to fight for the nation despite the ravenous attacks of his enemies, for the continuing example of his public faith in God, and for keeping America safe, the website is proud to honor President George W. Bush as the 5th annual 'American of the Year', following in the footsteps of previous honorees Pat Tillman (2004), Bill O'Reilly (2005), Rev. Billy Graham (2006), and P/O Chuck Cassidy (2007).

President Sarah Palin

The one major thing that came from last night's debate between Vice-Presidential nominees Joseph Biden (D) and Sarah Palin (R) was the stark contrast between them. I am not talking about any of the obvious differences: male vs. female, old vs. young, liberal vs. conservative. No, the contrast that I am speaking about is the difference between the career insider Biden, who came across as the stereo-typical establishment politician that he is, and the relative newcomer Palin, who is quite obviously a woman of the people. Sarah Palin is exactly what many Americans have been looking for these days: real change. Not the generic, all gravy and no meat 'Change' as espoused by the Obama campaign, but real, true change back towards positivism and true conservatism. The contrast began right in their opening remarks, when Biden thanked the moderator and welcomed Palin, then went right into his usual political rhetoric: the current economic 'crisis' has no blame to lay at the door of Washington, per se, because that would, of course, lay blame with Biden and his fellow career pols. No, the blame lay with "the last eight years" of economic policies: the Bush years. What more should one expect, right? On his next opportunity, he painted his old friend, John McCain, as someone "out of touch", as someone who flip-flopped on the state of the economy in just a two-hour span in recent weeks. Well, what we should expect, and what we actually want, became quite clear when Governor Palin began her comments. After thanking the moderator and the commission, Sarah Palin spoke to our hearts when she recognized that it was her "privilege" to be able to speak to Americans on the issues. She then directly answered the moderators question on what got us into this predicament, appealing to 'Joe Six Pack' and to 'hockey moms' to band together to ensure that this never happens again. Palin went on throughout her presentation to state that she would fight as Vice-President to "do what is right for the American people, put government back on the side of the American people..." What Sarah Palin did last night was remind us of the dynamic woman that she is, that she first showed the American people just over a month ago at the Republican National Convention. She is one of us. She has the same experiences that we do. She is not a Washington fat-cat insider pol with tangled allegiances and numerous hands in her pockets. She is her own woman: a strong wife and mother, and a true political conservative who not only talks that talk, but has also walked that walk. This morning, in the aftermath of the debate, I was listening to a conversation on a news media outlet that is a strong supporter of Barrack Obama. The talking heads had one prescient point to make that I found very revealing. The woman speaking said that one thing Palin has ensured, no matter who wins this year, is that she will be a major player four years from now, someone who will pose a legitimate threat to the Democratic Party. She will either be an incumbent VP with four years of national governmental experience under her belt, or she will be a major contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. Personally, I fear an Obama presidency for the long-term damage that it would likely cause to our federal and state judiciaries, and for the implications to our longterm economy thanks to his likely tax policies. But the one thing that would come from such a scenario would definitely include a gathering storm of conservatism, and no one would be more poised to lead that comeback than Sarah Palin. She will be VP for four years, or a crusading Governor with a growing resume and following. Either way, she will only be a stronger candidate, this time not for the 2nd slot (barring a McCain win and his health and desire staying solid), but for the top spot. There are three words that conservatives can take heart in, and that liberals need to fear, and those three words only grow closer and closer to becoming reality after performances like the one she put on in last night's debate: President Sarah Palin.

Voting for Barrack

There surely are reasons to vote for Barrack Obama for President of the United States of America. Perhaps you believe that he really will do the things that his website says he will in the areas of civil rights, the economy, education, the military, energy, health care, homeland security, technology and other issues. But do you really know exactly what those policies are? Do you know or care about the details? Do you know how Senator Obama plans to pay for these programs? Are the answers to these questions even of any importance to you, or are you simply looking for "Change" in the vague, ideological way that the campaign hopes you will? The fact of the matter is that you should be looking into the highlights of Obama's campaign. They are available for anyone who can read this, because they are available right here on the internet by doing a simple Google search and visiting his campaign website. Beyond that, you should look past the rhetoric in speeches and at the website, and get the details on what the specific programs will be, and how they will be paid for, and how the programs and the financing will directly affect you and your family. If after doing all that, you still believe that Barrack Obama is the best choice, then you indeed should vote for him. But there surely are reasons that you should not use to vote for Barrack Obama. One of these would be that he is a black man. Someone that I work with, of the same race as Obama, was pining after him one day, and I asked why they were supporting him. Why in particular? What policies or programs that he was putting forth did they support? Their response: "Just once in my life before I die...just once..." and they walked away not leaving me the chance to ask "Just once...what?" The answer, of course, was obvious. They are hoping to 'just once' see a black person elected to the Presidency. Now, is that so bad? Is it bad to want someone from your own racial, ethnic, religious, sexual persuasion to rise to the highest office in the land? Not a bit, in fact. However, what is wrong is to want that above all other considerations. I personally have always said, and I mean it, that I would vote for anyone for President, for Mayor, for Governor, for the Senate, for whatever office, as long as that person supported programs and policies that reflected my views and would help me and my family. I wouldn't care if that person were black, yellow, red, blue, male, female. I wouldn't care if that person were 25 years old, 45 years, 65 years, 85 years old if that person supported those policies and programs. Voting for Barrack? Go right ahead. But do it because of what he will do for you and your family, not because of the color of his skin, or some vague campaign slogan of "Change." Look into the issues as supported by both candidates, the things that they support and the details of how they would implement those, and how this all would affect you and yours. Then pull whatever lever you like with confidence in your own choice as directed by your own research, not directed by TV commercials, or Oprah Winfrey, or The View, or Barbra Streisand. If his policies and programs are right for you, vote for Barrack. If not, then no matter what your race, you need to look closer at John McCain for President.

Bell Tolling for Jersey Residents

The results of electing a Democrat to a major executive office, especially at the state and federal levels as the Governor or President, can be seen no more clearly than what is happening in the state of New Jersey. The residents of the Garden State elected the bearded hard-core liberal Jon Corzine as their Governor back in 2005 in a virtual landslide. Corzine won by a 53-43 margin over Republican candidate Doug Forrester. This was expected, as New Jersey is generally considered to be one of the strongest Democratic Party states in the nation. That's fine, the residents there can vote for whomever they wish. Problem is, they stick with the Democratic Party over and over and over, the Dems continue to shaft them with tax and toll increases while lessening the actual services delivered, the voters then scream and holler and wring their hands...and then they go back out the next election and vote for more Democrats! It's always amazing to me when people continue to do things that hurt them over and over again. Now comes the news that the toll bridges connecting Philadelphia and South Jersey are going up by a full dollar beginning today. Who will be hurt the most by this? New Jersey residents, who use the bridges far more than their Philly counter-parts. Jersey residents come across into Philly to work every day. They come across to attend sporting and cultural events at places like Lincoln Financial Field, Citizens Bank Park, the Wachovia Center, etc. The toll increase is a de facto tax on New Jersey residents, yet another by the Democrats in charge there. Jersey residents seem to be infatuated with Dems like Corzine who spread their own personal wealth around to get elected (Corzine has spent tens of millions from his own vast personal wealth to overwhelm his political opponents, in effect buying his elections) while hurting the constituents' pocketbooks. During just his first six months in the Governor's office, Corzine raised New Jersey residents taxes by $2 billion dollars. He forced into law a measure to get mandatory health care to Jersey residents, but did so without specifics. His measures are expected to cost at least $1 billion dollars. Where do Jersey residents think the money is going to come from to pay for this program? Corzine shoved a full 1% state sales tax increase down the residents throats, raising the rate from 6% to 7% by shutting down the state government in the summer of 2006. While 1/2 of the tax goes to the state budget directly, further bloating the size of their government that will need repeated tax increases to support, the other half went to 'property tax relief' in the form of checks mailed out to residents. The fact is, the folks who received the checks paid it out of their own pockets. The vast majority of New Jersey sales are to New Jersey residents, and every single purchase that they now make inside their state costs more, funds a bigger government, and will far-oustrip the brief happiness that getting one check in the mail created. Everything they pay for every day costs more. But hey, they got a check last year, right? Fact is, they will continue to pay for that check every single day, and it is only the beginning. Corzine proposed an 800% toll increase earlier this year, and when the public nearly revolted he sunk into the background, now quietly supporting a plan in the state legislature to double tolls in the coming years. New Jersey residents have a chance to begin to make a change in November, when they can vote for Republican Dick Zimmer in the U.S. Senate race over more of the Democratic taxation in the person of Frank Lautenberg. History would suggest that Zimmer has little chance, and that Lautenberg will win with about 50% of the vote or so. New Jersey residents will then assure that there will be at least six more years of Democratic influence over their state, six more years of liberal policies that will severely hurt their households. They will probably vote for Barrack Obama for President as well, and his policies will raise their taxes even more from the federal level. They will then complain yet again. But they never seem to complain when it most matters - at the ballot box. The 'Retirement Living Information Center' recommends good places for folks to retire based on tax policies in that state. Their recommendations can also explain the reasoning that businesses normally use when deciding where to locate. Their website instructs folks that: "If all other things are equal, a state with a lower burden is a more attractive place to retire than a state with a higher one. To get a true sense of which state is less expensive, you need to look at state and local tax burdens. Only then do the low tax states stand out...New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts (as the highest taxation state)." Which state is at the bottom, the best state for residents, the one that taxes the least? Alaska, home state of Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Veep nominee. John McCain's home of Arizona is in the bottom ten, another great state for residents to keep their own hard-earned money. The bridge tolls are going up, taxes are up, services show no improvement for regular folks, Jersey residents are once again digging deeper into their pockets on a daily basis, but they continue to do nothing about it. For whom does the bell toll? It clearly tolls for the residents of the state of New Jersey.

Dem Ticket Palin by Comparison

The 2008 U.S. Presidential election just keeps on getting more and more interesting with every passing day. Of course this pace cannot continue, and now that both parties have set their full tickets things will settle down a bit to the serious campaigning, particularly once next week's Republican National Convention passes. But what presumptive Republican nominee John McCain did today was toss a serious curve ball to the Democrats and their nominee Barrack Obama. For months, the McCain camp has pointed at a lack of experience on Obama's part as a serious shortcoming. And for their part, the Obama folks have called McCain nothing more than the same old tired Washington politics, and a continuation of Bush policies. So when given the chance to name Vice-Presidential running mates, who did each candidate choose? Obama chose the ultimate Washington insider, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, a man whose middle name is 'same old politics'. Then today McCain names as his running mate the Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin, whose national political experience is almost as short as Obama's. So the Dems have a man at the head of their ticket who is a 3-year Senator with no governing experience, where 2 of those years have been spent running for President, and a man at the back end of their ticket who is as 'more of the same old Washington politics' as any person around. Meanwhile the Republicans have at the top of their ticket a seasoned political veteran and universally acknowledged American hero, and at the back end of the ticket a woman, the first woman to ever be nominated on the top Republican ticket. Once the shock of not having someone like Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or even Joe Lieberman as the Veep choice wears off, the conservative base of the Republican party should find much to love about Sara Palin. First off, she is pro-life, which should be a litmus test for any Republican. Second, she is a lifetime member of the NRA, an outdoors woman with a passion for intelligent, informed environmentalism and the 2nd amendment. Her state's proximity to Russia and it's abundance in prospective oil make her experiences with those issues stronger than most. She has governed, albeit for just the past two years in Alaska. But that is two more years than the man at the top of the Dems ticket has ever governed in his life. In her personal life, she was born in Idaho and raised in Alaska. She is the 20-year wife of her high school boyfriend. And she is a 5-time mom, having just given birth in April to her 2nd son, a Downs Syndrome child. She is a woman, a wife, a mother, a Governor. She is an attractive, articulate, intelligent Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, which makes this ticket every bit as historic as the Dems ticket. Uh, yes, I did say she was attractive. That is not a slight or a sin to notice. The woman was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant a couple decades back, and still looks great today. So sue me for noticing. In November, the United States will either elect it's first African-American to one of the top two offices, or the first woman. Experienced war hero backed by governing, conservative woman on the Republican side, or inexperienced liberal backed by old-time Washington politico on the Democrat side. The choice is now clear, and when held up against the light of the Republican ticket, the Dems choice is palin' by comparison.

Bill & Hill's Mile-High Show

The Democratic National Convention winds down today in Denver, Colorado, culminating with tonight's acceptance speech by Barrack Obama. In that speech, Senator Obama must go further than he has at any time in his campaign to this point. He must speak to those 'swing' voters, the true 'undecideds' who allege that they have yet to make up their minds. Because so far his campaign has been only about two themes: ambiguous 'Change' and the typical liberal anti-Bush mantra. What has been seriously lacking are specifics about what programs and policies that an Obama administration intends to implement in order to reach those goals. He cannot win over middle America with ambiguity and misdirection. For example, he cannot win with the kind of speech given the past two nights by the Clintons. Former President Bill Clinton last night, and his wife (for now at least), New York Senator Hillary Clinton gave speeches that showed as much that they are positioning for another run in four years as they are supporting any specific Obama plans this time around. Hillary Clinton has been clearly wounded by her blowing the '08 Democratic Party nomination. Just last Fall, even early this past Winter, she was not only the clear front-runner, she was really the only candidate. She then went on a months-long crash-n-burn of a campaign, while Obama suddenly emerged, gained the affections of the all-important media, and took off on his own meteoric rise. For the Clintonistas, especially their leader Hillary, this 11th-hour defeat was heart-wrenching, and there were weeks if not months of denial. Even up to the opening of the DNC, all the rumblings coming from the back rooms were that the Clinton supporters and staff were still bitter. The Clintons knew they had little choice but to eventually support the nominee, but they still angled for terms and conditions, and the Obama camp, knowing how important the Clinton supporters would be to their efforts, caved in and gave the Bill & Hill show prime exposure, with Hillary headlining on Tuesday night and the President headlining on Wednesday evening. In her speech, Senator Clinton used the word 'I' 18 times, the word 'my' 11 times, the word 'me' 13 times, and even the word 'mine' once. During her speech, she referred to herself 43 times. She mentioned the candidate as 'Barrack Obama' just 9 times, two more simply as 'Barrack', once as 'President Obama'. She mentioned his challenger John McCain a half dozen times. For everyone but the already-on-board liberal crowd, it was obvious that Clinton's speech was a reminder to her supporters of her campaign and her dream. I heard it spoken this morning on Bill Bennett's radio program that the Clintons are already planning to run again in four years. I believe that they would never challenge a sitting Democratic president, so that has to naturally mean that, despite tepid public pronouncements of support couched in her self-aggrandisement, the Clintons are hoping for an Obama loss in November. For his part, the former President out-mentioned Obama 14-4 over his wife. Bill Clinton knows how these things should be done, how these things need be won, and he put the emphasis where it belongs, on the candidate. But he did take time to mention his wife enough (3 times) at the front of his speech to know where his true feelings lie. Make no mistake about it, the Clintons and their zombie-like Clintonista followers pine for a do-over, and they want it to happen yesterday. The next shot they will get is in four years, and an Obama loss may ensure their front-runner status again. Rest assured that next time around they will not blow it. Bill and Hillary Clinton put on a masterful show the past two nights in the Mile High City of Denver as the first phase in their recovery towards what they see as a new opportunity in 2012.

It's the 'Hard' That Makes It Great

This past weekend, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barrack Obama announced that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware would be his running mate. One of the things being touted about Biden is that he is Irish-Catholic. I don't know if this is a harking back to the good ol' JFK days for Dems, or if it is an attempt to paint the Obama-Biden ticket as more mainstream. But in any event, as most real Catholics know, there is a big difference between calling yourself something and actually being that which you label yourself. In recent decades the concept of the 'cafeteria catholic' has emerged. This means that you do some things, like attend Mass, take Communion, send your kids to Catholic schools, and so on, but that you don't follow Church teachings on certain issues. Those certain issues are different for each person, each gets to select whatever part of the faith they want, and discard whatever part of the faith that they do not want. Thus the idea of it being like a cafeteria, you get to pick and choose from available items, ideas, positions, rulings. Problem is, we as the faithful flock do not get to make or interpret Church doctrine or spiritual matters. In most instances, the Church Fathers, especially the Pope, rule on and interpret matters of the faith, and pass along how we should approach these situations. One of the strongest positions that the Church holds is that of being pro-life. For politicians who call themselves Catholic but who want to present themselves as politically liberal, this often means breaking from the Church on this issue, and publicly announcing that they are pro-choice, meaning that they support a woman's decision to pursue an abortion if she so wishes. This is, of course, the wrong position to take. All Catholic politicians should be taking positions such as that taken by Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who is liberal on most all issues, but who is pro-life in that area. Casey recognizes that this is not only a political litmus test, it is a true moral one as well, and one that he will not sacrifice on the political altar. Nor has he needed to, as he defeated a popular and seasoned opponent in Republican Rick Santorum to win election to the U.S. Senate last year despite being one of the few Democrats with the courage to take a pro-life position. Now the leading Dems are coming under fire from Church leaders for their public positions. The Archbishop of Washington D.C. has come out against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who stated that the history of the Church does not show that it is always against abortion. Archbishop Donald Wuerl responds that the Church teaching has not changed in 2,000 years and that Pelosi is simply incorrect. The Dems then named Biden as their Veep nominee, a man who calls himself Catholic but who supports abortion and claims similarly that the Church position has changed over the millenia. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, in whose city the Dems are hosting their nominating convention this week, in response stated: “I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion, if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion.” The fact is that if you are going to call yourself Catholic, then you should try to follow the teachings of the Church as much as possible. You should certainly never bend your morals for political considerations, in effect selling out your soul for your elected position. If you don't want to obey the rules, then leave the Church. There is always some church out there that has similarly bent their morality to that which you are seeking. Being a Catholic isn't always easy. As Tom Hanks said in the film 'A League of Their Own' regarding baseball: "It's not supposed to be easy. If it was easy, everyone would do it. It's the 'hard' that makes it great."

Veepstakes: Does it Matter?

The Democratic National Convention kicks off next Monday, August 25th, in Denver and the liberal party will select Barrack Obama as their party nominee for the Presidency. The Republican National Convention will then get underway the following week, on September 1st in Minneapolis. There the conservative party will nominate John McCain as their party nominee for the Presidency. There will be much hoopla, a great deal of pomp and circumstance, and a large amount of partisan blathering from any number of talking heads. In the next few days and into next week there will be a great deal of speculation as to whom each party's prospective nominee will be selecting as a running-mate. The selection of a Vice-Presidential candidate to run with the Presidential candidate on their party 'ticket' is seen as a key moment in any campaign. Very often the Presidential candidate and his advisers look to pick an individual who embodies the values of that Presidential nominee, but who also has differences that can be helpful in drawing voters to the ticket. For instance, someone from the Northeast might decide to pick a Southerner, or someone from the West might choose someone from the East Coast. Someone from the heartland in the Mid-West might choose from the East or the South. Someone deemed inexperienced in world affairs might choose a veteran politico with such experience. Someone with a military background might opt for a partner with a stronger record handling domestic issues, and so on. In the entire history of major party politics in the United States there have been two major things that nearly all candidates have had in common, whether for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency: they have been white, and they have been male. There was only one major party female candidate in history, that being 1984 Veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro (pictured), who ran alongside former Vice-President Walter Mondale. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket was squashed by the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, and there has been no straying from the 'white males only' club until now. When the Dems put Obama's name into nomination, and select him as their candidate, he will become the first black male, the first non-white at all, to ever be nominated for the highest office in the land. Of course, he will pick a white male as his running mate. There are many people who don't feel that the U.S. is ready to elect a black man as it's President, especially one with as liberal a record as Obama's. However, even those who believe that time is now understand that TWO candidates, both the Prez and the Veep, cannot break the 'white male club' barrier in the same year on the same ticket. So the leading contenders most often mentioned are Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Viriginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. The Dems have even revived the ghost of , gasp, John Kerry as a possibility. The call here is that Biden will get the nod. He is extremely strong on international policy and national security issues, two areas which the public perceives as weaknesses for Obama, and he has already been 'vetted'. The vetting process is where the prospective candidate is investigated and interviewed to determine their suitability to be on the team and not bring embarrassment to the campaign in the form of any unwanted 'skeletons in the closet'. On the Republican side the names most frequently mentioned lately seem to be former Prez candidate and Massachusetts Guv Mitt Romney, Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security head Tom Ridge, and youthful Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Any of these three would be great candidates, but Pawlenty may just be too 'unknown' yet nationally. There have even been some who have dug up the old idea of Dem turncoat Joe Lieberman. Romney would be an incredible choice, but he seems like a pipe dream. Ridge is the call here. He was a strong Governor and has perhaps the best resume of any candidate on either side of the aisle. If they were selected, both Biden and Ridge would be outstanding candidates, as would many others selected in their stead. But what difference will they make in the end? Does McCain need a young guy to make folks forget his age? Does Obama need a white guy to make folks forget that he is black? Does McCain need a northeast guy to offset his western ruggedness? Does Obama need an experienced tough-guy to overcome his ultra-liberalism and inexperience dealing with foreign heads of state? No matter, will whomever each selects make a difference to voters? The odds are that both will go with relatively 'safe' choices that will not alienate their base, and that will seemingly be attractive to undecided voters. But I believe that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter who they might pick. The odds are that you are about to get 8 years of either Obama or McCain, and that the Veep won't matter one bit. It is the policies and personalities of Obama and McCain that not only matter the most, but that frankly matter at all. If you are going to vote for your Presidential candidate because of whom he selects as his Veep running mate, then maybe you need to be rethinking your decision to vote for them entirely. The Veep nominees will be selected in the coming days, and there will be a great deal of publicity about the selections. But in the end, it is the Presidential candidates who really count.

The Eurack Obamapean

It has been described in the adoring old media as 'a sea of humanity' and 'hundreds of thousands of adoring followers'. Of course, I am talking about the crowds at rallies for United States Presidential candidate Barrack Obama's visit this past week to Europe for his speeches in front of the 'adoring throngs' - in Germany and France. Meanwhile, back home here in the good-old United States, where the election actually matters and among his own nation, Republican candidate John McCain chose to visit with and talk problems with real Americans. The Dems just don't understand the significance of the difference. A professor on public policy at George Mason University, Jeremy Mayer, is quoted as saying "...if you look at the pictures this week, McCain is speaking at a German restaurant in Ohio, and Obama is speaking before 200,000 Germans in Berlin” as if that is somehow a negative for McCain. Obama is speaking to a lot of Germans while American hero John McCain is speaking to a regular American-dream independent businessman, but somehow Obama's Euro-speech is more significant? Only to the liberal Kool Aid-drinking, Dem-supporting academic elites and the old media. With all the attention, Obama gained nothing in the polls during his big Euro-love festival. Liberal pundits are scratching their heads wondering what they have to do to get their candidate ahead. They just don't realize that there is little that you can do to fool the full 51% of the American population of Americans who support positions to the right of their far-left agenda. It is not enough that he chose Europe to make his big public push this week, Obama was also seen globe-trotting in the war-torn Middle East. Problem was that he once again found a way to alienate our troops while over there. He continued his strategy of putting forth two different positions at once, depending on whatever audience he was in front of at the time. Pull out the troops, keep a strong presence. Keep up the fight, time to end the war. Back and forth, flip and flop, two-faced to the end. Those liberal pundits will continue scratching their heads as to the tight polls right up until their election loss in November. They just don't get it, that the majority of Americans will always chose a real, proven American hero over a Euro-candidate any year.

Islamism Series: Introduction

This is the first part in what will be an ongoing series of postings relating to the serious problems posed to American society, and indeed to free peoples all around the world, by what I am going to term 'Islamism', and what has been given other names such as 'Islamofascism' and as taught this year in Pennsylvania MPO (municipal police officer) classes as 'Radical Islam'. At the bottom of each posting is a series of 'labels', and you click on the one named 'Islamism Series' in order to view all postings that come in this continuing series.

Since the beginning of 2008, I have been teaching a class at the Advanced Training Unit of the Philadelphia (PA) Police Department titled "Radical Islam", and it has been an eye-opening educational experience. Between the lessons learned in the teaching of this class, as well as a course that I took a few years back at CCP on the topic of terrorism with its text "Terrorism and Homeland Security" by Jonathan R. White, and my own personal reading done since 9/11 of books such as "American Jihad" by Steven Emerson, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East" by Martin Sieff, and "Holy War on the Homefront" by Harvey Kushner (all of which I highly recommend), the fact that Islamism is perhaps the overall biggest threat to American society in today's world has been driven home to me. Just as eye-opening has been what I perceive to be an incredible lack of recognition of this fact by the American public, lulled back to sleep by the American media's political agenda, in the wake of the historically outrageous and devastating attacks that occured just seven short years ago. Islamism is defined as a set of idealogies that holds Islam, the Muslim faith, is not only a religion but also should be considered as a political system. Islamists would say that to call it a political system is to trivialize it, that the truth is that Islam should be a "complete way of life." However you want to slice it, and by whatever words you want to associate it, Islamists believe that Islamic law (Sharia) must be the primary source of law and cultural identity within a state. Islamists believe that there can indeed by peace on earth: when Islam dominates and controls the world, and anyone who refuses to accept Islam is either subjugated under it or is killed. There is a naive belief of some that we should either ignore this threat to the world, or that we should try to negotiate with it. Those who feel this way take the position of Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama, that we need to "bring home the troops" and "end the war" in the Middle East. The fact is, this war was declared on us, not by us, and it was declared on us by an enemy who will not stop fighting until they control the world. If we come home, only one side has stopped fighting in the war, which will continue without us, and we will ultimately reap the tragic consequences of our failure to stomach this true battle of civilizations. Perhaps the first lesson that the American public needs to learn is this: Islamism only allows for what they term the 'Three Choices'. First, they invite you to Islam, to join or convert. If you do so, they will have no problem with you. However, fail to convert, the second choice given to you is to pay a tax, what they term the 'Jizya', and you need to do so "with willing submission". This means that you as an individual and a society will pay some type of financial and material tax to the Muslim world in order to continue practicing your faith under their "protection", but you will be subjugated under their ultimate control as a 2nd-class citizen of the Muslim world. If you do not wish to either convert or pay the tax, then your third option is to fight. Period, end of story. There is not fourth option. There is no "live and let live", no "you go your way, I'll go mine." Islamism leaves no option to individuals or to nations other than to join, be subjugated, or be destroyed. Choose not to believe this? Then you are simply ignorant. That is not meant as a slander against you, it is meant that you simply are not educated enough on the subject of Islamism to have a valid opinion. My advice would be, rather than simply choosing to not believe based on nothing other than some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, that you should begin to read and educate yourself on this topic. Following these Islamism Series postings will be one good way. I will point out many different facets of Islamism along the way, relating to terms that you have heard but perhaps do not fully understand, such as Jihad and Abrogation. I will discuss specific groups such as Hamas and al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I will discuss individuals such as Muhammad, Osama bin Laden, Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hassan Nasrallah, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad among others. Also, I will discuss specific attacks against the United States and the West, including the 9/11 attacks, the London and Madrid subway bombings, the Beslan school takeover, and others. There will be idealogy, religion, politics, history, and much more along the way, with at least one posting coming in this "Islamism Series" each week. Again, if you miss an excerpt, click below on the "Islamism Series" label to find all the postings. Most importantly, through this series, the books recommended earlier, and any other source you wish to use, get yourself educated. Just a small look into it will awaken you to just how big a problem we face.

Obamacrite

Will the real Barrack Obama please stand up? And this time perhaps show our flag and our national anthem some respect by paying attention, covering your heart with your hand, and perhaps even singing the song? I mean, you are running as the candidate for President of the United States, right? This man has done more flip-flopping in his effort to get elected as the first black American President than his predecessor as the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, did four years ago. You remember Kerry, who famously "voted against the war before I voted for it." Remember all the controversy when Obama refused to wear the iconic American flag pin on the lapel of his suits? The one he claimed was only a "substitute for real patriotism"? The pin is now worn at all times by the candidate. The new claim would appear to be "if a pin can get me elected, whatever its meaning, pin it on me." Obama spent decades attending the Trinity United church under the spiritual guidance of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. When Wright let loose earlier this year with an anti-American diatribe, Obama immediately defended him, saying that Obama "could no more repudiate his church than his family." So much for that. Wright was tossed under the bus of political expediency, and Barrack left the church. Obama has flip-flopped on trade and the world economy as well, going from a position of vocally denouncing NAFTA to one of strongly supporting free-trade. Now come Barrack Obama's new television commercials, where he extols the "values straight from the Kansas heartland" as taught to him by his suddenly sainted grandma. Wasn't this the same woman who Obama denounced for a racist reaction when she was accosted by a black man on a bus? Obama is doing what politicians do best, and what Democratic politicians do better than any others. He is pandering to what he thinks people want to hear, especially those people who are legitimately undecided in their Presidential preference. If he is talking in front of a group of the military, he will extol their virtues and express his strong support. If in front of a liberal anti-war group, he will talk out of the other side of his mouth. If in front of law enforcement, he will back strong police actions in fighting crime. In front of the ACLU and their buddies, he will talk about police misconduct and abuse. You support the 2nd amendment, he is with you. For handgun control, he's your man. He challenged union contributions to the Edwards and Clinton campaigns as 'special interest' money, and now gleefully accepts those same sources of funding to his own campaign with open arms. In 2004 he stated that it was time to end the embargo with Cuba, but in 2007 he told a group of Cuban-Americans that he would not end the embargo as it was an "important inducement for change." Obama spoke and wrote against the troop surge in Iraq, saying that it wouldn't stop the violence. Now that it has proven an unequivocal success, he says that everyone knew it would work. The man has a 16-month troop withdrawal plan for when he enters office one day, the next he talks about having to stay in Iraq for as long as needed. It all just depends on who he is talking to, and on what the current political climate 'feels' like to him and his team of advisers. It is back to the Clintonista style of campaigning and governing by polling data. Barrack Obama has more faces than a Swiss watch factory, and he has completely misjudged what most Americans want, especially voting Americans. Especially in these difficult times, what we want is a politician who we feel will speak the truth to us. Someone who doesn't feel the need to massage us with what will make us feel good, but instead will tell us how it is and let us in on the discussion to make things better. A vote for Barrack Obama in the fall is a vote for a return to the Clinton days of deception and denial, and of putting off or glossing over problems rather than actually fixing them. Give me John McCain's straight, no-nonsense, tough-love truth any day over this Obama hypocrisy and position-juggling. The Dems have once again given us a hypocrite as their nominee, this time we can perhaps call him the Obamacrite.

Winning the Future With Real Change

Some of the biggest influences on me in recent years have been the ideas and writings of Newt Gingrich. The man is simply the single most eloquent spokesperson for the Conservative cause since Ronald Reagan himself. In fact, blasphemy acknowledged, he may actually be an even stronger advocate for the cause. Three of his books, "To Renew America" (1995), "Winning the Future", and now "Real Change" (2008) are absolute must-reads, particularly "Real Change", which was just released this year and is much more updated in scope and time. Gingrich is a college history professor, historian and novelist who has written outstanding works of living-history fiction on both the Civil War and Pearl Harbor as well. In the concept of 'living history', you take known historical events and people and 'adjust' the facts/results to show 'what might have happened' had certain things gone a different way. In the real world, Gingrich was first elected to Congress from Georgia back in 1978. He was re-elected 10 times, and eventually became the architect of the 'Republican Revolution', which saw the Republican Party take control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years thanks largely to an effort that he led called the 'Contract With America'. Gingrich became the Speaker of the House, leading numerous Republican challenges to President Bill Clinton's liberal Democratic agenda, and was named by Time magazine as the Person of the Year in 1995. Newt Gingrich is now 65, and may have seen his opportunities to lead the party as a Presidential candidate pass him by, but he remains a leading Conservative activist, thinker, and teacher. In a year when the Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama, talks incessantly about "change" to a taxing, weakening, liberal agenda, 'Real Change' is well worth your reading time, and in future Blog entries I am going to talk about some of the particular ideas that it puts forth on various topics of importance to our families and to the nation.