"VICTORY (IN WASHINGTON) AT ALL COSTS,"

or

"How dare you criticize my patriotism because I criticize this administration!?"

Don't you love to hear the moral and intellectual vacancy of the left, in the ususal attempt to have it both ways...at least verbally have it both ways to fool enough people to get elected?

In the attempt to regain the Congress and Presidency at all costs, the Democratic party has invested in our defeat in order to do it. Never mind that we are literally fighting for the future of not only this country, but western civilization as a whole.

Regaining the White House and both houses of Congress are worth putting this nation in peril for their selfish, self-absorbed minds. "Illegal war," "Support the troops: Bring them home," "We'll support our troops when they shoot their officers" in the usual slogan-slinging that acts as debate in their THC-polluted minds somehow are supposed to be ignored but agreed with at the same time by the vast majority of the American people.

Yet, I am supposed to believe all of you when you say, "We support the troops." You say that I should, because "no one has the right to criticize your patriotism because you criticize this administration."

Then again, no one has the right to criticize you at all. They never have. When they do, they have been branded as "closed-minded, racists, sexists, homophobes, or incompassionate." I should just shut up, let you run this country, my life, my family, and be a good little Socialist robot peasant that cowtows to the demands of my self-annointed "betters."

Yeah, right.

Come on, throw me a freakin' bone, man. Give me some credit for walking erect on two hind legs and having opposable thumbs!

Well, being too frustrated with the self righteously and pathologically treasonous, I'll defer my words to the statement of a brother paratrooper to our wonderfully unbiased, hate America first media:

THE EMERGENCY SOCIETY
...'casue its the best excuse to get something unconscionable done!
The face of national security threats according to Union Pacific Railroad!

In this day and age, it seems that the latest war has given excuse for everything to be operated in "emergency mode." The public safety and security is given as the reason why people do things that civil people otherwise wouldn't consider.

Even private businesses are getting on the bandwagon. Everything is for "security," or at least that is the excuse given.

Union Pacific railroad, one of the "big five" railroads in the United States, evicted a Boy Scout organization from its holdings this week. According to the story in the Oakland, California Daily Review, Trains Magazine reported:

For the past 85 years, Boy Scouts of American troop 503 has spent countless hours helping the Bay Area community of San Leandro, said an article in the Daily Review newspaper of Oakland, Calif.But a few months ago, the troop was evicted from railroad property on Carden Street, where an old 27-foot trailer containing the boys' camping equipment, records and flags has been kept for the past 20 years. According to Mark Miller, the troop's committee chairman, there had never been a problem when the site was owned by Southern Pacific. The property presently belongs to the Union Pacific.Citing national security issues, Union Pacific officials told the Boy Scouts it had four days to vacate the premises and an extension would not be granted, Miller said.John Taufer, a local businessman with Sebring Transportation Co., temporarily offered some storage space for the trailer at the company's trucking yard off Doolittle Drive on the condition that the troop finds a new home as soon as possible. Miller said the Boy Scouts are looking for either a place to store the trailer or a place to store the gear if people don't want the trailer on their property. (Trains Magazine, JAN 2006).

Really? "National Security Issues?" What possible national security threat do the Boy Scouts of America present? Plenty, if you are a typical left wing bolshevik working for the socialized, unionized, and outright sodomized big railroads that cowtow to their "image of diversity." The left wing whack-jobs see the BSA as a threat to unchecked homosexuality, and a stand against carte blanche access to 12 year old booty. Oh, by the way, they state a belief in God...so that makes them "intolerant" of atheists, too.

In the past two years, major American railroads have been engaged in the most agressive pogroms to show their commitment to diversity. Even on CSX railroad employee evaluation, the first rating criteria is "commitment to diversity." On the UP website (www.up.com), there are two links available on diversity alone that lead to in-depth, multiple web pages. The diversity covered is both employee and supplier diversity.

The thing is, "diversity," as most people see it and the talking heads state that it is, is treating others as you would like to be treated. In actuality, diversity defined through actions are special "set asides" granted to the homosexual lobby. This is plainly obvious to anyone employed in the public sector, or heavily unionized industries that march lock-step with the Democrat verbal flatuations of the day.

The ongoing assault against the Boy Scouts by the militant homosexual movement has extended to all factors of life, from being excluded from military installations and public funding, to being denied use of local public property.

One would have to be brain dead, or believe in UP's diversity program, not to have seen the news items throughout the country over the past several years over the Boy Scouts demanded exclusion from civilized life simply because they teach faith in God, and oppose homosexuality.

Don't believe me? Here's a few, I say FEW, of the news snippets:

2004-JAN-26: CA: Scouts may lose campsite: The local boy scouts in San Diego have held a long-term lease for a campsite and park area located in the city's Balboa Park. The lease was extended in 2001 for 25 years. However, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city because it gave preferential access to the boy scouts in spite of that groups discrimination against homosexuals and athiests. A settlement was reached. The city will pay almost $1 million in legal fees and court costs. The city will evict the scouts. Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said that the BSA has: "...aligned themselves with a set of values not shared with most Americans any more. The longer and harder they hold to them the more irrelevant they become. (Christian Science Monitor, 26 JAN 2004)

2004-FEB-25: NY: United Way to terminate funding of BSA council: The United Way of Ulster County will end a four-decade partnership with the Rip Van Winkle Council of the BSA at the end of 2004. For six months, the two groups had tried to negotiate a non-discrimination agreement. They failed. The Council serves Ulster and Greene Counties has its head office in Kingston, NY. ("Boy Scouts lose funding for barring gays," DailyFreeman.com, 2004-FEB-25).

2004-FEB: VA: State approves Boy Scouts' license plate: The Virginia house passed bill HB923 by a vote of 94 to 3 on 2004-FEB-03. It later passed the Senate 15 to 0Scouting for All lodged a complaint with the governor, Mark Warner. It said, in part: "Scouting for All and those Americans who believe in social justice ask that you rescind this decision. We ask this of you because the state of Virginia should not be using tax payer money to honor an organization that discriminates against any segment of our society. The Boy Scouts of America currently discriminates against many of those Virginians who voted for you, those of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and nontheist communities. The Boy Scouts of America discriminates against gay and nontheist youth and adults." (Any Organization In America That Discriminates Against Any Segment of Our Society Should Not Receive City, State, or Federal Support In Any Manner," Scouting for All, 2004-JUL-10, at: http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2004071102.shtml )

2004-JUL-07: PA: United Way cuts funding for BSA: The United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania had held about $200,000 in escrow for the Cradle of Liberty Council of the BSA, pending a conflict resolution. The United Way will not distribute funds to any group that discriminates on the basis of age, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The local BSA organization is bound by their headquarter's policy of discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. The United Way decided to release the funds and distribute them to two other youth groups in the greater Philadelphia area. ("United Way to redistribute funds," NewsGleaner, 2004-JUL-7)

2004-JUL-8: WA: City rejects aid to Boy Scouts: The city council of Port Townsend, WA, decided to not contribute to the purchas of Boy Scout House on Morgan Hill. The scouts are trying to raise $1,175,000 to purchase the property. ("Port Townsend: City Council won't help with buying Scout House,"2004-JUL-08, Peninsula Daily News)

2004-NOV-16: USA: Pentagon to warn military bases to withhold sponsorship of BSA: The Pentagon has agreed to warn its bases that they cannot directly sponsor Boy Scout troops because of the BSA's discrimination against non-theists. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, the U.S. military has sponsored hundreds of BSA troops. ACLU lawyer Adam Schwartz said: "If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs." However, individual military personnel will still be able to lead Scout troops on their own time. Troops will be able to have meetings on army bases if civilian organizations are allowed to hold events. Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, described the Pentagon's warnings to its bases as "very wise advice....It's important that the federal government — including the military — not sponsor any organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. In the long run, this change will be a good protection for religious freedom and diversity." The Pentagon's action was motivated by a lawsuit that the ACLU initiated against the city of Chicago, the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city of Chicago had already settled by agreeing to not sponsor BSA activities. (Pentagon to warn bases on Scouts," Associated Press, 2004-NOV-16)

Of course, we know that "tolerance" and "diversity" means simply the excuse of perversion. This is pure, simple Orwellian "doublespeak." We say it is night, but its really day. Poverty is wealth, cold is hot.

By definition, these purveyors of tolerance don't even follow their own convictions.

As for UP, CSX, NS, and the rest of you socialized monopolies, keep it up...the American people have had enough of this. Payback can be a sonofagun.

As for Up, you want to see national security threats? Catch a C-17 to CENTCOM, and I'll give you all the national security threats you can handle.

Remember the old Dead Kennedy's song, "California Uber Allies," with the left wing, spirald eyed nut jobs running the country true to their Socialist (NAZI) roots? I think that time is here.

!RECONQUISTA!

"The Southwest Border or Southwest Border region is defined as including the areas up to 150 miles north of the United States-Mexican border in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California." Executive Order 13122, signed by the president May 25, 1999

Once again, the results of our non-existent border seems to betray our politican's intent to erase the borders and implement the NAFTA "zones."

Border Partol agents once again came under fire this past weekend. This is not uncommon, and fires exchanged with the Mexcan Army have been more and more frequent. This time, it was again trained rifle fire. You can read about it here:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48218

The shooting of a Mexican human smuggler within the United States has even shown the impotence of our own nation to even "talk tough" about its own soveriegnty. A Border Patrol agent, being assauulted and pelted with stones by the smuggler and his associates, left the agent with little option but to shoot to protect his own life. The story may be found here:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes

/news/13563549.htm

Amazingly, the Mexican government protested the shooting of a Mexican national, and has not ruled out the trial in absence of an American citizen employed as a federal law enforcement officer, enforcing American law on American soil for murder. In the San Diego (California) Union Tribune on 6 January 2005, it was reported that :

that Mexico might consider a trial-in-absence of the Border Patrol officer, and he added that he believed last week's shooting death of Guillermo Martinez, 18, was caused by "a negative atmosphere" toward migrants in the United States. The Border Patrol says the shooting occurred after the migrant, who was trying to cross the border illegally, threw a large rock at the agent.

It is also a matter of public record that this same individual has been detained previously ELEVEN TIMES for the same offense by the U.S. Border Patrol. Of course, the ever racially tolerant (denote extreme sarcasm) nation of Mexico was the first to make the first and most deadly accusation that makes every politican and public official soil his pants and cry for mother: racism! Yes, the shot was fired out of close minded xenophobia and hatred!

Why not? The same charges work for American citizens against police. Why not foreigners? The same article went on to report that:

"The truth is that the negative atmosphere has unfortunately generated, has led to, this death," Derbez told reporters in Mexico City. "We have had to suffer the loss of a human life, a Mexican, for the message to get out about the effects of xenophobia, of making wrong-headed proposals," he said.

Then again, Mexican sovereignty transcends our own borders, as uttered by the mouth of former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo in Chicago during 1997:

"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this."

He later went on to speak before the assbled members of "La Raza" (The Race), the concept that Mexican citizens will not have to give up Mexican citizenship to gain United States citizenship:

"For this reason, my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right and the desire to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality."

Steven Archer, in an interview with Glenn Spence of Voice of Citizens Together, reported in NewsMax on June 7 2000 that:

Spencer added he believed Mexico is allowing this so that those people with dual citizenship may vote in the interest of Mexico in the United States. The ultimate goal of this invasion, Spencer contends, is to reclaim the American Southwest – an area including California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Known as Aztlan by Hispanic activists, these states make up what used to be Mexican territory before treaties and wars gave the land to the United States.

In 2006, not much has changed. Yes, we have elected a new president to secure our borders, and there even exists a new president in Mexico. But the same drama exists: open borders, out of control illegals, an ever more burdened public health care, education, and public assistance system, and growing crime. Even Mexican President Vincinte Fox shouts the same "reconquista" tripe that his predecessor did. There is even an agency in the Mexican government that assists would be illegals trough education in how to get in the U.S. illegally, how to avoid deportation, and what to do if you get caught.

In 2000, we elected a President who claimed that he would control the borders. He didn't. We threw out one party, because they sold out our soveriegnty to the UN and for their own self interests. The current party at least tries to defend the nation AFTER it gets attacked, but allows the invasion of the U.S. from Mexico to continue to please international corporate interests who have no loyalty to nation.

So far, no one is even willing to admit that Mexico is a corrupt nation who most certainly does not have our best interests at heart. Ask any Texan high school student that makes a "road trip" south of the border. Like it or not, we are not even willing to deal with an issue that is literally destroying the country.

Call it xenophobia. Call it racism. Call it whatever you like. Real immigrants to this country seek to become part of the greater American society, not consider themselves Mexicans living in America. This has been the case for every "wave" of immigrants to this nation, that is, until now.

Yes, there are folks in polictical circles who see this as a golden opportunity to empower themselves, by exploitation of these folks and through telling newcomers to our shores that the deck is stacked against you from the get-go, that you are oppressed, and that if you want improvements, just do what we ask.

Don't believe me? Just ask a resident of NC, where a bill was killed by the governor to give reduced tuition to children of illegal aliens living in NC. The politician who actually sponsored this (who runs a fencing buisiness, by the way), states that this is a really "good" idea, but can't articulate how. The same goes for the concept of ID's and temporary drivers licenses issued to illegals.

The real reason? Good old fashioned racial politics from the Left. In the true false sense of noblesse-oblige by our self annointed betters, they understand that there are more Hispanics in America that African Americans. This equates to "more votes." It's so transparent, Ray Charles could see through it.

Their conceit and racist mentalities betray them: They pander to illegal aliens as being the "Hispanic Community," as they ignore the millions of Hispanic Americans who are citizens, who obey the law, live good lives, and hurt no one.

This is nothing new. Any drug dealer, armed robber, or thug is the "Black Community" in their eyes. Such high hopes for those less "fortunate," eh?

The only way to stop this mess is the enforcement of the rule of law over the political careers of public officials, who are willing to pimp the citizens of this nation out in a heartbeat! The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and could place the Army and Marine Corps along the border at any given time.

There are volunteers willing...and doing...just that. They are doing border security detail for nothing, taking their own time and resources to defend their country. THAT is the constitutional definition of "militia." Oh, about half of these guys are Hispanic, despite La Raza's concerns. Their allegience is to their home, not the corrupt bandit nation of Mexico.

The problem is, that just ain't going to happen, with both "Party A" and "Party Not Quite A" in our political system. We need a challenger who is willing to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Or else, we face being carried away as Israel did in Old Testament times by her lawlessness.

Anyone ready to vote Libertarian, yet? At least while there is still a United States in which to do it?

OLDER DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN WISER

While being approached by a well-meaning fellow employee at work...we'll call him "Jimmy"..., I was berated for volutarily aiding "King Bush" in his "illegal war against Afghan and Iraqi babies." His argument was that a real patriot would stand up against the illegal occupation of the conquered South. Having dealt with those of limited intellect and bumper sticker /slogan philosophy for many years, I attempted to carry out a civil conversation with this person. In short, in his ill-informed mind the sooner that I admit that I am a Republican stooge and a war crimminal, the better.

As I attempted to keep a straight face, he asserted that real patriots would seek to unseat an illegal President, bring out troops home, and end Federal occupation of the South. I thought, "Maybe it is the years of accumulation of THC?"

That was the first mistake: Trying to carry out a coherent discussion involving facts. Wrong answer! In interesting thought processes: no facts, please, just emotion. After all..."I went to Viet Nam!"

Jimmy, as you invited, I'll post on my blog, since you are much too emotional to speak. "Illegal" election (US Constitution and Electoral College-not popular vote-READ IT...especially when you start a neo-Confedrate rant that states that the South is "kept down."), retreat / peace at any price (Read about Lee's tearful determination to Jefferson Davis that Richmond will NEVER fall to GEN McClellan), and the occupied South argument (could seceede state by state if they so wished to do so today, as has been bandied about in the press by Alaska, California, and Vermont) aside, I'll attempt to put forth a bit of coherent language for you.

Okay. Great. You went to Viet Nam. Thanks for yor service, and my heart goes out to you (IF you really went there at all...you still can't tell me which branch of service or unit you deployed with). Military service alone does not make you "right." Look at Hitler. He was a decortated junior NCO wounded in action. Oh, for the Michael Moore fans out there, he wrote a couple of books too.

The two NCO's I will respect as fathers for the rest of my life volunteered to go to Afghanistan with my organization in 2003 after having served in Vietnam years earlier. I love and respect them both. They see things from the perpsective of their generations defining conflict. Their perspective was most welcome, their experience appreciated, and their wisdom most admired. One of these men was severely wounded on an offensive operation, after being already wounded in Viet Nam.

But does military service alone allow one to shut their brains and consciousnesses completely off? As with Hitler, the same standard makes his charachter unassailable simply because "he served?"

That "unassailable service" thing is selectively applied to Viet Nam, and Viet Nam alone, while your generation trashes the actions of your fathers and grandfathers in conflicts before you, and demands that my generation do the same. Confederate service is conveniently lauded only if it is meant as a slap against a President you don't like.

I guess that I am one of the ones you wanted to "bring home." Thanks for nothing. Cutting and running doesn't solve the problem...we CAN win...only if our nation has the will to do it.

The one thing everyone should have learned from Viet Nam is that every third world challenger will try to fight us in our own media, and use our own disaffected citizens to aid them. In short: the American public wants everything both ways. Your own many postings on your own blog points this out, Jimmy.

Admittedly, I have more respect for the hairy hippies than for the ones who hid out in college. They at least took a stand. The easy road, unfortunately, is human nature.

Treason? Why, the last persons tried for treeason got a slap on the wrist, and that was Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. Jane Fonda and her crowd got a free pass from your own generation and its heroes. How many kids did LBJ kill today? How many died because "Bush lied?" How about how many died because of Ms. Fonda-Turner, and how many maimed because of our own malcontent media throwing the gasoline on the fires of an otherwise defeated enemy?

Fast forward this to 2001-to present. The same freakin' thing.

How can we lose? It's easy. One side is willing to die for their cause, why the other side isn't even willing to fight to survive. Not only are they not willing to fight, they are shouting that they aren't willing to do it from the rooftops, and trying everything in their power to keep others from fighting, too.

Go fight for my king? Were you arguing against Bill Clinton sending us to Bosnia and Kosovo? How about Somalia? How about sundry other places never read about in the newspapers, where we were pimped out to the UN? Were you arguing for adherence to the Constitution when the President failed to carry out his oath as these same animals built power, strength, and resolve by attacking us in ever more deadlier fashion throughout the 1990's?

OH, by the way, those fighting for "our king" are largely from the South. Many of us have carried the Battle Flag with us into action. I personally carried a US and SC flag with me.

I never hear the same comments from the World War II generation, in fact, their comments are always the opposite. They seem to understand that the enemy is using our own media and our own malcontents who have been ruining this country for the past thirty years.

As for learning anything from my Confederate forebears, we learned not to just quit! My own immediate family sent 5 sons to fight as riflemen. After the first died, the rest couldn't be held back. That included the 65 year old father in the citizen's militia. Of those 5, only two returned home, and both of those wounded. The same is true for the rest of my extended family, especially a grandfather who had half of his lower jaw shot away at Franklin TN, and remained with his unit (24th SC IN) until paroled at Goldsboro, N.C. and walked home!

This was borne home into their descendants: a Great-grandfather who lost a leg at sea during the First World War, and a Grandfather in who had to cut himself from his parachute while entangled in a tree somewhere behind Normandy on 6 June 1944, and fought alone in the dark until other troopers from the 507th PIR showed up. He returned to his company in the 507th and was severely wounded while attacking German mechanized infantry in Luxembourg in JAN 1945, losing his entire squad. He Was hidden in a snowbank by civilians until U.S. forces overran the area. He didn't just quit. My point: WE DON'T JUST QUIT WHEN IT GETS TOUGH..WE FINISH THE FIGHT!

Maybe your self-hatred will bear its fullest fruit when your daughters are put in a burqua, your sons given a prayer rug and told to grow a beard, and your throat gets cut by the "oppressed."

Don't think it can happen here? Think again. Look at France and Holland. How many more riots in the past week alone? Then, look south to our open border for good measure to stimulate those neurons and synapses.

I just can't imagine the bitter frame of mind of a generation that thinks: "We lost our war, our children should lose theirs, too." I guess a parent really would give his child a serpent instead of a fish? (Matthew 7:10)

May God preserve our nation, and our freedom.