Monthly Archives: July 2011

Sen. Marco Rubio Beat a Dead Horse Today …It’s Name Was John Kerry!

Confession: I shamelessly stole the title to this post from Aaron Gardner on RedState but wasn’t thrilled with the rest of his thoughts so I am not reposting them …there was nothing wrong with them…his analysis just didn’t go far enough in my opinion. What do I mean by that? Only to say that when Senator Rubio makes a speech like this calling out the Democrats and Harry Reid like he does and then politely allows a blow hard like John Kerry to ask a question / make a snide remark …only to demonstrate to the world that being intelligent is NOT a prerequisite for being a U.S. Senator.


The GOP sees Rubio as one of the next U.S. Presidents…or at least a qualified candidate who will make a run. He won’t be ready by 2012 …but, if Obama manages to win reelection expect Rubio to throw his hat into the ring to run in 2016. He is smart, he is eloquent, he appeals to regular people, he is a fighter and a junk yard dog on the campaign and money raising trail and he is a solid conservative from a state with lots of electoral college votes (Florida)

Back to the dead horse beating…lol. OK… Here is what Aaron Gardner posted on RedState…..

Posted by Aaron Gardner (Profile)

Saturday, July 30th at 5:56PM EDT

Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL] took to the Senate floor for a 15 minute speech on the Debt Ceiling debate. Around 7 mins in Sen. John Kerry [D-NVA] thought he would try and debate him. Hilarity ensued.

“To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say that it is impossible to negotiate someone who doesn’t have a plan”
I will note the reaction of two of my friends.

First and observation by Moe via email, “And they wanted us to take Kerry seriously as a Presidential candidate.”

The second from Ben Howe, “The most impressive thing about Rubio vs Kerry is that Rubio didn’t fall asleep while Kerry was talking.”

Not much else to say really.

Aaron B. Gardner

P.S. If you want to see more like Sen. Rubio in the Senate in 2013 then you should probably consider sending a few dollars to the Senate Conservatives Fund while they still have some bit of worth. Ted Cruz and Josh Mandel would love to join Senators DeMint, Rubio, Lee, Paul, and Johnson. HERE IS A LINK TO READ THIS POST AT THE SOURCE


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We Are Losing the War of the Words!! And it Needs to Stop!

How is it possible for anyone to obtain Poll results like these at a time like this?

It’s not the poll itself that shocks me ….it’s the vast and wide disconnect between what many people think is the truth…. and reality!

Even if a person hadn’t been paying attention to anything going on around him for the last 2 years ….how is it possible for them to conclude that “Obama is more concerned about them than the GOP?” (1)

But it gets even better … With 95 cents out of every dollar that was given to any political cause, or individual candidate, originating on Wall Street (either corporately, or individually) in the last Presidential election…. going to Democrats and the left….


The left’s long and storied history of using taxpayer’s money to bail out Wall Street ….100% of the time in the last 50 years….



And the final, counterintuitive capper…

The conclusion, based upon these results, that most Americans (including a majority of Independents) think that Obama’s policy directives and democratic legislation has been far more favorable to small businesses than the GOP’s? (3)

We are losing the war of the words ….and the ironies of articles like these in the Huffpo are some of the reasons why:

THERE IS HOPE ….2 years ago I read a very well written article on exactly this topic written by Gary Graham on one of the Breitbart sites … the points he makes and the analysis that accompany his information is even more timely and needing to be said today, than it was in 09…. But don’t take my word for it ….you be the judge.

Here you go!


The War of Words — Why We’re Losing
by Gary Graham

He who defines the rules controls the game. And we’re letting them define the rules.
Jobs. Health care. Economic justice. Working families. Income redistribution. Fairness.
Words mean things. Very specific things. We on the Right tend to forget that. By following the lead from the Left, we abdicate our arguments without even knowing it. By using their terms, and in so doing, tacitly allowing their outrageous assertions to stand unchallenged, we surrender ground – one step, one phrase, one election at a time.
We are told the main issue on Americans’ minds in these perilous economic times, is ‘Jobs’. The main problem is putting people back to work, dontcha know. ‘Creating more jobs’. And of course, this is a classic example of the cart before the horse. It’s a tried-and-true ploy of the Collectivist to frame the problem as that which affects ‘the masses’ alongside the solution, which involves the central government. (The people need jobs! We’ve got to create more jobs!)
As if…in a free republic the purpose of government is to provide each citizen with a job. As if…a job is merely this mystical anomaly that suddenly appears by fiat of a benevolent and elegant president. As if…the very economic policies of the new administration aren’t doing everything they can to retard the growth of the economy and hence hamper and defeat the expansion of the work force. As if…it’s not the stifling regulation, punitive taxation, and restriction of movement on business that prevents business from hiring new employees.
But the President drones on every other day about, “We need to create more jobs”.

As if…

But we on the Right surrender the argument every time we lead our point with, “Jobs”. A job is a result of a need of a business to run effectively. A business needs people to carry out various functions. And…contrary to popular Leftist thinking…the purpose of a business is NOT providing people with jobs. The purpose of a business is to create profit for its owners and shareholders by providing goods and/or services. Job creation is a happy ancillary effect of a business as it grows.

Expansion of free-market businesses is a good thing.

Too often, Leftist redistribution thieves, Race Merchant poverty pimps, Envoys-of-Envy class warriors, and their toadies — the mainstream media — paint Business as the bad guy. Sometimes their paint strokes are subtle…sometimes not. Corporations, big and small, and those who head them are depicted as nothing more than greedy, selfish, bastards out to ‘screw the little guy’. And we let them get away with this. We allow these ‘shades of lie’ to live in our national lexicon. And we do so by passively accepting…adopting…and eventually embracing their twisted phraseology. They distort our beloved English language…and we wave the white flag, content that anyone even talks to us, happy to be invited to the table.

Before we can restore our nation to its original intent, we need to take back the argument. And that will take backbone – from all of us.
Don’t let them frame the argument.
Stand up for what you know is right!
Are we pussies – or are we Americans?
If our heroes didn’t fold at Normandy, Iwo Jima, Rumadi, Chosin, Lexington…then we shouldn’t reel when our Libtard buddies start waxing Alinsky and Zinn.
Stand and deliver! Hit them with the truth.

They use innuendo and generalization as their major tools. I say kick them square in their syntax! Make them define their terms. (They are loath to do it.) Make them get specific; and if they won’t, dig your heels in and refuse to let the argument proceed until they do so. “What do you mean, specifically, by ‘income redistribution’? Do you mean you want to take my hard-earned salary and give it to someone who hasn’t worked for it, merely because you think he ‘needs’ it more?” “And what are ‘working families’? I have a family and I work. Is mine not a ‘working family’?” And…“What do you mean, ‘We need more jobs’? Don’t you mean, we need to create an environment less hostile and more accommodating toward business and industry in the form of lower taxes and fewer regulations, so that they may expand and be able to afford to enlarge their work force?”

You on the Left are like the misguided farmer on the road with a broken-down horse. You’re kicking him to get up…while you bash him in the head with a hammer. A carrot and some grain could get him moving on down that road.

Memo to Government: We in the business world can rebound and expand the economy if you will get out of our pockets and get out of our way!!!

Lift the crippling restrictions and heavy tax burden on small business. Get out of bed with big corporations – stop the payoffs (with our money) of ‘go-along with it’ back room deals. Stay out of Wall Street. Your lust to control is leading us down the ruinous road to fascism.

What part of “The government has no business being in business” don’t you get? Yes, that includes the ‘health care’ business. And by the way, fellow Righties — to frame the argument over free-market vs. government controlled health care by calling it simply ‘Health Care’ is a losing gambit. To abbreviate the very complex industry that involves one-fifth of the American economy, employs tens of millions of technicians, doctors, dentists, nurses, administrators, researches, salespeople, support staff, etc… as simply ‘Health Care’ is ludicrous. But…I hear it repeatedly from the Right…. “We stand in opposition to Health Care. We oppose Health Care. We’ve got to stop Health Care from moving forward.” Yes, most of us on the Right know what you mean…but stop and think a minute how that sounds to the uninitiated. “You oppose health care? You heartless morons!”

Words mean things.

It seems like a tedious, never-ending task…but make the Lefties do it; make them define and refine their terms. It’s obnoxious, but play dumb, as if you truly don’t know what they’re talking about. It’ll drive them nuts…but it will force them out of the clouds, it will force them to get specific. And clarity is a good thing.

It is my firm belief that if we bring the Left out of the generalized fog of euphemism, innuendo and non-specificity, and force them to clearly illuminate their positions…the voters will reject them. So many Americans right now are wishing they’d pursued this line of inquiry last year. “What do you mean by ‘hope and change’? Hope for what, specifically? And you want to change this country? What kind of change …specifically?”

The words we use are important. Words can clarify and elucidate. Or they can just as easily distort and obfuscate. To seek the former is to come out into the bright warm sunlight. And to flush out the latter is to send cockroaches scurrying for cover.

Now go forth and sin no more!

(1) Obama leads the GOP by 18 points in looking out for middle-class Americans, 53-35 percent. He also has a 10-point advantage, 47-37 percent, as being more concerned with the economic interests of “you and your family.”
(2) By a wide 59-26 percent, the public sees congressional Republicans as more concerned than Obama with protecting the economic interests of Wall Street financial institutions, Americans even more broadly, by 67-24 percent, put the GOP ahead when it comes to looking out for the interests of large business corporations.
(3) Obama leads the GOP by 9 points, 48-39 percent, on protecting small businesses.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Codex Alimentarius – The REAL Threat to World Health?

Is it just me?…. or does it seem like lately the intrusion of our government in it’s tireless quest to micromanage every decision we make, appears to be coming at us from just about every angle…almost all of the time?

This is what happens when unnecessary government agencies with nothing to do meet their own desperate need to use all of their annual funding to make themselves indispensible. When that happens …what occurs is the slow and tedious weaving of a rats nest of regulations, guidelines, rules, protocols, standards and procedures that have been suffocating American ingenuity, innovation and progress for decades!

If this fact alone weren’t bad enough, consider how effective corporate self interests have had in controlling the speed and direction of these cancerous growths, and in not only framing the discussions, but determining the conclusions of our governmental nannies such that it’s become nearly impossible to be au courant and connaitre le dessous des cartes . Even the most vigilant of us is finding out that defending our freedoms and liberties against the constant, intrusive growth and manipulative influences of our own government is as tiresome as playing ‘whack a mole’ …non stop …24/7/265.

Most worrisome…. and least monitored of these governmental entities and creations has been the United Nations, and the resurgence of it’s new found importance in shaping our future, under the neocon, neo-liberal, globalists currently in power within the Obama regime. One of the more significant and often unreported encroachments which has been festering since the early 60’s and is currently postured to limit our choices and take away our ability to exercise our own constitutionally protected liberties (and coincidentally advance the purpose and goals of the “Esoteric Agenda”) is the Codex Alimentarius and it’s sinister impact and complicity in past failed power grabs even 10 years ago like “Operation cure-all

Here is a heads up on what it is …what it does and who it does it to/for… consider it another mole which must be tirelessly whacked, over and over and over again until it can no longer show it’s ugly face again. CEJ

“More and more people are becoming concerned about the shady, secretive organization that is Codex Alimentarius – the thinly-veiled propaganda arm of the international pharmaceutical industry that does everything it can to promote industry objectives whilst limiting individual options to maintain health (which would diminish members profits).

Codex alimentarius is one of the major bodies behind the effort to limit access to nutritional products and information. Its motivation is not rocket science and neither is the source of its funding – money that somehow expected to return a profit to its members . . . Most of the information available regarding codex alimentarius refers to its role in the USA, but it is not a US-specific body. Far from it, Codex has wiggled its dirty little tentacles into just about every national or international body concerned with public health. Posing as a benefactor, it then uses its significant financial and political clout to do its masters bidding.

The Codex Alimentarius Conspiracy: 2011

By Miss Perception ● For Petition Against Codex Alimentarius

Barack Obama has signed Codex Alimentarius, reinstating the use of 7 out of 9 highly toxic pesticides previously banned in 186 countries, and criminalizing the use of natural health supplements.

Those at the top (such as the Pfizer, and Carlyle Group, who supply arms to the US Military) are also buying out natural supplement companies to gain control of the products. Holland and Barrett, the UK’s largest health store, has been bought by the Carlyle Group.

Without nutrients, we stay ill – or worse. Nutrition is big business. And what better way to gain control of the people than controlling through what they ingest?

All animals used for food can now be injected with antibiotics and hormones. Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex) – yet currently almost everything in our diet is approved for irradiation.

Codex means legalization of mandated toxicity and under-nutrition resulting in billions of deaths through cancer (the most profitable condition known to man), diabetes, malnutrition etc. Independent farmers are being forced out of business, marine life is being killed/poisoned (think Gulf Oil spill), supermarkets are being monopolised and soon it will be illegal to grow your own food.

‘Organic’ is already a loose term.


GRAMMAS INTERNATIONAL and many others are fighting this but we don’t have long. We need 35 millions signatures before April 2011. CONT’D HERE

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Our Elected Leaders Will Lie to Us as Long as we Allow them too

There is an ever widening gap today between what people are being told by their elected leaders and what is real. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not, and politicians prefer to leave reality to others.

Unfortunately, the battle by our elected leaders to ‘fool all of the people all of the time’ has been enjoined by their errand boys and propaganda “tools” (and I do mean tools!) in the media. Real stories that conflict with the political spin of the day month or year are quashed and never reported…the quest is no longer for truth but for talking points that help manipulate the people and advance their unspoken agenda and narcissistic obsession with being re elected so they can continue to exercise their dominion over all of us.

Take the ongoing debate over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on “the rich,” over taxing the rich as an example: Real or talking points spin? Most of the people who are asked aren’t rich and would prefer that they ‘pay their fair share” so they won’t have too. The only problem with this spin …which currently accounts for every 3rd sentence Obama utters each day …is that it’s totally false. Conservatives are people who take the accumulated lessons of history and the human experience to heart when they formulate their beliefs… Anyone with even a passing interest in the history of what happens when the burden of paying for the social safety net etc for everyone else falls on the rich versus what history shows us happens when the responsibility is spread more evenly the rich are given tax cuts is routinely ignored for the pie in the sky fantasy world of the progressives who see the world as they would like it to be not as it is.

They are adamant in their refusal to not be confused with facts when their mind is already made up (or was made up for them). None of the things we are trying or that we face are unique to us at this moment in time but have faced our forefathers time and time again throughout our history. The most obvious example comes to us from the 80’s via Ronald Reagan who showed that you could slash tax rates…which will extract more revenue from the rich than we get during periods of high tax rates ….and increase the revenues flowing to the government in the final analysis. Since so many on the left decided long ago that no empirical evidence would ever change their mind about President Reagan’s legacy …let’s take another example from history…JFK and Calvin Coolidge. The numbers are indisputable. Under Coolidge the top marginal tax rate was over 70% …but when that top rate was dropped to 24% the “rich” contributed more actual revenue dollars to the government than they ever did when rates were 3x higher. The same thing happened after JFK cut taxes …and when RWR cut taxes … what good is history to us if we aren’t willing to look at it and learn everything we can from it instead of ignoring these inconvenient truths in favor of the politics of class envy and divisiveness?

When political ideology trumps common sense, reason and history sufficient proof should then exist that we are going in the wrong direction and being led by the wrong people. Not one day goes by that we aren’t treated to Obama jamming a sharp stick into the eye of history and the truth to create the turmoil necessary to manipulate and herd the sheeple. Until everyone wakes up and screw on their brain and fires it up to full speed and can strip away the unreal, manufactured lies they are being told …and choosing to believe everyday …and can open themselves up to the lessons of the trial and error of those who came before us we will never be able to pull out of the flat spin into slavery and oblivion we are currently in.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The U.S. Government Debt Default Bogie Man Scares No One

By the time “Obama the candidate” was elected ….I had reached my capacity for hearing the sound of his voice…then after he was sworn into office, and became “Obama the President”, I once again grew weary of his smug inedptness and unjustified arrogance every time he opened his mouth. Thank goodness less than a month later he officially morphed into “Obama the Liar”. Now, just listening to him as he reads the speeches written for him to give will send me running out of the room screaming …Fast forward to today ….I am at peace because i have found solace in the knowledge that every single thing he says is a lie. So, like the little Barachio, who hollered wolf too many times ….when Barry announced (ad nauseum) that “the USA would run out of money on the 2nd and we would default on all of our debts on the 3rd”, all I could do was howl with laughter that anyone would allow themselves to be heard saying something so simple minded and provably false. Apparently I am not the only one who has effectively tuned out the elephant eared dummy. In this article, J.D. Foster PhD does a great job of explaining why no one believes Barrachio now that his plans to pound the final stake into the heart of America is dependant upon him being able to create enough of a diversionary panic to slide one more right past 300 million people…again. CEJ

The U.S. Government Debt Default Bogie Man Scares No One

Ever since the debate over the debt limit began in earnest at the start of the year, the Obama Administration, led by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, has implied that the U.S. might default on its publicly held debt. In his press conference today, the President said that “it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt limit and to allow the U.S. government to default. We cannot threaten the United States’ full faith and credit for the first time in our nation’s history.”

The fear of default and the catastrophic consequences that would follow, they hoped, would force congressional Republicans to cave on accepting tax increases. Much to the apparent frustration of the Administration and to the surprise of many conservatives, it hasn’t worked.

Why didn’t the debt default bogie man scare the Republicans? It did, at first. Especially as the farce was repeated over and over even by voices in the media who should have known better—and probably did. But eventually the facts won out over fear. CONT”D HERE

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Do you think the US Military Would Fire On Other Americans? Here is the answer!

Combat Arms Survey

On 08 April 1995, The RESISTER conducted a telephone interview with LCDR Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994.

The survey was given in support of his Naval Postgraduate School master’s thesis; Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion. (Before joining the Navy, LCDR Cunningham was a Special Forces medic. After the usual exchange of bona fides, and waltzing the Name Dropping Dance, sufficient trust was established for a frank discussion.)

For the record, we are convinced of LCDR Cunningham’s sincerity in his claim that the sole purpose of his thesis was to explore what effect Operations Other Than War would have on small unit cohesion. We discussed several constitutional issues with him, as well as the results of his survey. Although there are those who still vilify LCDR Cunningham, we found him to be strongly opposed to many of the non-traditional missions contained in his survey, and a staunch defender of the Constitution.

One of the first questions we asked LCDR Cunningham pertained to the timing of his questionnaire. There had been rumors of a questionnaire of similar content being administered to U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six in the fall of 1993, and the February 1994 issue of MODERN GUN magazine publicized the existence of such a questionnaire.

LCDR Cunningham denied that was his questionnaire and maintained that the first, and only, time his questionnaire was given at Twenty-Nine Palms of 10 May 1994. When asked if he had made test versions, and conducted test runs of his questionnaire to refine his product, he replied that he had not.

When asked if he was aware of any other person, or organization, conducting similar research, he replied that he was aware of no such questionnaire or research. (This raises the question; “Who, or what agency, was surveying special operations personnel to determine if they would participate in firearms confiscation?”)

Our conversation then ranged over the construction and content of the Combat Arms Survey. LCDR Cunningham stated that the Combat Arms Survey was specifically designed to elicit responses indicative to the effect the described non-traditional missions, under either U.S or U.N. control, would have on cohesion of small units engaged in such operations.

With specific regard to the infamous question #46, we agreed that unit cohesion would evaporate. Officers who gave the order would make their widows rich, and the most serious threat to the public would be the ensuing firefight between those refused to confiscate firearms, and the bullet-bait who would.

An important distinction discussed regarding the results of the Combat Arms Survey was the age of the respondents and their acceptance of foreign control of U.S. forces. The younger the respondent (in other words; the lesser the pay grade of the respondent), the more amenable he was to Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions, including U.N. operational control over U.S. forces. this was true of both officers and enlisted men.

During the interview we commented that an individual marking an opinion space in a questionnaire merely indicated the opinion of that individual, but was not indicative of whether that individual would, or would not, follow illegal or immoral orders, or perform a mission he had strong personal misgivings about, and that, for the most part, despite personal misgivings, soldiers would follow orders regardless of the legality , morality, or constitutionality of those orders.

LCDR Cunningham conceded that such distinctions were outside the scope of the Combat Arms Survey, but that the margin responses to certain questions indicated that the long term result of compliance with questionable orders would eventually result in intra-unit factionalism and destroy unit cohesion.

LCDR Cunningham further related that the most frightening statistic of the Combat Arms Survey was the number of “No Opinion” responses to a number of questions, most significantly to question #46.

Twelve percent of respondents answered “No Opinion” when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.

We objected that even those who had a moral aversion to following illegal orders would do so, either out of a sense of duty, or for no more substantial reason than the preservation of their military careers, and that the percentage of those who would fire on Americans, even if they disagreed with the order to do so, was probably significantly higher than 50 percent.

We further objected that the personal opinions of officers who would give the orders relied less on their willingness to issue, or ensure the successful execution of, immoral orders, than their desire to achieve a one or two block on their OER. LCDR Cunningham agreed in principle that “careerism’ had the logical consequence of diluting moral responsibility, but could offer no substantive evidence to the extent of impact of careerism on unit cohesion based solely on his thesis or research.

Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham’s premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces–as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis–we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism.

LCDR Cunningham’s thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non- traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit’s leadership).

Anybody who doubts this need only talk to the man.

JFA Davidson



The following survey was given to U.S. Marines at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base in California:
DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)


Part A (Confidential when filled in)

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to non-traditional missions. All responses are confidential and official. Write your answers directly on the form. In Part II, place an “X” in the space provided for your response.


Part 1. Demographics.

1. Branch of Service: Army ( ) USAF ( ) Navy ( ) Marines ( ) ANG ( ) NG ( ) USCG ( ) Other: ( )

2. Pay Grade: (E-6, O-4, etc) ( )

3. MOS, AFSC or Specialty Code and Description: ( )

4. Highest level of education: Less than 12 ( ) 13 ( ) 14 ( ) 15 ( ) (16) ( ) More than 16 ( )

5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?( )

6. How many months did you serve in Somalia? ( )

7. Where did you spend most of your childhood?

City: ( ); County: ( ) State: ( )

Part II. Attitude:

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the U.S. and bordering countries for any of the following missions?

(Strongly Disagree) (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly Agree) (No Opinion)

8. Drug enforcement

9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

11. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear

12. Substitute teachers and school workers in public schools

13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up,road repair, animal control)

14. Federal and State prison guards and auxiliary police

15. National emergency police force/international security force

16. Advisors to SWAT units, the FBI, or the BATF

17. Border Patrol (e.g. prevention of entry of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

18. Drug enforcement and interdiction

19. Disaster relief in bordering countries (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.)

20. Environmental disaster clean-up in bordering countries including toxic and nuclear.

21. Peace keeping and local law enforcement and internal security forces

22. National building (reconstruct civil governments, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing and domestic care).

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the U.N. for any of the following missions?

24. Drug enforcement.

25. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

26. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear.

27. Peace keeping including local law enforcement and internal security forces

28. National building (reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.

29. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing and domestic care)

30. Police action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm but serving under non-U.S. officers)

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.

32. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises

33. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U. S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control.

34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N.missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under U.N. command and control.

36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non- commissioned officers at battalion, wing and company levels while performing U.N. missions.

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team.

38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company or squadron commander.

39. I feel the President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.

41. I feel my unit’s combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing huminatarian and peace keeping missions for the U.N.

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the U.N.

43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.

45. I would swear to the following code:

“I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense.”

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.

Consider the following statement:

“I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

End of Survey

Well? What do you think? …Please comment!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Liberal Lunacy and the Weirdness that is Oregon

The Weirdness that is Oregon

Don’t think that liberalism is a mental disease? Do you think that liberal lunacy is something that only happens to other people…in other states, and other cities? Think again. One thing about living in Oregon is the rest of the country takes a lot of its weirdness cues from us.

Consider some of the most consistently nonsensical and crazy acts that occur within Oregon’s borders and are accepted as normal every single day. From the perspective of someone who is fairly new to the area … Portland’s “keep Portland weird’ slogan does nothing more than serve as ‘cover’ for extreme acts of wackiness and lunacy. Oregonians wear their weirdness as a badge of honor.

Even comparatively more conservative Bend Oregon isn’t immune to random acts of bizarre thinking: consider that in July of 2010 they city decided to euthanize 109 Canada geese to keep them from overrunning their parks …what did the lunatic fringe do in response ? They held a memorial service and candle light vigil of course… (huh?)

When it comes to general year around weirdness Portland is harmlessly entertaining when compared to the militant enviro-craziness and mind numbing earth-muffin anarchy that passes as normal in Eugene. If you aren’t able to make it to the Eugene Country Fair which starts this week then consider some of these more extreme and noteworthy occurrences.

A couple of years ago 2 Eugene men filed an initiative proposal to restrict the repetitive use of the music used by the ice cream man to alert prospective customers to his presence.

Want to know where Portland got the idea for their nude bicycling protest? …Eugene

Around the same time, after sitting in a redwood tree for 2 years, tree hugger/sitter Julia “Butterfly’ Hill got down out of her tree long enough to give a speech at the U of O where she is heckled to tears by crowd members…./ for what? … They claimed she ‘sold out’ to a logging company? (Hello …she sat in a tree for 2 years!!)

How about the 20 lb Chinook salmon that was thrust into the face of Al Gores top environmental aide after her speech at U of O?

Or the self proclaimed ‘animal communicator’ from Eugene who channeled a one page communication from Keiko after he had been transported to Iceland …saying he was doing well and was very content with his freedom?

Or the award winning Planned Parenthood float entry into a Eugene parade that featured a sunglasses wearing character named “Joe Sperm”?

And those aren’t even the weird ones…..

How about the Eugene caller to Victor Boc’s radio show blaming the Seattle earthquakes in 01 on the overcutting of Old Growth forests…(sounds of birds chirping) )

In 2008 Eugene’s “State of the City” speech included an angry rap telling people to stop driving their cars and to stop shopping at Wal-Mart? (huh?_)

The bizarre couple from Eugene who appeared on the show ‘wife swap’ who admitted to not using toilet paper (to stop the killing of trees) and used their own urine to ‘moisten their compost piles (cuckoo!!) Truly ‘out there”!

On Mother’s Day the Eugene Weekly ran a column decrying the exploitation of female pigs, cows and chickens for only their reproductive qualities calling it a slap in the face of motherhood!

How about the mayor of Eugene who got into the holiday spirit by banning all xmas trees from public places… bizarre? Yup!

And the list goes on and on….

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized