Obituary

Common Sense Died 24/7/365
In America’s Heart, USA

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend by the name of Common Sense who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such value lessons as knowing when to come out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and life isn’t always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more then you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (Adults, not kids are in charge). His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a six year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student; however they could not inform the parents when the student pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth & Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights and I am a Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still know him pass this on, if not join the majority and do nothing…

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Assassination?

The Washington Times reported on the college Professor from New Jersey who e-mailed his student and told her "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors". The student had requested the Professor to announce that a Veteran of the Iraq war would be speaking at the college. The Professor also wrote and vowing to "expose her right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like this won't dare show their faces on a college campus." http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm

Since these statements, the professor has resigned just before the college held a meeting as to what to do with this guy and his statements. Also in the news this week there have been numerous stories on how military recruiters are being harrassed and kept out of high school and college campuses.

No matter what N.Y. Rep Charlie Rangel tells you, the facts show that a strong cross section of the recruits to the military shows a diverse assortment of social and economic status in those joining. The re-enlistment of those in the military is at a high level as so is the morale of the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan who are proud to be serving.

Before you start typing your reply:

• Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered to join the military...
• Cindy Sheehan's son re-enlisted in the military when he had the opportunity and choice...
• Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered for the rescue mission that he was killed on...

Think maybe the professor will show up in the ditch with Cindy down in Texas?...

There it is...

And there it is...
When was the last time you saw a photo of the attacks that happened on September 11th, 2001?
With all of the talk about the accuracy of the intelligence after 911 and before going into Afghanistan and Iraq, when was the last time you saw this photo?

The media has determined that exposing the public to these photos and video footage would be detrimental to the public well being. It would only further the burden to the families who lost members in these attacks and delay the healing process.




Remember the fear, anger, and compassion after the attacks?
Remember how the country rallied together and the outpouring of donations to those in need? Remember how all of the members of Congress stood on the steps of the capitol building and sang "God Bless America"?

Remeber how the Democrats stood behind the President and his efforts to go after the terrorist and those who protected and gave aid to the terrorist?
Remember how many of them saw the same intelligence reports that the President saw and made just as strong statements for the removal of terrorist, their leaders, and specifically the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Do you believe the Democrats really supported the President out of loyalty to the country and it's citizens?
Do you think maybe they feared that if they were not seen taking a strong stance like the President against the terrorist, it would be political suicide for them?
Do you think they would be attacking the President and the war on terrorism if the citizens still had that "Fire and Sting" we all felt after the 911 attacks?

It has been 4 years since we were attacked and there are those who are becoming weak and un-certain of the war on terrorism.

Maybe we need to see and remember the pain that these photos bring from time to time.

"Oh yeah, I remember now..."

Reports are coming out now that Bob Woodward of the Washington Post now remembers having somebody high up in the administration telling him of the CIA Super-Secret, (Known to everybody on her block) Valerie Plame a long time ago. Interesting on how he all of a sudden remembered this just after Fitzgerald only brought indictment against the little guy in the administration. These guys will do whatever they can to try to bring the Bush administration down at any opportunity.

Hey, did the Democrats find that magical mystery lost ballot box with 5,000 votes not yet counted for Deed's yet? Just a matter of time before they bring that one out!!!

"Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy"

Peter Schweizer had a great article in NewsMax this month http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/9/205510.shtml?PROMO_CODE=16E5-1 where he exposes the hypocrisy of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif
and some of her buddies out there. This link goes into part of it but here are some more
items that are in the printed NewsMax that are not on the website article.

Senator John Kerry

Says: The "Super-Rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes:
Does: Pays less then 15% of income in taxes, although along with his wife he is worth in excess of $700 million

Al Franken

Says: Conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action.
Does: Has hired less than 1% African American employees over the past 15 years....

Barbra Streisand

Says: Americans need to cut back on their conspicuous consumption and to protect the environment.
Does: Spends $22,000 a year to water her lawn; maintains a 12,000 ft2 air conditioned barn...

Hillary Clinton

Says: 13 year old girls are capable of deciding to have abortions without parental consent.
Does: Prevented Chelsea, then 13, from getting her ears pierced because she "wasn't ready for them"...

Time for Hardball?

Vice-President Cheney makes the case of the democrats attempting to change history to make themselves stronger for the mid-term elections. It's about time and I know of many Republicans who have been looking for this response...

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts."

"What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures –- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers –- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie."

"The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -– but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

"We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us."

"They and their families can be certain that this cause is right and just, and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable. And this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory."

Vice-President Dick Cheney

Un-just war?

There was an interesting call today on the Rush Limbaugh show with Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush. The caller felt that the war in Iraq and on terrorism is not justified for the terrorist can only inflict limited destruction as compared to what the United States can do to them. The caller felt that the war is a waste for “What more can the terrorist do to us?” .

He felt that somebody like Russia, when they were a superpower, deserved actions to keep them in check. He felt the fight on terrorism did not deserve us in Iraq & Afghanistan because they can’t do that much to us anymore. Roger asked if 3,000+ killed during 911 was not enough to justify a war. Roger did a good job at putting the caller in his place but let me add my thoughts:

What if 50,000+ were killed in the World Trade Center towers? At times there were that many working in the buildings.

What if the additional plane that went down in Pennsylvania had hit it’s original target? What if that target was turned out to be the “Left” wing of the capitol building where Barbara Striesand and Bono was visiting at the time and were lost?

What if the plane made it thru to the Capitol building and took out the Senate and\or House while in session at the time?

Was the caller to the show putting a “Headcount” on the table as to where or how much we should respond to a attack? 3,000 or more?

What if Bill Clinton had a lower tolerance to terrorist attacks back in the 90’s? If he had actually taken serious steps to deal with the terrorist maybe 911 would not have happened…

What if the media would show footage of the 911 attacks from time to time to keep the images fresh in the publics memory. FOXnews is just a guilty of not providing images of the worst attack on America in history.

When was the last time you watched a DVD of the coverage of the attacks on September 11th? Do we avoid watching these for it only brings on anger and possibly support the President’s war on terror?

Maybe we need to re-focus on the issue and our commitment…

"Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs..."

Just some of the better ones from the last election.
Maybe a blimp next time???

Remember when they said...

Published by Investors Business Daily 11 November 2005

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” Clinton Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State Feb. 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, Feb. 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions [including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites] to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqi’s refusal to end it’s weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi. D-Calif. Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has… chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Albright Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. And others Dec. 5, 2001

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Gore, Sept 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass Sept 27, 2002

“The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.VA Oct 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Kerry Oct 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in the development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va, Oct. 10, 2002


“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Oct. 10,2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorist, including al-Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying top develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct. 10. 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Graham, Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime… He represents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation… And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
Sen. John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003

The Clinton's are NUMBER ONE !!!

RECORDS SET-

• The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance -
• Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* -
• Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation -
• Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify -
• Most number of witnesses to die suddenly -
• First president sued for sexual harassment. -
• First president accused of rape. -
• First first lady to come under criminal investigation-
• Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case-
• First president to establish a legal defense fund.-
• First president to be held in contempt of court-
• Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions -
• Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
• * According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."