Ok, lemme get this straight? This U.S. District Judge Henry F. Floyd says that the President of the United States does not have the authority to indefinitely detain Abdullah Al Muhajir (aka Jose Padilla) without charging him for a crime, right? In his decision, Floyd said;

“…the court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold [Padilla] as an enemy combatant.”

IMO, Padilla should not be permitted writ of habeas corpus for the simple fact that he has willfully associated himself with a hostile foreign enemy of the state with which we are actively engaged in combat, he had intentionally undergone terrorist training for the sole purpose of attacking our country and we had sufficient testimony with reason to believe that he was originally planning on detonating a nuclear ?dirty bomb? within our borders until those plans were scaled back to only blowing up apartment buildings that were supplied with natural gas. When the DOJ took this bad apple into custody we were shocked when we learned what he was planning to do.

An Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief filed by The Cato Institute On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit appropriately argues the justification for Padilla?s detention as a military combatant and their ?Summary of Argument? correctly illustrates the President?s Executive Authority in this matter:

Since the September 11th terrorists attacks, the Federal Government has made several sweeping constitutional claims ? that the Executive can seize American citizens, place them in solitary confinement, deny any and all visitation (including with legal counsel), and, in effect, deny the prisoner access to Article III judges to seek the habeas ?discharge? remedy. As long as the Executive has issued ?enemy combatant? orders to his Secretary of Defense, the Government claims, the process comports with the Constitution ? regardless of whether the prisoner is an American citizen or whether the arrest-seizure takes place overseas or on American territory. Repeatedly, the Government conflates three distinct issues: seizure of citizens, imprisonment of citizens, and trial of citizens.

Another Amicus Curiae brief filed by The Commonwealth of Virginia On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit also makes a strong argument in support of the President?s Executive Authority:

Given the unusual character of this war, it is appropriate for the judiciary to afford the President a measure of deference in the exercise of his executive authority and as Commander in Chief. When the U.S. military is sent abroad to vanquish terrorist training camps, soldiers have the authority to capture and detain both enemy personnel and their collaborators. This Court has never held that arrest warrants are required in the battlefield. Although the Government complains in general terms about attempts to ?impair? Executive authority, it notably fails to identify any legal challenge to the capture of enemy forces outside of America?s borders. The Government, in short, builds a convincing case against a classic straw man when it argues that the military must have latitude to seize combatants, including combatants who turn out to have been born in America.

What is more important here folks is that we cannot risk divulging sensitive information on activities and contacts of Jose Padilla for fear of compromising our intelligence sources and/or our military strategies. This is no different than what I said a month ago when U.S. District Court Judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that enemy combatants are protected under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution during a time of war!

We cannot allow enemy military combatants to have access to classified information without risking disclosure of covert operations currently in process during this time of war! ?We are extracting valuable information from them about their potential roll in terrorist activity and we cannot afford to divulge sensitive information with the possibility that they will squeal like pigs to our enemies thereby jeopardizing the lives of those who are prosecuting this war on terror!!!

And so folks, I must admit that I am a bit confused today. I guess the real problem I?m having here is deciding who?s more deserving of the dunce cap; U.S. District Court Judge Henry F. Floyd or the nin-com-poop who appointed this non-constructionist nit-wit to a Federal Bench to begin with…… our very own beloved President George W. Bush!

Now there?s gratitude for ya!

Poor Oscar! There ain?t nuttin? worse than havin? unwanted garbage in your home. Nobody likes living with that kind of stench. Just remember though Oscar, it?s not nice to dump your garbage on your neighbor?s lawn.

I haven?t posted anything since the night before the last court hearing which ended up extending Terri?s life for another few weeks, but I have been keeping up on the latest developments and I must say that it brings a tear to my eye to see so many good folks out there who care enough about saving this woman?s life and are speaking out on the obvious sinister behavior being shown by Michael Schiavo, his lawyer, the Florida courts, the culture-of-death liberals and the MSM. So many of us truly breathed a hastened sigh of relief after hearing that Terri?s defenders would get until the middle of March to come up with enough evidence to stop that schmuck of a husband from yanking her tubes and letting her starve to death.

Amid all the good news and surreal optimism that I?ve been hearing over the past couple of days, nothing gave me more pleasure than an email I received from the good people over at RNC for Life. Here?s an eye witness account of a recent visit with Terri and her folks by Attorney Barbara Weller?

The February 24, 2005, Visit Narrative
by
Attorney Barbara Weller
I have visited Terri Schindler Schiavo several times since I first met her on the day before Christmas in 2004. Today was an especially poignant visit so I decided to again share it with all those who have been so concerned for her.

Attorney David Gibbs III and I visited Terri to update her on the good things that were happening in the legal case. We believe that she comprehends at some level what is going on and that she may well have been aware of the fear and anguish her parents and siblings were feeling on February 21 when the possibility existed that the process of starvation and dehydration might again be initiated leading to her death.

We made this visit with her mother and father, Bob and Mary Schindler. For the first time since I have been visiting her, security guards were posted by Terri?s door and visitors had to clear two check points before entering the room. The Schindlers are very grateful that Terri has been given this extra protection to keep her safe during this difficult time.

When Mr. Gibbs and I entered the room with Bob, Mary was already there. Terri was again sitting in her lounge chair, at nearly an upright angle. Mary was perched on the arm of the chair with her head right next to Terri?s head. Mary was talking to Terri and kissing her and Terri?s eyes were wide and locked onto her mother?s eyes. Mary was saying ?I love you? and trying to get Terri to repeat the words after her. Mary would say ?I-I-I-I? and Terri would answer back ?Aa-a-u-u-ugh.? Mary would then say ?l-o-o-o-v-v-v-v-e? and Terri would repeat ?Aw-w-w-w-w-w.? Mary then said a staccato ?you? to which Terri did not audibly respond.

Within a minute or two after we entered the room, Terri began to appear tired. She had been interacting with Mary for a half hour before we arrived and seemed to need a little rest. She closed her eyes while the four of us chatted. When Mary tried to get her attention, she would try to open her eyes, but they would flutter shut again. Mary was coaxing Terri to wake up, telling her that she had some ?very important visitors? (Mr. Gibbs and myself). Finally, after a few minutes of coaxing, Terri?s eyes opened wide again and she again locked them on her mother?s face.

After a few minutes, Mr. Gibbs began to talk to her. When Terri heard Mr. Gibbs’ voice she became startled. She threw her head backwards and made a loud snorting sound. While Mr. Gibbs continued to talk to her she was opening and closing her eyes, sometimes looking in his direction and sometimes appearing to be resting. Mr. Gibbs told her about the good things that were happening, about all the people around the world who love her and who are praying for her, and that the government had stepped in to protect her and to try to help her. He stressed, like you would to a small child, how blessed Terri was to have a mom and dad who loved her. Terri seemed quite content listening to Mr. Gibbs speak.

I next took a turn to talk with Terri. I went to the spot where her mother had been and began to talk quietly to her about the party we are all going to have when she goes home. I also prayed with her. The whole time I was speaking to her and praying for her, her eyes were wide open and fixated on my face. At one point, she tried to talk with me, making a very quiet ?a-a-a-a-a? sound. I had the impression that my voice was perhaps somewhat familiar to her since I have now been to see her several times.

When her father went to stand by her side on Terri?s left, Mr. Gibbs had moved to her right, on the other side of Terri?s bed, which is next to her lounge chair. Earlier in Terri’s room Bob had joked with Mr. Gibbs that everybody wanted to talk to Mr. Gibbs now and nobody cared what Bob had to say anymore making him jealous. Bob began to joke with Terri as he always does and Terri?s face took on the same coy, semi-annoyed look that I have seen before when she interacts with her father. At that point, Terri arched her back and turned her whole body to the right, away from Bob, to gaze intently at Mr. Gibbs with a little saucy smile on her face. It seemed obvious to me that she was playing along with the joke by giving her father the cold shoulder and focusing all her attention on Mr. Gibbs. Bob continued to tease with her about this for a few minutes and then gave her his customary hug and kiss, to which she responded with her usual lemon face that she reserves for his mustache kisses.

The four of us spent several more minutes joking and laughing together. Terri did not speak, but watched and listened to us. When it was time to go, Mary went up to Terri?s head to say goodbye. At that point Terri began to cry and to look very distressed. Mary said that Terri does not always cry when they leave, but she sometimes does. Mary promised that the whole family would return the next day, but Terri did not stop crying. When Mary left the room, I went up to Terri?s head and leaned close and told her that even though her mother and father could not always be with her that she was not alone. When I told her that, Terri widened her eyes again. She was no longer crying when I left the room.

This visit lasted about forty minutes. We encourage everyone to continue to pray for Terri and her family, especially that Terri will soon be receiving the help she needs to learn to speak and to swallow and that she will soon be home with her family again.

I will NEVER be an anti-Zionist!

You know what? This is becoming something of a joke. It seems that every time I hear of some activist federal judge making unconstitutional rulings, I cannot help but ask myself that one question which has so frequently become the obvious: Who appointed this idiot, the Peanut Peacenik or Slick Willy? As fate would have it, I was on the mark when I guessed it to be Slick Willy. At first, I was gonna flip a coin but found I hadn’t any change in my pocket in the first place. Oh well?

Anyway, our latest judicial dunce, U.S. District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan, decided to rule against the constitutionally protected actions of the Tangipahoa School Board by declaring the prayer said at the beginning of every board meeting to be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Of course, the lawsuit was filed but the Louisiana division of the ACLU (or the American Communist Lawyer Union, as I like to call ?em). Go figure.

This poor excuse for a scholar of law has some nerve continuing to arbitrate civil cases from a U.S. District Court bench let alone serve as a protector of the United States Constitution as it appears Judge Ginger has some questionable baggage of her own to be concerned about. There seems to be some conflicts of interest involving Her Royal Judgeship and Tulane University as I found on an interesting website by Dr. Carl Bernofsky where he lays out the reasons for why she should be censured.

That aside, I simply refuse to write another freakin? essay explaining why her ruling against the Tangipahoa School Board is an abomination of constitutional jurisprudence and grounds for impeachment, but I will go so far as to say that if we don?t get off our asses and raise hell with congress on passing effective legislation protecting the United States Constitution against these liberal activist judiciaries, we might just as well kiss those God given freedoms of ours bye-bye!

Senator Arlen Specter, well known RINO and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (well, for the meantime anyway) has begun issuing donk-style threats to Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and his other fellow Republican Senators concerning the use of the ?nuclear option? which would effectively stop the Dimocrats from filibustering the President?s judicial nominees. Why am I not surprised?

In a Washington news conference yesterday, Specter warned the Republicans that?

“If we have a ‘nuclear option,’ the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell,”

Then he had the nerve to say?

“We can take an extended foreign trip, all of us.”

Oh, really? You mean to tell me that if the Senate Republicans get fed up with the unconstitutional filibustering of the President?s judicial nominees by a bunch of whining donks, Specter along with the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee will pull a move out of the Texas State Congressional Dimocrat playbook, run away from their appointed duties and hide in the sand when things don?t go their way? What the hell is he talking about?!

And then when questioned on his position on use of the “nuclear option”, Specter said?

“I have not made a judgment on it. As I’ve said before, I’d prefer not to come to that bridge. I’m certainly not going to jump off the bridge until I come to it.”

Didn?t we try to warn these guys over at the RNC that this thankless bastard wasn’t going to help toe-the-line for GW?s judicial appointments despite the fact that the President bent over backwards and gave Specter the support he needed during last year?s run for Senator. And to think, with the Pennsylvanian Senatorial Primary results being so close last year, if GW threw his weight behind Pat Toomey instead, we could have been rid of that sad excuse of a Republican.

Benedict Snarlin’ Arlen better get his jumpin’ shoes on and someone should also make it clear to him that if the Republican majority says ?jump? and he doesn’t, he might as well prepare to go down with that sinking ship known as the Democrat Party.

A couple of days ago, Claire over at e-Claire/e-Biscuit.com commented on the “Action Alert” I posted with respect to an upcoming case where the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of displaying the 10 commandments on public property. In part, her comment said;

“How can anyone prevent anyone from displaying the 10 Comandments — or the Torah or the Buddah or…..”

Actually, depending on the Constitution of the individual State and not the Federal Government, that possibility may indeed exist, but what we also need to remember is that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles centered around the laws provided by God in the scripture of the Old Testament and not Buddha or Krishna or Gaia or Zeus or?

“I see the argument over using taxpayer money to fund a display of any of the above, but neither SCOTUS nor Congress has any say on any other such display any citizen may create.”

?and on that, I couldn?t agree with her more.

United States Constitution ? Bill of Rights

Amendment I – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified December 15, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part or the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?” Up until about a century ago, most folks clearly understood the meaning of those words. Congress has no constitutional authority to create legislation which establishes a federal religion. This was purposefully made the number one priority of the Founding Fathers because they didn?t want this new nation to be ruled by a governing body that mandated adherence to one particular form of Christianity as did the Church of England with its theocratic aristocracy. Each man needed to have the freedom to worship his creator in the way he saw fit without intervention from the federal government. Any and all laws pertaining to religious expression were intended to be the responsibility of each individual state. In fact, for several years following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, some states continued to maintain an established church.

Today, if you were to ask just about anyone on the street what the religion part First Amendment means, you will most assuredly hear something about the infamous “wall between church and state.” Why? Because that is what?s being pushed by the MSM and the God-less public school system. The same revisionist historians that try to paint our Founding Fathers as a bunch of racist, slave-owning, homophobic, religious fanatics who slaughtered the native Indians and stole their land to build sweatshop factories spewing toxic waste that poisoned the wildlife and caused global warming are also the ones responsible for the on-going eradication of Christianity from the historical roots of American democracy.

Unfortunately, because of these radical secularists, there exists much confusion about who the Founding Fathers were and the building blocks they used to establish this great nation. As part of their relentless pursuit in removing all Christian identity from our government, they have scoured every historical source in the attempt to find anything they could use that would solidify their supposition on the absolute division between government and religion. Among various snippets of quotations that were purposefully taken out of context for their campaign of propaganda, one line from one historical document appeared to stand out above the rest.

On New Year?s Day in 1802, Thomas Jefferson penned the famous “church-state separation” letter in response to the Danbury Baptist Association?s concern over whether or not the new President would impose his theological preferences upon the rest of the nation. In it, he wrote;

Gentlemen, ? The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ?make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,? thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

In the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black (a reputed Klansman and strong supporter of FDR?s socialist New Deal) chose to use Thomas Jefferson?s words on “separation of church and state” out of context for the purpose of bolstering his decision:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

By doing this he established an absolute definition of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which drastically undermined the original intent of the framers and as a result laid the groundwork for future cases seeking to completely remove religious expression from the public venue.

The second part or the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that with regard to religion, Congress shall make no law “?prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This freedom is then backed up by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states;

United States Constitution ? Bill of Rights

Amendment X – Powers of the States and People. Ratified December 15, 1791

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Tenth Amendment ensures that legal jurisdiction over any function not granted to the federal government is forbidden and reserved explicitly for the individual states or the people. Since the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” of First Amendment clearly prohibits the federal government from establishing or interfering in matters with regard to religion, each individual state is thereby vested with the responsibility of its own legislative action and judicial review.

In the case of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore defying a federal court order to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama courthouse, he held true to his oath of office and equally upheld the U.S. Constitution by refusing to allow the federal government to overstep its jurisdiction and render a legal decision on what is clearly a state issue.

When he took his oath of office, Chief Justice Moore swore to protect and uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama in which the final version that was ratified in 1901 states;

“We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility [sic], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama”

In August of 2003, former American Ambassador Dr. Allen Keyes wrote a fabulous essay on Judge Moore and his appropriate interpretation of the First Amendment entitled “Standing for the Constitution” where he wrote;

In the state of Alabama, Judge Roy Moore has refused the unlawful order of Judge Myron Thompson, since it represents a destructive violation of the right of the people of Alabama to decide how their government will or will not express their religious beliefs. This right of the people is the first one secured in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and it cannot be compromised without surrendering the moral foundations of republican liberty. Judge Thompson’s assault upon this right, and that of the entire federal judiciary for the last several decades, is not, therefore, a trivial threat to the liberty of the people. Judge Moore cannot obey the court’s order without surrendering that liberty.

Now, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as it applies the Bill of Rights to the states, lays an obligation upon state legislatures, officers and officials to refrain from actions that deprive the people of their rights. With respect to the First Amendment, therefore, it becomes their positive obligation to resist federal encroachments that take away the right of the people to decide how their state governments deal with matters of religion. This obviously has a direct bearing on the case of Chief Justice Roy Moore in his confrontation with the abusive order of Judge Myron Thompson.

His refusal of the order is not only consistent with his duty to the Alabama Constitution, it is his duty under the Constitution of the United States. Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, the eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, and indeed any other state officials in Alabama who submit to the judge’s order are, by contrast, in violation of the federal Constitution, as well as their duty to the constitution and people of Alabama.

Justice Myron Thompson and the justices of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals broke their oaths of office, overstepped their jurisdiction and as a result became subject to impeachment. Their actions were clearly an affront on constitutional jurisprudence as their arrogant disregard for the First and Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is nothing short of an act of treason.

Setting aside the numerous legalities of this argument, I feel that it is our duty fight as individuals and as a nation to restore the religious heritage of our country?s founding?s. The men who fought to secure our God given freedoms were nearly all Christian men who paid for it with their own blood. Our nation was not built on the religious principles of the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Mohammedans or the Atheists, but on the foundation of laws prescribed to us by the God of Abraham which were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. Our country?s historical establishment as well as our blessings of freedom and liberty are rooted deep in Biblical Scripture, The Ten Commandments and The Gospel of Jesus Christ. To deny it for selfish desire is pure folly and contrary to the vision of our country?s Founding Fathers and to prohibit public recognition of our Biblical heritage is to remove the backbone from our very existence.

In August of 2003, Howard Phillips, Founder of the Constitution Party wrote in an essay titled “Who is America’s Sovereign“;

“Those who framed our great Constitution acknowledged that, as God’s creatures, we must hold the Federal government accountable to us, so that, as God’s stewards, we can be accountable to Him.”

AMEN BROTHER PHILLIPS, AMEN!

What is perhaps most notable here above all is the outrage we share over the fact that the culture of death has indeed taken over so many in the judicial system and I believe it to be a direct result of the anti-Christian humanist movement. Given all the overwhelming evidence that Terri is far from being a brain-dead vegetable on life support and the deafening cries from the conscience of our nation, there continues to be force of evil that insists on carrying out this heinous crime. Even if this defenseless individual is murdered, we will continue our fight to remove this culture of death from our society and restore the culture of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all!

Please visit BlogsforTerri.com for ongoing updates and news related to the battle for Terri’s life.

*UPDATE* BlogsForTerri.com has also set up an emergency fund raising drive to help offset the legal costs involved in keeping the fight for Terri’s life alive in the courts. Please make a financial contribution to help save Terri and please be as generous as your means would permit.

PLEASE GO HERE TO MAKE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION…

Our prayers continue to be with Terri and her family at this terrible time of desperation.

There?s a great commentary by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff over at GOPUSA this morning that just echoes the sentiments I have for this Michael Schiavo character. It?s a great read as it brings more attention to the question of who Michael Schiavo really is, what his involvement in Terri?s tragic condition was, and what exactly this guy stands to gain by pulling the plug on this poor disabled woman. From what I gather, tomorrow is the moment of truth. February 22, 2005 was to be the earliest day that Michael Schiavo would try to have Terri?s feeding tube removed. With so many rallying to save this woman?s life, one must wonder why this schmuck continues to insist on her death.

ConservativePetitions.com wants to petition Governor Jeb Bush to intervene once again to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. Please add your name to the petition in this last minute plea for Terri.

PLEASE GO HERE TO SIGN THEIR PETITION…

HELP FIGHT FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS!!!

On March 6, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the
constitutionality of publicly displaying the Ten Commandments.
This decision will most certainly greatly affect our rights as
citizens to publicly acknowledge God.

Unless the believers of our nation rise up, we will essentially be
throwing open the door for rampant secularism in our land. That is why in the days leading up to the hearing, Faith and Action
seeks to rally and mobilize 50,000 citizens who support the Ten
Commandments.

Having already filed an Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court,
Faith and Action is at the forefront of the Ten Commandment
debate. With their offices just a few feet from the U.S. Supreme
Court, they are perfectly situated to lead the grassroots charge to
protect and preserve our religious liberty and heritage.

PLEASE GO HERE TO SIGN THEIR PETITION…

…squeezing out important legislation.

Our beloved Queen Shrillary has gained some backing from her fellow liberal constituents on a piece of sh** legislation that would allow convicted felons the right to vote. Wait? lemme rephrase that? legislation that would make it legal for droves of convicted felons to show up at the polls and vote for donks. Go figure. I liken this to telling your child that from here on out, they won?t get a spankin? for raidin? the cookie jar. Shrillary and the rest of the donks have the mindset of dysfunctional parents who think their kids should be allowed to get away with raiding the cookie jar because they?re just misunderstood.

Felony crimes are offenses that are deemed by law to be the most socially destructive actions and are therefore deserving of the harshest penalties. Those convicted of such offenses are stripped of their civil liberties and likewise should loose their voting rights as a means of preventing them from electing individuals to political office that may seek to undermine the safety of our society by softening laws on felony crime. It?s pure common sense here folks and not all states have the common sense enough to recognize this threat, but because of the fact that liberals are typically a bunch of Freudian Dr. Spock worshipers who think that it?s counter-productive to spank children who refuse to stop raiding the cookie jar, our communities will continue to remain at risk.

Every election we end up dealing with the same old crap; liberals dragging felons and dead people out to the polls (multiple times in some cases), liberals buying votes with crack (remember that?) and liberals doing everything they can to disenfranchise the Republican leaning military vote. When the hell is this insanity going to stop?! This proposed legislation is pure excrement folks. We don?t need to have our communities endangered by lax laws at the voting booth. On the contrary, as a safe and peaceable society what we need are more affective voting laws and more diligent enforcement of existing regulations in order to validate the legitimacy of each and every vote.

STAND UP FOR OUR TROOPS!!!

Well before the outrageous accusations against out country?s finest by CNN?s Eason Jordan were spread across the blogosphere, we have been well aware of how the MSM seeks to smear the image of U.S. soldiers before the eye?s of the world during this and past times of war. One good example is the obsession the MSM is having with the murder charges brought against Marine Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano. This rediculous fishing expidition will only end up putting our soldiers in greater danger because they will be forced into second guessing their decisions during potentially life threatening situations, but this seems to be what these free speech back-stabbers want!

Their malicious abuse of this country?s First Amendment right to free speech is nothing short of treasonous and as benefactors of this great freedom, paid for by the blood of countless thousands of brave men and women in the Armed Forces, it is our obligation to defend their good name and fight to win the war of words on the home front. These socialist utopians need a wake up call and we in the blogosphere have the acknowledged voice to give it to ?em!

Remember that Super Bowl commercial I lauded last week? Well there appears to be more to the reality of that story than many in the MSM choose to report about. There?s a story in the Agape Press that echoes the sentiment expressed by most Americans who are endearingly grateful of the freedoms we have and grateful for those who protect that freedom. Too bad we don?t hear more stories like that in the MSM. You would think that with all the real support our troops get from American media consumers, they would change their smug arrogant ways for the sake of their ratings, but noooooooooo!

The American Family Association has started an email campaign with the hopes of making our voices heard. We are sick of the bad-mouthing our military gets from the MSM and we, as consumers of their biased reporting, refuse to support them and their anti-American propaganda!

PLEASE GO HERE TO JOIN THE CAMPAIGN…

Yesterday when I saw the Iranian UFO report, I checked over at Coast to Coast AM?s website to see is if George Noory and Art Bell (purveyors of the paranormal) had anything else to add to the story. While browsing around their site I found a hilarious audio clip of some guy talking on the phone to an answering machine when all of a sudden he sees a car accident and begins to narrate the scuffle which later ensues. When I first heard this, I damned near fell off my chair LMAO. Enjoy?

Real Player or Win Media

Moral of the story: Don?t piss off a carload of little old ladies. They may prove to be more dangerous than little green men in flying saucers.