May 15, 2006

Immigration Reform? I Think Not

On This Day, (yesterday actually) May 13. 1846 The United States Declares War On Mexico.

That's the lead sentence in this topic because, if you know history, events between the U.S. and Mexico are following similar political lines as they were then.
Sure, they didn't have such technology and gadgets as we do now, and politics and diplomacy have evolved to a more refined art form.
But with those things taken into consideration, things between us are pretty much the same.

From: The Mexican War

On Apr. 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a detachment of American dragoons commanded by Capt. Seth B. Thornton. Taylor's report of this ambush reached President Polk on the evening of May 9, a Saturday. On Monday, May 11, Polk presented his war message to Congress, and on Wednesday, May 13, over the vigorous opposition of the abolitionists, the U.S. Congress voted to declare war on Mexico. In the meantime two more Mexican attacks had been made across the Rio Grande at Palo Alto (May 8) and Resaca de la Palma (May 9), and both had been repulsed.

Tension had been brewing between the U.S. and Mexico for decades. The French and English both had been trying to install their puppets to some little sucsess. The English in particular hadn't given up on aquiring as much new territory as they could, and the Western Region of what is now America, was open territory to all except the U.S. Government.

The U.S. under a policy of Manifest Destiny, considered everything from the Atlantic Ocean to the pacific U.S. Territory and they actually made an effort to establish a presence in as many places as they could.

The U.S. annexation of Texas in Feburary 1845 was, in a small sense, our first attemp at Border Control.
Texas demanded it, and after looking into some of their allegations of Mexican actions, Congress approved.
Those deeds were on the order of small to large raiding parties, smuggling, and trying to exert their authority over the Texans.
It sounds eerily similar to the news reports today.

There have been reports of Mexican Military officials on U.S. soil, guarding and protecting drug trafficers and smugglers.
There's not a week that goes by without hearing about finding a new tunnel between the 2 countries.

Farmers and ranchers who have property right on the border are either strongarmed to sell it to drug lords, or they have to patrol their perimiter while armed, and hopefully with friends.

Utility vans. Semi-trucks, boxcars and shipping crates are rutinely found with dead Mexicans in them.
The Coyotes simply get them across the border (for a hefty sum) the rest is up to the illegals.
So when no one shows up at the railroad yard or truck lot to let them out...they die.

Recently a Coast Guard Cutter returned after a 6 month cruise in the South Pacific with over 30,000 lbs. of cocaine. Most of the cruise was spent in the Phillipine Island area, but that's not where they got the coke.
It was "aquired" a few miles off the coast of Mexico, while they were returning to port. The ship was tracked from a port in Mexico.

What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing it means that the very last thing President Bush shoud do tomorrow is allow anymore of this namby-pamby nonsense to continue.

We need tighter security at our borders and we need to keep those who would enter illegally out!

These kind of things not only affect the security of our country but our very ideology, our way of life.

There's an e-mail being passed around addressed to Senator Frist. The e-mail is from a former Border Patrol Agent and it adresses 11 common myths and misperceptions that are popular with the media and the left.

Myth 1. Is that illegal immigrants want U.S. citizenship.

Other than the rare exception, that is patently FALSE!
They don't want citizenship because they don't intend to live here. What they want is the money that come from working here, they send it home, and when it's time to "go back" they are sitting pretty, financially.
They don't want to pay taxes, but they do want all the benifits that American taxpayers enjoy.
A free school for their kids, government subsidized housing, medical care and in state tuition to name a few.

Who pays for that?

Myth 2. Is that they take the jobs that Americans wont.

Again, that is patently FALSE!
America didn't become the country that it is now by the philosophical musings of elite lazy bums.
No, we worked our collective butts off to get where we are and I defy anyone to prove me wrong.
Coal mines, sawmills, hunters, trappers, carpenters, plumbers, maids, landscapers, and any number of other menial or Trade jobs.
Just because a college graduate media figure wouldn't do it, or doesn't know anyone who would, doesn't mean that Americans (the regular, normal kind) won't.
All it means is that he/she has a very small knowledge of how things work in the real world.
Sheltered, if you will.
What Americans won't do is go out in the field and break their back 12-14 hours a day for $10 a day.

We won't do that.
For one thing, I thought it was supposed to be illegal. For another, we're not stupid.
Pay a fair wage and you'll get quality American know how.

Myth 3. Illegals came here because they are homeless.

They left homes in their own country, and when they get done milking our System for all they can get, they'll go back to those homes.
Approximately $20 billion is sent out of the U.S. each year to their respective families.

Myth 4. They are critical to the economy.
Not only patently FALSE, but a blatant lie.

They constitute less than 5% of the economy. Yet because they take menial jobs at such low wages, they are really a drain on the economy.
Their willingness to do so reduces wages and benifits for lawful residents and workers.

Many people, economist especially, might argue that point but it has been historically proven.

In The Black Plagues of the middle ages when up tp 1/3 of the entire population of Europe died most people of means (the rich) were concerned that their financial resources would be depleted due to price gouging.
The poor on the other hand were certain that their lot could only get worse.
What really happened was the opposite of both expectations.

The rich and savvy got to expand their fortunes while the poor, due to the very nature of their skills which the rich lacked, they got to become wealthier, even landowners in many cases.
There was a vacuum and it was filled.

Here's an example of how "essential" they are to the economy:

Phillip Borden
Associated Press

MAY 6, 2006

On May 1st, as a result of the Mexican ( aka: illegal alien) boycott,
national retailers reported 4.2% lower sales for the day, with a 67.8%
reduction in shoplifting ..

Myth 5. This is an immigrant Nation.

Since when is it an immigrant Nation?
Since the Mayflower?
Pray tell, How long ago was that?

I was born on an Army base in Kentucky (101st Airborne) and the last time I checked it was a part of The United States of America. I'm fairly certain that most people in th U.S. were born here too, so how does that make us immigrants?
Are you, the reader, an immigrant? If so, Welcome to America. Now speak English.

There are 2 kinds of immigrants here, legal and illegal.
We're talking about the second kind.

Myth 6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants.
TRUE! Therefore not a myth.

However, the illegals are not immigrants by definition.
The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year, than all the other nathions of the world combined.

Myth 7. The "Hispanic" vote.
FALSE! And more political dogma.

There's no such thing.
It's comparable to the "white" vote. Tell me of anyone, anywhere that can predict how most white people will vote based only on the color of their skin.
Even the democrats Ace In The Hole "black" vote is staring to reveal signs of un-reliability.

Why? Because believe it or not, a person will more likely vote in line with what they know about a topic than the fact of their differences.
Whites are a different color than blacks or latinos, but that doesn't mean that they'll vote against a pro-black or latino law just because they are white.
Not most of us anyway.
The same goes for the blacks and latinos. If it's a good law, it's a good law. Period.

Unlike this New World Order garbage that liberal elitists are trying to foist off on us, most people actually like being different, being unique and being a singular individual who can think for themselves.
That's what our Country, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are founded on.
Not our sameness, but our differences.
Beware of stereotyping.

Myth 8. Mexico is our friend.
Blatantly FALSE!

Since The Mexican War Mexico has been nothing but resentful of us.
They've allowed raiding parties to enter the U.S. From time to time and in WWI they allowed German spies to operate freely to spy on the United States.

During WWII Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico.
During the Cold War, spys from countries hostile to the U.S. were allowed to operate freely within Mexico.
On September 11, 2001 the attacks on the worls trade Center was cheered and applauded all across Mexico.

In Mexican schools, their students are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. (I have a really cool post that deals with that particular subject. There might even be some things in it that you never knew, but should have. Check back soon.)

Myth 9. We are a rich country and theirs is poor so we should be generous with our wealth.
First part TRUE! Second part FALSE!

There are approximately 6 billion people on earth. Of that number about 1/5 lives on less than a dollar a day.
That's 1.2 BILLION people.
Why stop at just the Mexicans? Why not invite all of those 1.2 billion people to come to America and have a better life?
I don't really need to answer those questions do I? If I do then you're up past your bedtime.

Let me put it this way.
The UN (spit) distributes food and supplies to needy 3rd world countries. That's the only they've been even moderately sucessful at.
The UN gets its funds from member nations, usually reluctantly and in spurts and trickles.

There are only 3 nations (all Western) that are consistant and genorous, but of all nations the United States is there.
We're there firstest with the mostest.
We, The people of The United States of America subsidized about 20% of all UN charities.

Are the hungry getting fed?
Is the monies being accounted for?
Do we have a say in how it's distributed?

No to all three.

The same would happen if we decided to take on Mexicos (or South Americas) financial burden.
But aside from all of that, I simply refuse to go broke just to appease some foreign leader(s)
They made their bed, let them lie in it. If "the people" decide they've had enough...well, you know what the results can be.

We are not a lifeboat to the world. That's not being harsh, just practicle.
I will take a chance on dying if it will save someone elses life. I won't do it if it will kill us both.
Same thing.

Myth 9. There is a labor shortage in this country.
Unequivocaly FALSE!

Have you looked at the unemployment rates lately? They have been consistantly low for a number of years and the fact is, a lot of the unemployed in America don't want to work.

They're either getting workers comp or simply feel certain jobs are beneath their lofty status, but when the belt begins to tighten they might change their opinion.
Hunger does that, and the bills have to be paid.
Pride goes only so far as Reality.

Myth 11. It is rascist to want to secure the borders.
A favorite talking point and weapon of the left, but my genuine response is: HUH? Are these people from Earth? Or Omicron Persei 8?

In this day and age, with the world in near chaos, I fail to see what is rascist about a secure border.
This whole post is about making our border with Mexico more secure (MUCH more secure.)

Money seems to be the driving force and drug lords are in charge, Drug lords aren't squeemish about who they smuggle across.
Heck, it's more lucrative for them to get an Al- Quaida connection in the U.S. than not.

Al-Quaida has connections. They also have vast opium resources to draw on.
So a South American, for the right price and connections, will expend every effort to get them in the US where the real, lucrative, market is.
Monet talks. to them, and that's their only allegiance.

I'm against letting these 12 million plus illegals get a free ride. Let them go through the system just like others before them.

We ARE a nation of immigrants. Legal immigrants not squatters.

Except for the Mayflower passangers and a (very) few others, we were all born here or legaly immigrated.

No more free rides!

This is a long post for me, and I'm sure someone will try to pick it apart peice by peice.
That's OK. If it's a good question I'll answer it. If not, don't be offended if I ignore it.

Last but not at all least, I'll leave you with some Words of Wisdom, some Kernals of Truth from a former US President:

or origin.

But this is predicated on the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an
American...There can be no devided allegiance here. Any man who says that he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language, and that
is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to
the American people."

Teddy Roosevelt 1907

- Joatmoaf -

May 15, 2006 at 01:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 10, 2005

Why Bush Nominated Miers

Why did Bush nominate Harriet Miers you ask?

2 words.

Stragety & Loilty


The strategy of this nomonation seems to have been lost on many pollsters, commentators and pundits.
Politics is like War, in that, to be sucessful you must have a Goal, and to achieve that goal you need a good Strategy.

What is Bushs' goal?
I think it is to get a Supreme Court Justice on the bench who will interpret the law from a legal standpoint, rather than a political one.
The first rule in Strategy is: Alway have a Plan-B, (a C, D and E is good too). Plan-B can be used if Plan-A fails.
Plan-A is to get someone on the bench who can interpret the law from an "original intent" philosophy.
Plan-B is to get someone who might not be such a "purist" but is still good enough to be second best.

It`s my opinion that Miers is Bushs' Plan-B, and she has been for a long time.
I believe that her nomination stems from a contingency plan that was devised long ago, with her knowlege and consent, for just such an unexpected situation as this.

The strategy of the nomination is this; To achieve Plan-A, Plan-B must be sacraficed.
Miers is cannon fodder.
She will be the lightning rod that will absorb ideological and partisan critisism and re-acquaint the American public to just how nasty one of these hearings can be.

After the guns have silenced, while the Pros are sulking and the Cons are gloating, Bush will quietly slip in his original Plan-A choice.
After having seen the spectacle that was The Miers Hearings, the public will be in no mood for a Round 2.

The public has a short attention span, and while they will stop and look at a train wreck, they don`t want to see 2 of them.
Politicians know this and despite whatever misgivings they might have had over the nominee, they will approve him/her. Having been mollified over Miers, and continuing pressure from the public to "get on with the buisness of running the country", they will have no heart and no teeth to fight another battle.

The reason this strategy seems to have been lost on most of the armchair pundits is because they believe Bush really is stupid.
Something they seem to have forgotten is that picking the right person for the job is something Bush is very good at.
That they like to think he's stupid plays right into his hands. The best way to achieve your goal against opposition is to have the opposers underestimate you.
Every sucessful suprise military attack counts on the enemy underestimating you. Why should politics be any different?

And that's the Stragety of Bushs' choice.


The Loyalty reasons for this choice is obvious, and what people seem to be using as their excuse to be against it.
The problem is that those people want to confuse Cronyism with Loyalty. They are not the same.

Cro-ny-ism: Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.

She is an old friend of his, no doubt about that, but is she un-qualified?
The short and sweet of it is this: "The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court."

But we don`t have time or patience to rely on the Constitution in regards to Supreme Court nominees.
Not when politics and special intrests are concerned.

So, not being a lawyer I did some checking on her qualifications at a lawyers site.
Yes, just one lawyers site, but a very good lawyer nontheless who seems to know what he's talking about.
Beldar has been giving a thorough breakdown and evaluation of her qualifications and experience since the beginning.

THIS post in particular gives a rundown of her very capable knowlege and abilities.
Taking on and winning against such small buisnesses as Microsoft. (For the geeks out there)

For the lawyers out there the case of Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (pdf) is a good indication of her abilities.
It`s also a big part of where the "Loilty" comes in.

Not only is Bush loyal to her, but more importantly, she is loyal to him.

If by some fluke, she were to squeek by the hearings and be appointed, I think that her rulings will be more in line with "original intent" than politics or even "Loilty."

That is how Plan-A and Plan-B come together.
Submit the Plan-B nominee to act as Lightning Rod to be the target of Special Interests on both sides, and partisan politics.
When Plan-B nominee fails muster (as expected), submit Plan-A nominee.
Results: Due to the fact that the public has lost all respect and interest in these hearings, and the fact that it is the public that is the Bottom Line to a politician come election time, Plan-A nominee will pass the muster.

IF Plan-B does pass confirmation hearings to become the next Supreme Court Justice, then I still think Miers is totally "qualified".

Despite the media and popular opinion (YES, even on the right) Bush isn't stupid, but things work out better for him if you think he is.

That`s my non-legal, non-binding opinion.

"Dance puppets, DANCE!!!"

(I couldn`t resist :)

- Joatmoaf -

October 10, 2005 at 02:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

September 26, 2005

Dubya Dubya Eye Eye Eye

President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting at a bar...

A Conservative walks in and asks the bartender, "isn`t that Bush and Rumsfeld over there?"

The bartender replies, "Yep, that`s them."


Bush says, "We`re planning WW III."

The Conservative says,"Really? What`s going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we`re going to kill 140 million muslims and one blonde with big boobs."

The Conservative exclaimed, "A blonde with big boobs? Why kill a blonde with big boobs?"

Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you no one CARES about the 140 million muslims."


President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar...

A Liberal walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn`t that Bush and Rumsfeld over there?"

The bartender says, "Yep, that`s them."

So the Liberal walks over and says, "Wow, The Prince of Evil and his Minion. What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We`re planning WW III."

The Liberal says, "Really? I KNEW it. What`s going to happen?"


The Liberal exclaimed, "A blonde with big boobs? You EVIL crook. Why kill a blonde with big boobs?"

Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you no one CARES about 140 million muslims."

Yes, I know it's an old joke, but I added a twist to it. A twist to meet the times, if you will, and yet, in the ideological sense it true.
Not about the 140 million muslims of course, but about the way the whole liberal establishment views anything that even remotely relates to Bush.

The original joke is just plain funny in its own right (So sue me. I have a twisted sense of humor), but the double sided joke I just edited is funny because it reveals a fatal flaw in hardcore liberal thinking that they just won`t see.

The result is that their hatred of Bush blinds them to the realities of the times.
You see, it's not the programs Bush pushes or the Laws that he passes that they have a real problem with.
No, it`s just the fact that it is Bush pushing the programs or passing the Laws that get them in an uproar. Otherwise, they're OK with it.

Just because I don`t post often doesn`t mean I haven't been paying attention. It's just that, when I watch TV news or read a paper, it's more of the same.
No real, concrete, VALID charges or complaints, just heresay and innuendo coupled with the lies of omission that the MSN is famous for, all to guide the viewer or reader to only one inescapable conclusion.

If it's bad, it's Bushes fault. If it's good, put it in Section Z, Page 43.

The Media has worked hard to build up an image of Bush that they can sell to the public.

The image is this: Bungling idiot / Evil genius.
Sorry, one or the other, but you can`t have both. Which is he?

The bungling slapsitck clown that's forever portrayed of him in the Media?
The Evil Genius, that personally controls every Big Buisnes deal and every Military operation, all while planning world conquest?

Which is it News People? You can`t have it both ways, so quit lying to the public through your hatred of him.
I personally don`t care what some millionaire newsman or woman, or some millionaire actor thinks about a President.

Why is their opinion more valid than mine or anyone elses?
It isn`t, so they should do like the rest of us REAL people do. Talk amongst friends. Get a website. Go to functions. Complain, and VOTE, but NOT grandstand on someone else dime while trying to shove their twisted ideology down our throats.

They're not smarter than the people, they`re not wiser than us, they`re not more educated or more informed, and they`re certainly not BETTER than us.
If they were, they wouldn`t be actors or newspeople now, would they?

Over and over again I read that Bush is either, A. a moron, or B. an evil genius, and I wonder why some of the big name bloggers haven`t called the Media out on this obvious conflict of convenience and seriously put the screws to them.

I also wonder just how big would someones brain have to be in order to control all of the things Bush has been accused of controlling?

Let`s see. Military domination. Economic domination. Racial dominatin. Cultural domination. Spiritual domination. I`m sure that`s just the tip of the iceburg, but you get the idea.

Anyone who could pull that off would need a brain so large they`d have to travel by forklift.
How could he hold his head up without his neck snapping like a dry twig?
More things to ponder on.

The Liberal Left is cutting their own throats, but as is their nature they`re too stubborn to realize it, too stubborn know that times change and so do ideals, and therefore they are too stubborn to make a quick clean cut. The Liberal Left will die a slow, painful, bitter, self inflicted death.

So you see, the joke is true in BOTH cases and therefore funnier.
The punch line is funny in the Conservatives case because he didn`t care for the muslims anyway, and it`s funnier in the Liberals case because...HE DIDN`T EITHER!

Get it?

- Joatmoaf -

September 26, 2005 at 12:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 14, 2005

Thinking Problem

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then -- to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true.

Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?" One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."


"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."


"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.

She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.


To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting.

At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.


I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today, I registered to vote as a Democrat.


After I read that I realized that I too, have a thinking problem, but mine's nowhere near as bad as his.
At any rate there's no way I'm going to start attending TA meetings. What would the neighbors say? What would my friends say?

No, I might have a thinking problem, but I can control it.
I may have to hide it better at work, or maybe only do it in the privacy of my own home, but I won't quit thinking no matter how bad people say it is for me.
Even though every waking moment of every day seems like all I want to do is THINK, I can still function normally.

Thinking is NOT a problem for me. I can stop thinking anytime I want to, I just don`t want to right now.
I don't NEED to think, I just like to.

But just in case.... Hi, I`m Joatmoaf and I have a thinking problem.

- Joatmoaf -

August 14, 2005 at 06:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 28, 2005

Democrat vs Republican...Which Party Is More Racist ?

There is no media bias, just as there is no political agenda in Academia.
"Move along people, nothing to see here."

For the last 30 odd years it seems as if nothing and I mean NOTHING the Republican party did was good enough to pass muster for those sitting in Judgement.

The media, the academics, the ELITES could not or, more precisely, would not admit to all of the outstanding contributions the Republican party has brought to this nation since its inception on March 20, 1854.

The media, the academics the elites and even Michael Moore would have Americans believe that Republicans are racists and the Democratic party is an all embracing, all inclusive, Rainbow Coalition of loving, compassionate and self sacraficing do gooders.

But wait....

IS the Republican party a party of racists ?
IS the Democratic party a party of decent, upstanding idealism ?
As a patriotic voter I want to know the truth because I want to do what`s best for my fellow man and my country. I want to vote for decent and upstanding representitives.

I want my Congressman, Senator and President to do what is best for my country and ALL the people in it and as a Republican I want to know if I`m in a party of racists.
If so I need to jump ship.
So let`s see, shall we ?

How was it started, and why?

"To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854," the calendar notes. "Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the south, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party's terrorist wing."

But....But....Wait a minute.

According to the media and academia, aren`t we supposed to be the ones running around in sheets lynching blacks?
I smell a rat.
We can`t have two racially sensitive parties, not with our history. One of them is lying. Which one?

Here`s some Republican racism for you:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."

July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

It`s beginning to appear that Republicans were the trend setters in Civil Rights.
All this time we`ve been told the opposite.
Maybe the "We report. You decide", and "All the news that`s fit to print" people should Decide to Print some of that.

It`s amazing that the Democratic party, the media and those who teach your children would have the gall to call my party racist. They`re sucessfull only because of their collaboration and the fact that, up until now, it was too tedious to fact check them.

Those days are over.
To call Colin Powell and Condi Rice "Tokens" is inexcusable and hypocritical.
What "firsts for blacks" can the Democratic party boast before 1964?

Can they beat this:

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican.

America's first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870.

On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first black governor.

America's first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force's and Army's first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

President Reagan named Colin Powell America's first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State.

Tokens you say?
Mr. journalist, Mr. College Professor, Mr. Democratic shill, can you do better?

Why is Condoleezza Rice a Republican? In her own words:

"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

The Civil Rights Act of was the culmination of 106 years of Republican efforts, not Democrat, and it was an uphill battle all the way.

The Democratic party embraced the Civil Rights movement, not out of compassion or tolorence of blacks, but because they saw the writing on the wall.They knew that passage of the Civil Rights Act was inevitable and they realized that there was going to be a new and powerful voting block.
They knew that most blacks from that time were uneducated, uninformed and naive so they changed tactics.
In an effort to win over this new and powerful voting block the Democrats started embracing the cause.
They started pointing to "this" bill or "that" legislation" that they voted on in order to show they were with blacks all along.
Ignoring the fact that in the beginning of the Civil Rights era, most bills before Congress were Republican sponsored.
In a Media and propaganda Blitz they stole the Republican thunder, but the facts are there. History doesn`t lie despite attempts to alter the facts.

I know what party is responsible for Civil Rights for ALL Americans.

Read the article HERE.

After you read it you will know who`s responsible too.

So Mr.Democrat, Mr.Uninformed Liberal, Mr. Media Person or Mr. I Hate Bush, Hippy, don`t you dare call me a racist to my face just because I`m a Republican. You won`t like the consequences.

Who`s racist?

Thanks to Valerie at E-Nough for the heads up.

- Joatmoaf -

February 28, 2005 at 07:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

October 06, 2004


I saw most of it Tuesday night and I was going to blog on it but then.....I didn`t.
There`s just too many things to pick apart, and while I may be able to read fast (maybe not as fast as Spd Rdr) I can`t type fast.
One of the things I noticed was the difference in the way they answered the questions. Of course they`re each going to give totally different, partisan based responses to the same question and that`s to be expected but it`s not what I mean.
How someone answers a question is often more revealing than the answer they give.

Are they comfortable answering the questions? -Body language-
Does the answer adress the question? -Evasiveness, Deciet-
Are the answers thoughtful? -Character-

Character is important to me and that`s what I look for in people, especially in political leaders.
Dick Cheney revealed a little of his character in the debate and I liked what I saw. He was in control of himself. He was well prepared and answered the questions directly and openly. He took a pass on questions that weren`t pertinant or were baited. More importantly, his responses were precise.
His responses were articulated in such a way as to gain maximum benifit. Not many words were used that weren`t needed. He didn`t arrive at the answers through some roundabout detour, he just answered them. Good. I like that. Straight, to the point, with no fluff. The way it should be.
Throughout the whole thing, whether it was Haliburton, domestic or foriegn policy or the WOT, Cheney came across as a college professor who knows the subject better than almost anyone, and who was trying to educate the listeners (and doing a good job of it too).

Edwards on the other hand, was evasive on specifics. Always. He didn`t reveal anything about himself. He revealed a lot about John Kerrys platform and talking points. So much so that it seemed like a one man campaign rally. Cheney was pretty specific about plans. Edwards wasn`t. I keep hearing that they have plans for reducing the deficit, getting more allies involved in Iraq, more money for AIDs, healthcare, education, more jobs and you name it. It`s the same thing Kerry says every day on his stumps. I also noticed that anytime he had to get near a topic that demanded specifics he kept trying to shift the focus to Bush. Every time. With. Out. Fail.
I got several impressions of Edwards character, none of them very good.
Snake Oil Salesman. They have this *NEW* and *IMPROVED* administration to sell to the American people. It will stop all war, heal all wounds, wipe away every tear AND put 2 chickens in every pot.
Just don`t ask HOW they`re going to do it.
I also got the impression that he doesn`t know the answers, and by association, neither does Kerry. To have people who are as clueless as those 2, come so close to being President, is scary.
I also got the impression (since he`s a lawyer) of him pleading his case in a bench trial, with himself as the judge. In other words, he sounded like he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else.
I also wonder if Edwards has thanked God that he hasn`t had to face many (if any) opponents like Cheney in court.

EDWARDS: The American people want in their president and in their vice president basically three things: They want to know that their president and their vice president will keep them safe. They want to know that they have good judgment. And they want to know that you'll tell them the truth.

True. True. True. I want all of those things (and more) in a president. Kerry/Edwards haven`t shown that they could provide them, especially Kerry. He posesses none of those qualities.
That`s my opinion.

- Joatmoaf -

October 6, 2004 at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

August 07, 2004

Right Now

I`ve got another link to a pretty good video from Dave. It`s one I really like and I hope you haven`t all seen it yet. It cuts right to the heart of the matter and I think that if Bush would play it as a campaign ad it would be very effective.

So click the link Right Now.

Update: Here`s another video link on Kerrys positions on the war on terror, Afghanistan, Saddam, WMDs and other things. Very interesting. CLICK

There`s some very good material here.

I found it at IMAO

- Joatmoaf -

August 7, 2004 at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 08, 2004

Dealing With Ignorance

I went to a retirement ceremony today and during the course of events one of our new architects came over and struck up a conversation. While getting through the initial awkwardness of the Getting To Know Each Other pleasantries he brought up the subject of John Kerry.
Here I was, talking to a very well educated, level headed individual about a subject that he was apparently clueless on. It wasn`t that he was partisan, even though he said he was a Massachusetts democrat he still could think for himself, he simply did not know the things about Kerry that we on the right assume is common knowledge to everyone.
The facts on his Vietnam war records, his days as a leader in the protest movement at that time, a movement that was confirmed to be communist inspired, the fact that Vietnam has a John Kerry suite at one of their best hotels in Hanoi with a plaque in honor of John Kerry for his (wittingly or not) contribution to "the cause."
He and I talked for a couple of hours and I gave him some good information on Kerry, most of it was from Cassandras posts. This well educated, Massachusetts democrat was suprised to say the least, because everything he knew about Kerry came from the news media, and he had considered himself well informed.
This man is the kind of people we conservatives need to be reaching out to. There are millions of them out there who, just like him, vote the party line ticket. Not because they are stubbornly biased or anything like that, but simply because they haven`t been given the facts.
I do talk politics at work and I do it a lot, but I never initiate the conversation. I always wait until the subject turns to politics then I jump in.
I never argue with opponents or name call. If they have facts to debate, then I debate the facts, but if they insist on being partisan I leave them alone and try to educate their friends.
This method works extremely well because when the ignorant are forced to defend what they say against the facts, they always lose, and while it may just make one or two angry, the level headed and open minded people begin to have doubts. Most intelligent people, who begin to have doubts about things that they have, until then, always assumed to be facts, will start to ask questions. Once that happens they start voting their conscience instead of their party.
I think that word of mouth is the best defense we have against the propaganda of the left.
Close minded liberals will visit liberal sites on the internet to get their news and post their views, they`re beyond reasoning with. It`s the swing voters we need to work on, to educate, to give the facts to since they`re the ones who will ultimately decide who wins this next election. To get them on our side all you really have to do is talk to them. As I illustrated above, they`re not normally biased, not stupid, not angry or anything petty like that. They`re simply un-informed of the facts, but they`re sincere individuals who just want to do the right thing, including voting for the person who has the best interest of America as their priority.
It`s our job to try to present our side in as many one on one situations as we can. If we do it with facts, reason and patience, the sensible person will come around because they want to do the right thing, and until then they didn`t know the difference.

- joatmoaf -

July 8, 2004 at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack

March 09, 2004

Look Before You Leap

Thomas Sowell, on critical thinking and empirical evidence:

When I look back at the history of the 20th century and the horrors in that century that grew out of people whose main talent was an ability to inspire followers with their rhetoric, I'm always amazed that we don't do everything we can to get our students to think beyond rhetoric, to analyze logically, to have a background of knowledge and facts with which they can test things.
On the contrary, students are being told to have opinions in elementary school before they've even had a decade of life experience. They are encouraged to have opinions on everything and to go out and carry signs. Telling people in that kind of atmosphere that they have to stop and think through what they're saying is a very hard sell.

Read entire interview...

- Cassandra

March 9, 2004 at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 06, 2004

Outsourcing and the Polls

Great post over at Powerline. I don't see Bush's poor poll results as meaningful predictors at this early stage; they're more a function of buzz from the Democratic primaries and the post-war lull. The media has been trumpeting the Democratic platform 24/7 and the polls naturally reflect this. With the drama of the war and September 11th fading, the factors that drove Bush's approval ratings sky-high are missing. The Powerline post focuses on jobs figures and outsourcing:

The current obsession with "outsourcing" is mostly a distraction from what is primarily going on. A free market will naturally locate some jobs in the U.S. and other jobs in India, China, or wherever. But the fundamental reality is that as time goes by, a smaller proportion of the population is needed to work in manufacturing. Democrats' nostalgia for the days when millions of workers lined up with lunch buckets at factory gates won't bring those times back, any more than Republican nostalgia for the family farm will cause our children to try to buy forty acres and go into the farming business.

Since I've maintained something very similar in previous posts and in correspondence with some of the commenters on this forum, the gentleman is obviously right.:) At any rate, great analysis and well worth reading.

- Cassandra

March 6, 2004 at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack