Viewing details of messages, sorted by time of last reply ("sticky messages" first)
The Constitution and Our Brains!
Let's get something straight! The prohibition on 'Religious tests' s' mentioned in the United States Constitution means that no one can be denied a government appointment or have his private life as a citizen hampered because of religious belief! It does not mean that citizens must cleanse their minds of religious principles when decicing how to vote on elections or iniatives etc. People who vote in order to advance a 'religious agenda' are just as valid as voters who seek to push a secular humanist agenda. The constitution is not a 'big-brother' document that tries to peek into the way a citizen thinks, it just allows you to think more clearly by sedtting out the rule of law for all citizens!
'Debunking' Libera lFallacies!
Apparently those of 'leftist' persuasion among us have this unique ability to mistake political discussion (and the clash of ideas) for some kind of 'dungeons and dragons' experience'!
Below, I am listing some of the more outlandish Leftist remarks I have chuckled at, recently:
#1: The Republican Party wraps itself in the American flag.
Response: The most American flags I ever saw at one time.were on the stage at the 2004 Democratic Convention--the night Kerry walked out in his naval uniform and said, "Reporting for duty!"
#2: There should be no 'religious underpinnings' involved when Americans vote!
Response: The Constitution does not prohibit anyone from voting because of having any kind of particular motivations or attitudes! I can relate the story of a woman who actually voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, because she thought that Barry Goldwater wanted to do away with her tv! ( Goldwater wanted to do away with the TVA--Tenn. Valley Authority)
I will be posting more of these 'fantasy' remarks as I review the eons threads! Feel free to list some of your own in your responses. And, of course, anything foolish that righties have said are welcome as well!
Below, I am listing some of the more outlandish Leftist remarks I have chuckled at, recently:
#1: The Republican Party wraps itself in the American flag.
Response: The most American flags I ever saw at one time.were on the stage at the 2004 Democratic Convention--the night Kerry walked out in his naval uniform and said, "Reporting for duty!"
#2: There should be no 'religious underpinnings' involved when Americans vote!
Response: The Constitution does not prohibit anyone from voting because of having any kind of particular motivations or attitudes! I can relate the story of a woman who actually voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, because she thought that Barry Goldwater wanted to do away with her tv! ( Goldwater wanted to do away with the TVA--Tenn. Valley Authority)
I will be posting more of these 'fantasy' remarks as I review the eons threads! Feel free to list some of your own in your responses. And, of course, anything foolish that righties have said are welcome as well!
New U.S. military leaders question Iraq mission
New U.S. military leaders question Iraq mission By Nancy A. Youssef and Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers
Thu Oct 4, 3:47 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Four and a half years after the nation's top military leaders saluted and fell in behind President Bush 's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq , their replacements are beginning to question the mission and sound alarms about the toll the war is taking on the Army and the Marine Corps .
The change at the Pentagon is striking but little-noticed, in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates , a longtime veteran of the CIA, is quiet where his predecessor Donald H. Rumsfeld was not.
"It's part of a sea change," said Loren Thompson , a military analyst at the Lexington Institute , a national-security research center in Washington . "The ideologues have been replaced by managers who view Iraq not as a cause, but a problem to be solved."
Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen , Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England , Undersecretary for Intelligence Gen. James Clapper and other top officials also are concerned that the war may be crippling the military's ability to respond to other crises. They have allies in the congressional Democratic leadership— particularly House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri — who've been speaking out about that for months.
"I'm convinced we are in serious trouble readiness-wise," Skelton said this week in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers . "Am I worried? I'm worried to death."
Although Democrats in Congress have been powerless to halt or even slow the war, six developments have combined to produce growing resistance, even within some parts of Bush's own administration, to the president's unrelenting emphasis on staying the course in Iraq :
1. The Democratic takeover of the Senate and the House of Representatives last January.
2. Bush's choice of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, one of the main architects of the war. Gates was a member of the independent bipartisan Iraq Study Group , which called for the United States to reach out to Syria and Iran and "strongly urged" a drawdown in Iraq .
3. A shift, completed this week, in the military's top uniformed leadership from administration loyalists to officers who are more concerned about the growing strains on the military.
4. Mounting evidence, in a variety of official reports in recent weeks, that Iraqi forces won't be prepared to take over from American troops in significant numbers until late next year at the earliest, and that Iraqis have made little progress toward political reconciliation.
"Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference," Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
5. Mounting evidence, most recently in a United Nations report, that the war against al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan is faltering, in part because Iraq is tying down so many U.S. troops.
More forces are needed in Afghanistan , and "we can't send them because we're bogged down" in an "intractable civil war" in Iraq , Sen. Russ Feingold , D-Wis., said Wednesday.
6. Bush's low approval ratings and popular discontent with the Iraq war, which have prompted some legislators to reconsider their support for the president's policy as next year's elections approach.
It remains to be seen, however, whether Gates and like-minded allies can curtail the U.S. commitment to Iraq , avoid a military confrontation with Iran and direct more resources to Afghanistan and to rebuilding and reequipping the Army and the Marines.
Still, the change in outlook among many senior officials is unmistakable.
The outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs, Marine Gen. Peter Pace , a loyal advocate for administration policies, used the word "freedom" eight times in his final remarks as chairman. Mullen didn't use it once in his first speech Monday as the new chairman.
After Mullen was sworn in, he sent a letter to the military that spelled out a vision of the Middle East markedly different from the one the administration has hailed. Mullen didn't talk about how the two wars could spread democracy and freedom in the region, as Pace did until the final minutes of his two-year tenure as chairman.
Instead, while Mullen called the wars vital, he cautioned that they might not make the Middle East safer. He also told the troops that his job is to prepare the military for what comes next.
"To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute to or detract from a stable, secure Middle East , they bear a direct effect on the security of the United States ," he wrote. "The demands of current operations, however great, should not dominate our training exercises, education, curricula and readiness programs."
Such equivocation is a different tune for Defense Department leaders: Rumsfeld and his civilian aides championed the war in Iraq and brooked no dissent.
Skelton, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, said that in the past he felt as if no one was listening when he warned the administration about the strain on the military.
Now, he noted, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker in January and the current chief, Gen. George Casey , testifying last week, have expressed concerns about the Army's readiness.
"The parallels are alarming," Skelton said. "We cannot risk breaking the Army again. My real worry is that we have a choice between two losses or one loss. We're not putting enough effort into Afghanistan , and I'm deeply concerned about that."
Mullen's letter to the U.S. military earlier this week is at view link
Thu Oct 4, 3:47 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Four and a half years after the nation's top military leaders saluted and fell in behind President Bush 's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq , their replacements are beginning to question the mission and sound alarms about the toll the war is taking on the Army and the Marine Corps .
The change at the Pentagon is striking but little-noticed, in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates , a longtime veteran of the CIA, is quiet where his predecessor Donald H. Rumsfeld was not.
"It's part of a sea change," said Loren Thompson , a military analyst at the Lexington Institute , a national-security research center in Washington . "The ideologues have been replaced by managers who view Iraq not as a cause, but a problem to be solved."
Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen , Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England , Undersecretary for Intelligence Gen. James Clapper and other top officials also are concerned that the war may be crippling the military's ability to respond to other crises. They have allies in the congressional Democratic leadership— particularly House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri — who've been speaking out about that for months.
"I'm convinced we are in serious trouble readiness-wise," Skelton said this week in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers . "Am I worried? I'm worried to death."
Although Democrats in Congress have been powerless to halt or even slow the war, six developments have combined to produce growing resistance, even within some parts of Bush's own administration, to the president's unrelenting emphasis on staying the course in Iraq :
1. The Democratic takeover of the Senate and the House of Representatives last January.
2. Bush's choice of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, one of the main architects of the war. Gates was a member of the independent bipartisan Iraq Study Group , which called for the United States to reach out to Syria and Iran and "strongly urged" a drawdown in Iraq .
3. A shift, completed this week, in the military's top uniformed leadership from administration loyalists to officers who are more concerned about the growing strains on the military.
4. Mounting evidence, in a variety of official reports in recent weeks, that Iraqi forces won't be prepared to take over from American troops in significant numbers until late next year at the earliest, and that Iraqis have made little progress toward political reconciliation.
"Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference," Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
5. Mounting evidence, most recently in a United Nations report, that the war against al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan is faltering, in part because Iraq is tying down so many U.S. troops.
More forces are needed in Afghanistan , and "we can't send them because we're bogged down" in an "intractable civil war" in Iraq , Sen. Russ Feingold , D-Wis., said Wednesday.
6. Bush's low approval ratings and popular discontent with the Iraq war, which have prompted some legislators to reconsider their support for the president's policy as next year's elections approach.
It remains to be seen, however, whether Gates and like-minded allies can curtail the U.S. commitment to Iraq , avoid a military confrontation with Iran and direct more resources to Afghanistan and to rebuilding and reequipping the Army and the Marines.
Still, the change in outlook among many senior officials is unmistakable.
The outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs, Marine Gen. Peter Pace , a loyal advocate for administration policies, used the word "freedom" eight times in his final remarks as chairman. Mullen didn't use it once in his first speech Monday as the new chairman.
After Mullen was sworn in, he sent a letter to the military that spelled out a vision of the Middle East markedly different from the one the administration has hailed. Mullen didn't talk about how the two wars could spread democracy and freedom in the region, as Pace did until the final minutes of his two-year tenure as chairman.
Instead, while Mullen called the wars vital, he cautioned that they might not make the Middle East safer. He also told the troops that his job is to prepare the military for what comes next.
"To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute to or detract from a stable, secure Middle East , they bear a direct effect on the security of the United States ," he wrote. "The demands of current operations, however great, should not dominate our training exercises, education, curricula and readiness programs."
Such equivocation is a different tune for Defense Department leaders: Rumsfeld and his civilian aides championed the war in Iraq and brooked no dissent.
Skelton, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, said that in the past he felt as if no one was listening when he warned the administration about the strain on the military.
Now, he noted, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker in January and the current chief, Gen. George Casey , testifying last week, have expressed concerns about the Army's readiness.
"The parallels are alarming," Skelton said. "We cannot risk breaking the Army again. My real worry is that we have a choice between two losses or one loss. We're not putting enough effort into Afghanistan , and I'm deeply concerned about that."
Mullen's letter to the U.S. military earlier this week is at view link
Propaganda Redux
Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.
BY ION MIHAI PACEPA
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman--the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.
The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching the slogan "Europe for the Europeans."
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
view link
Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc.
BY ION MIHAI PACEPA
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman--the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.
The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching the slogan "Europe for the Europeans."
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
view link
Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc.
Troops Use Weapons as 'Bait to Kill Iraqis'
U.S. Troops Use Weapons as 'Bait to Kill Iraqis'
By Kim Sengupta, Independent UK. Posted September 25, 2007.
They don't hate us for our 'freedom.'
US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial. The highly controversial tactic, which has hitherto been kept secret, is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of a number of Iraqis who were subsequently classified as enemy combatants and used in statistics to show the "success" of the "surge" in US forces.
The revelation came in court documents, obtained by The Washington Post , related to murder charges against three US soldiers who are alleged to have planted incriminating evidence on civilians they had killed. In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces."
Capt Didier, of the 1st Battalion 501st Infantry Regiment, said members of the US military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later supplied ammunition boxes filled with "drop items" to be used " to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."
Within months of the introduction of the strategy, three snipers in Capt Didier's platoon were charged with murder for allegedly using the "baits " to try to cover up unprovoked shootings. Specialist Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt Michael Hensley are accused of placing a spool of wire, sometimes used to detonate roadside bombs, in the pocket of a man who had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle after he was killed on 27 April this year.
Sgt Evan Vela is accused of shooting an Iraqi prisoner twice in the head with a 9mm pistol on the orders of Staff Sgt Hensley. The two soldiers told investigators that the man was carrying an AK-47 rifle. Other soldiers have testified that the rifle was planted next to the Iraqi after he was shot.
In earlier testimony Pte David Petta said he believed that "classified" items were to be placed on people killed by the sniper unit "if we killed somebody that we knew was a bad guy but didn't have the evidence to show for it".
The court martial of Spc Sandoval is due to start in Baghdad this week. His father, Curtis Carnahan, accused the US military of holding the proceedings in a war zone to try to minimise publicity.
"I feel you can't prosecute our soldiers for acts of war and threaten them with years and years of confinement when this ["bait"] programme, if it comes to the light of day, was clearly coming from higher levels."
A US military spokes-man said: "We don't discuss specific methods of targeting enemy combatants. The accused are charged with murder and wrongfully placing weapons on the remains of Iraqi nationals. There are no classified programmes that authorise the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."
A US military source said "baits" had been left by a number of units. "The guys picking them up are sometimes bad guys. But how do you know each time?"
Robert Emerson, a British security analyst, said: "This seems a highly arbitrary and suspect way of carrying out counter-insurgency operations."
'LIB/CON Mindset in a 'Nutshell' !
I have been reading and particpating in the discussion surrounding Silas's recent post entitled--'Propagand Redux'. A former communist big shot from Romania was explaining how the societs used decades of lies to subvert America's position around the world. One of the exchanges during the ongoing discussion really struck me as a wonderful example of how both liberals and conservatives 'think'. Without using names, I will label each comment with either Liberal or conservative beforhand! Hope you enjoy it!
Liberal: Silas said, "Don't lie about the U.S. President, especially, in time of war. Such lies are corrosive to the war effort and the efforts of the President to protect the country from i9ts enemies."
No, Silas, and you know I am right, because you are3 truly too smart to truly deny it. Given the argument, the logical conclusion is that you end up with the exact kind of society that Pacopa (the Romanian official who wrote the article) tried to avoid. Deny the public the right to protest against any act and you end up with totalitarianism!
Conservative: So, if we don't use lies against a presidnet during wartime, we are heading for totalitarianism? I guess Moses was starting a nazi regime, when he came down from the mountain with 'do not lie' on one of the tablets! Sometimes what you postulate can sound so preposterous!
The article's poster was a conservativesaying that lying during wartime should be frowned on. The Liberal responding lying as just another form of protest and, finally, another conservative highlights the silliness of it all! A last thought-- Are laws pertaining to libel and slander etc., on our books b ecause of 'nazi' smypathies? As a matter of fact, in some instances even telling truthful things about a person can be a criminal act--if the only purpose in so doing is to harm an individual's reputation!
Liberal: Silas said, "Don't lie about the U.S. President, especially, in time of war. Such lies are corrosive to the war effort and the efforts of the President to protect the country from i9ts enemies."
No, Silas, and you know I am right, because you are3 truly too smart to truly deny it. Given the argument, the logical conclusion is that you end up with the exact kind of society that Pacopa (the Romanian official who wrote the article) tried to avoid. Deny the public the right to protest against any act and you end up with totalitarianism!
Conservative: So, if we don't use lies against a presidnet during wartime, we are heading for totalitarianism? I guess Moses was starting a nazi regime, when he came down from the mountain with 'do not lie' on one of the tablets! Sometimes what you postulate can sound so preposterous!
The article's poster was a conservativesaying that lying during wartime should be frowned on. The Liberal responding lying as just another form of protest and, finally, another conservative highlights the silliness of it all! A last thought-- Are laws pertaining to libel and slander etc., on our books b ecause of 'nazi' smypathies? As a matter of fact, in some instances even telling truthful things about a person can be a criminal act--if the only purpose in so doing is to harm an individual's reputation!
Plege of Allegiance Protest
From FNN: "BOULDER, Colo. — About 50 Boulder High School students walked out of class Thursday to protest the daily reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and recited their own version, omitting "one nation, under God."
The students say the phrase violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
They also say the daily reading of the pledge over the school public address system at the start of the second class takes away from education time and is ignored or mocked by some students.
A state law passed in 2004 requires schools to offer the opportunity to recite the pledge each day but does not require students to participate.
The protesting students, members of the Student Worker Club, want administrators to hold the pledge reading in the auditorium during each of the school's two lunch periods for any students who want to participate.
Otherwise, they said, they plan to walk out each Thursday when the pledge is read and recite their version, which omits the reference to God and adds allegiance to constitutional rights, diversity and freedom, among other things.
"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," said Emma Martens, a senior and president of the club, which has about a dozen members.
"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. It's almost religious oppression," she said. "
Ok, do they realize that they are protesting one of the ideals that gives them the right to protest? Who's father is the ACLU lawyer? No high school kid, who normally have only sex, breasts, and who to take to the dance, on their minds, came up the separation of church and state? If you don't agree with it, just stand politely while others are reciting it. I hate to point out the fact this is a minority, not the majority, so what's the big deal? When did we start catering to the minority?
The students say the phrase violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
They also say the daily reading of the pledge over the school public address system at the start of the second class takes away from education time and is ignored or mocked by some students.
A state law passed in 2004 requires schools to offer the opportunity to recite the pledge each day but does not require students to participate.
The protesting students, members of the Student Worker Club, want administrators to hold the pledge reading in the auditorium during each of the school's two lunch periods for any students who want to participate.
Otherwise, they said, they plan to walk out each Thursday when the pledge is read and recite their version, which omits the reference to God and adds allegiance to constitutional rights, diversity and freedom, among other things.
"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," said Emma Martens, a senior and president of the club, which has about a dozen members.
"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. It's almost religious oppression," she said. "
Ok, do they realize that they are protesting one of the ideals that gives them the right to protest? Who's father is the ACLU lawyer? No high school kid, who normally have only sex, breasts, and who to take to the dance, on their minds, came up the separation of church and state? If you don't agree with it, just stand politely while others are reciting it. I hate to point out the fact this is a minority, not the majority, so what's the big deal? When did we start catering to the minority?
NYS Aids ;Illegals with Licenses!
New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer, is issuing an 'executive order', immediately allowing illegal immigrants residing in the state to obtain drivers' licenses!
this is happening, even though nightly polls show that almost 65% of New Yorkers feel this move will hurt our safety and security! New York has long been a 'sanctuary' state, where state govbernment agenc ies and local law enforcement officials have looked the other way and ignorede illegals. About 6 monthsw ago an illegal had his home burn down and several of his family burned to death--possible housing code violations and the like were never persued in the matter! And life goes on in New york state!(Whilke NY is obviously a blue state, the fact that 2/3's of state population are against the licensing move by the governor shows that even blue-staters are fearful of direction country is taking in regards to illegals)!
this is happening, even though nightly polls show that almost 65% of New Yorkers feel this move will hurt our safety and security! New York has long been a 'sanctuary' state, where state govbernment agenc ies and local law enforcement officials have looked the other way and ignorede illegals. About 6 monthsw ago an illegal had his home burn down and several of his family burned to death--possible housing code violations and the like were never persued in the matter! And life goes on in New york state!(Whilke NY is obviously a blue state, the fact that 2/3's of state population are against the licensing move by the governor shows that even blue-staters are fearful of direction country is taking in regards to illegals)!
Rush Limbaugh - a phony.
Rush Limbaugh is a total fraud! He ridicules the soldiers who protest again the war in Iraq as "phony soldiers." If those soldiers that he insults puts on a uniform and risks their lives everyday, they are true patriotic soldiers.
Rush is a chicken liver who does not know what military service is. He needs his big yap sealed shut.
Rush is a chicken liver who does not know what military service is. He needs his big yap sealed shut.
