Where are the Heroes?

While you may have seen a couple of examples of the MSM taking a break from deriding the troops, I am not convinced. It was the mainstream media that ran Abu Grahib stories for months and months, subsequent fake torture pictures, and tried to vilify a soldier caught on camera shooting an enemy that he thought had a bomb.

While Time makes a nice tribute to the fallen, where are the heroes? By only focusing on the fallen, media is able to continue it's relentless pounding of negativity regarding the Iraqi war. Without also demostrating examples of American and British courage, the media is left being insincere trying to demoralize the homefront.Instead of focusing on round-the-clock coverage of Cindy Sheehan, where are today's Audie Murphy or Sgt. Alvin York? Why has the MSM never mentioned the exploits of Cpl. Samuel Toloza.
Only the Washington Times reported how this El Savadoran immigrant defending his fellow soldiers who were out of ammunition and wounded. He said a prayer, whipped out his knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen. His heroics saved his fellow soldiers and bought enough time for reinforcements to arrive.What about the heroics of Cpl. Jason Dunham who jumped on a granade to save his fellow Marines. You may not know his name because only the WSJ reported the story.
Sgt 1st Class Paul Ray Smith single handedly killed 50 Iraqi terrorists while saving the lives of 100 Americans. It was only with his posthumous award of the Medal of Honor did the MSM make some room on their back pages for a short blurb.

There are probably many other heroes, but their names are hard to find. (Update Riehlworld view has a nice list) If the MSM was really supporting the troops, their names wouldn't be.

The media may be biased, but even they support the troops.
We all criticize the mainstream media, regularly and with reason. More and more and day by day the MSM is showing us that its response to the popularity of conservative media and the rise of alternative news sources is to become less carefully liberal. What in the past had to be hidden is now announced.....
An example is a joint venture by Time and the Rocky Mountain News on the families of fallen servicemen in Iraq. Time gives it a beautiful spread on its Web site; the News provided the story and photos. Look at the level of craftsmanship, even art, from the editors, writer, photographer. Look at the work that went into it. It could not have been anything but a labor of love. ... Peggy Noonan

Even Liberals Should Be Anti-Illegal Immigrant

Even mainstream liberals should oppose the massive illegal immigration. Allowing unfettered immigration relieves Mexico of making the necessary economic and political reforms that would make Mexico's economy better. I don't know if y'all know this, but in Mexico there are two distinct classes: those of European descent and those of native Indian descent. You want racism, it's in Mexico. You'll never see a Mexican of indian descent in a position of importance, whether in politics, in business or on TV. If the European elites can continue sending their unwanted across the border, instead of being forced to allow indians the economic freedom to make something of themselves, then Mexico's problems will never be solved.

Additionally, illegals keep US wages low and take jobs away from certain demographic groups like teenagers. Most of their earned money is not spent in the US, hurting our economy. Finally, Mexico has high security at their southern border. Hypocrisy anyone?

MONTERREY, Mexico — Mexico's president on Wednesday criticized the U.S. decision to complete a wall along the border and use drones to increase security, calling it "disgraceful and shameful." On Monday, a U.S. judge lifted the final legal obstacle for the completion of a border fence along the Mexico-California border. Plans call for two additional fences running parallel to the existing steel barrier, with sensors and cameras tracking any movement. The fences will run along the final 3 1/2 miles of the border before it meets the Pacific.
"This situation we're seeing, a disgraceful and shameful moment where walls are being built, security systems are being reinforced, and human and labor rights are being violated more and more, won't protect the economy of the United States," President Vicente Fox said.

Gold as an Investment

Gold as an investment stinks. The gold pushers are always on websites like Newsmax and talk radio. I have a problem when talk radio hosts read gold ads. When reading an add for gold, they seem to be giving financial advice. Some people who put a lot of trust in the talk show hosts may purchase a large amount of gold and lose lots of money over time.

In 1975, gold was about $175/oz
In Jan 1980, gold was at $620/oz.
In Jan 1990, gold was at $410/oz.
The lowest point of the 1980s, gold was at about $300.
Today it is $494.

The stock indexes in comparison:
In Jan 1980, the Dow was at 830.
In Jan 1990, the Dow was about 2750
Now it's about 10885, 13x 1980 and 4x 1990
In Jan 1980, the S&P 500 was about 108
In Jan 1990, the S&P 500 was about 355
Now about 1275, 11.8 x 1980 & 3.6 x 1990.

Although the price of gold in 1980 was the big high point, and it's a little unfair to use that price, there is a major distinction. It's been 25 years since gold peaked! In 2025, 25 years after the March 2000 peak of the Dow, the Dow will be MUCH MUCH higher than its peak of 11722.

When goldophiles show charts of the price of gold or figure percent increases, they always begin in 1971 when gold was released from its fixed price of $35/oz. However, people in the United States weren't allowed to own gold until 1975, when it was already about $175/ oz. (Foriegn market forces had quickly driven the price up.) Thus all returns need to be looked at in comparison to 1975 at $175/oz, not 1971. If you bought gold in 1975 you have less than 3 times your money today (not accounting for inflation). If you bought an S&P mutual fund in 1975, at about 90, you'd have about 14 times your money.

....but go ahead, keep buying gold.

1963 Communist Goals

The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963. Remember while reading this, that the year was 1963, before Vietnam, before Roe, before the country went left. Many pundits have seen this list before and looked it over, but have we ever evaluated and tabulated the list?

1) US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war

Not applicable with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

2) US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war

Not applicable.

3) Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"

Not succesful. It doesn't mean that the psuedo-peaceniks haven't tried, but they really haven't gained any ground.

4) Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Partially successful. China is a huge trading "partner" and Bush's free trade proposal for all of South America would include Venezula.

5) Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites

Successful. The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), an independent US government agency, has financed many projects in Communist China among others. In other words, we're selling China the rope with which to hang us with.

6) Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination

Succesful. While we haven't stooped to giving North Korea aid, Vietnam gets $40 million annually.

7) Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.

Successful. Not only did they get into the UN, they got a seat on the council.

8) Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN

Failed.

9) Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress

Not Applicable

10) Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN

Successful. Besides communist countries gaining representation in the UN, every third world dictatorship gains not only entry but some laughable positions (such as Iraq being on the Human Rights council)

11) Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)

Partially-successful. The UN has taken been of greater importance in recent years. The implication that UN "permission" was needed prior to invasion of Iraq is evidence of that.

12) Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party

Successful. Communists have evolved to calling themselves things other than communists, but with the same agenda, such as peace activists, Greens, or Democrats.

13) Do away with loyalty oaths

Not successful. While the pledge was under attack for the "under God" clause, the effort has generally failed.

14) Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office

Not applicable

15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US

Successful. Are Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton, really anything else besides communists? Other names such as being part of the "Democratic wing of the Democrat Party" are just semantics.

16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Successful! Remember 1963 was before Griswold vs. Connneticut or Roe vs. Wade.

17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.

Successful! Schools and unversities are ripe with Communist professors.

18) Gain control of all student newspapers

Successful! Why stop at student newspapers? Communists have control over a much larger percentage of professional broadsheets.

19) Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

Partially Succesful. Gay rights, death penalty, WTO, war in Iraq, are all met with "student" protests. Many groups such as ANSWER have a distinct communist background. However, these protests are not exactly mainstream despite media hype.

20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

Successful. Only with the advent of the internet and talk radio, has there been an outlet of non-leftist news.

21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

Successful. Not only did they get key positions in TV and movies, they nearly got all positions. The rate Hollywood has been churning out leftists propoganda has increased dramatically in the recent decade.

22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.

Successfull....Hmmm....modern art anyone?

23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art".

Partially successful. There are many modern art museums. Only the classics housed in some muesems have any quality about them.

24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Partially successful. There are still some obscenity laws and FCC maintains regulations, but those standards have been reduced dramatically since 1963.

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

Successful. In 1963, Playboy sold a couple of copies. Today, what Hugh started has overstaturated life.

26) Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy".

Successful. Not only is is "normal", they are pushing for marriage.

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"

Partially successful. The efforts to eliminate the influence of churches is strong, but there has been some resistance and attendance is much higher in the US than in Europe.

28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

Successful. Not only prayer, but any Bibles or statues of Moses.

29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Succesful. This has been resulted in judicial activism, which is ignoring the Constitution or the limitations of the government as documented in the Constitution.

30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".

Not succesful.

31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

Partially succesful. While American history is taught, some of it has been rewritten to cast America in a bad light. Every school child now knows how evil Vietnam and Joe McCarthy was. Strong emphasis is giving to the shortcomings, while ignoring the good the US has done.

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Partially succesful. Social security, medicare, education, welfare...all part of the bloated and growing federal government. Why is there a federal department of education? The cities and the states run the schools?

33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

Successful. What aren't people allowed to do? War protesters proclaim signs that promote killing US troops, Jane Fonda can go to Vietnam during war to comfort the enemy, and 3 Congressmen can go to Iraq shortly before the War to proclaim how good it is.

34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Successful!

35) Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI

Not successful. The FBI still remains a respected institution.

36) Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

Partially succesful. While many unions are corrupt and in the pockets of the Democrat party, few are overtly communists.

37) Infiltrate and gain control of big business

Not successful. While there maybe a few minor examples, as a whole, big business has not been overrun with communists, the way the media and schools have been.

38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

Partially succesful. While social agencies do not arrest anyone, many kids today are on drugs, such as Ritalin, for behavioral problems, which is now called "ADD."

39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Not succesful.

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Successful! Divorce rates are high, and the promiscuity of teenagers is much much higher than that in 1963.

41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Partially succesful. If you slap your kid, child services will be arriving at your house to take away your child. Homeschooling is deemed as bad.

42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.

Not succesful.

43) Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

Successful!! We have seen this across Africa and now most prominently in Iraq, where subversive politicans argue for American retreat.

44) Internationalize the Panama Canal.

Successful! We handed the Panama Canal back to the Panamians (thank you, Jimmy Carter) only to see it come under control on China.

45) Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike

Not successful, though it doesn't mean they haven't tried. For example, the International Criminal Court. Only through the resistance, despite media objections, was the US subjected to this.

In summary, out of 45 goals, 21 have been succesful, 11 partially succesful, and only 9 were not succesful. (4 were not applicable). That is a successful rate of 59%, probably much much higher than the communists cells could have dreamed about in 1963.

Grinch of the Year

This lady, Patricia Sonntag, certainly should get Grinch of the Year award if there ever was one. We are all used to the Scrooges who like to ban Christmas. This lady wants to go beyond it and to band just about every holiday. Not only is any holiday with a wisp of religious history on her chopping block, American national holidays like "the 4th of July" is on her chopping block. I guess she's worried that a foreigner in our country would be offended by the host country celebrating its Independence Day. If a foreigner in our country is offended by the 4th of July celebrations, then he shouldn't be here. Honestly though, I doubt there is one, save the Al-Qaeda operatives. This is more communist efforts to transform America.

An administrator at California State University, Sacramento has banned decorations pertaining to Christmas and the 4th of July, among other holidays, from her office because they represent "religious discrimination" and "ethnic insensitivity.""Time has come to recognize that religious discrimination, as well as ethnic insensitivity to certain holidays, is forbidden," Patricia Sonntag, director of the Office of Services to Students with Disabilities, stated in the directive she e-mailed to members of her staff on Dec. 9....
The memo specifically names Christmas, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Valentine's
Day, the 4th of July, St. Patrick's Day and Easter as the most offensive holidays, but Sonntag adds that they are "off the top of the list," implying that there may be others. She wrote that the ban was being implemented "in order to avoid offending someone else" because Sacramento State is "a secular university and we are a public service area that has a diverse employee and student populations [sic] even in our private offices." CNS News

Vicente Fox on illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is a win-win situation for Vincente Fox and he should be flatly ignored. He wants the US to accept his unemployed and then bring back the money into Mexico. The real problem which Fox doesn't want to address is Mexico itself. The economic policies of Mexico deprive people of the ability to move up in society. Corruption is rampant and the de-facto class system divides people into groups depending on their Europeon or Native ancestry. People of native ancestries have much less access to opportunity.

With over 1 million illegal immigrants coming year, the U.S. cannot handle the influx security-wise. While the legal immigration proceedure is long, difficult, and full of red-tape, the same government turn a blind eye to illegal immigration creating a odd paradox. As for the fence, "it'll cost too much"...meanwhile cost wasn't a factor in Alaska's now-defunct "Bridge to Nowhere."

Since the "reason" for allowing unfettered immigration is business needing workers, Mr. Bush, I have the perfect proposal. A quasi-government website is created, where businesses can post job opportunities. If those jobs are not filled within a certain time, perhaps a month, the opportunity is posted to a board where Mexican applicants can apply and be approved. Although I am not a fan of .government bureaucracy, the downside of 1 million-plus illegalls a year outweigh that.








MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Vicente Fox denounced as "disgraceful and shameful" on Wednesday a proposal to build a high-tech wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants.
Concerned about the huge numbers of illegal immigrants streaming across the border and worried it could be an entry point for terrorists, a U.S. lawmaker has proposed building two parallel steel and wire fences running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much.
Mexico has expressed indignation at the idea.
Fox, speaking in Tamaulipas state across the border from Texas, said such extreme security measures would violate immigrants' rights.
"The disgraceful and shameful construction of walls, the increasing enforcement of security systems and increasing violation of human rights and labor rights will not protect the economy of the United States," he said.
He again called for the easing of U.S. immigration laws to benefit millions of undocumented Mexican fruit pickers, waiters and janitors working north of the border, a complex bilateral issue that has at times strained relations with Washington.....Al-Reuters

Illegal Immigration

Although I generally like Wall St. Journal, they have an obvious support for massive illegal immigration. It's not "immigration" many conservatives are opposed to, it's illegal immigration. The vaunted "guest worker program" is in reality a backdoor amnesty program.
Business executives who claim that they can't find enough workers "no matter what the wages" are laughable. People will do any job if you pay them enough. Illegal immigrants keep wages low and take some jobs that were traditionally done by other groups, such as teenagers.
If workers are in demand, increase the quotas for legal immigration and reduce the red tape, but don't pardon the millions who have already broken many laws.
Finally, the last concern for the GOP should be "hispanic votes." If the Republicans have become the party that panders to ethnic groups, then they have lost their way. Why do establishment Republicans think that hispanics who immigrated legally are infatuated with illegal migrants? That is like assuming Italians would vote for a candidate who is soft on the Mafia.

Immigration (Spin) Control A guest-worker program is good politics for the GOP. Friday, December 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Let's hope Republicans in Congress aren't gulled by the fast and furious spinning of the anti-immigration lobby this week. The restrictionists lost a special Congressional election in California that they'd been promoting for weeks, yet they're still hailing it as a great political victory....
The real political danger for Republicans comes from the vocal restrictionist minority who want to drive GOP candidates back into the demographic box canyon they've walked into so often in the past. If they become the overtly anti-immigration party, Republicans run the risk of permanently alienating another fast-growing ethnic constituency, in this case Hispanic Americans.....
We get the same message from nearly every business executive who comes through our offices: Without immigrants, they couldn't possibly find enough willing workers to do the available work, no matter what the available wages. Yet Republicans seem intent not merely on increasing border patrols but also on further harassing law-abiding businesses that happen to hire illegals, as if anyone can tell the difference between real and fake immigration documents. Only Republicans would think it's smart politics to punish their supporters for hiring willing workers....

Gays in the Military

I'm going to let y'all in on a secret. The reason why liberal groups are pushing for gays in the military is not for the "rights" of gays, but it is for completely subversive reasons. Hardcore leftists hate the military, but the military is all-volunteer force. Generally, the military has done a fine job recruiting the amount of soldiers it needs. One way to destroy that, is to inject the virus known as the openly gay male.

Almost everyone has at least a gay cousin. Maybe you work with one or two. Whatever, it doesn't bother most people in their day-to-day lives. However conditions in the military are different. Showers are communal, and sleeping quarters are shared. Even guys who are very tolerant of gays do not want to shower with an openly gay male. A guy who is completely comfortable showering with an openly gay male is more commonly known as a bisexual.

If openly gay males are allowed in the military, recruiting will plummet. The leftists know this and this is why they push the agenda. Many average gays don't care and don't want to join the military, they don't want to get married, and don't want kids. The odd few and the community in general are being used by the radical left wingers. It's the exact same mentality towards gay scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts. Gay scoutmasters would destroy the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts profess a duty to God and counry, things liberals detest.

Lots of credit is due to Roberts, who showed his Constitutional prowess in these hearings.

With Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. leading the way, the Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to uphold a federal law that requires law schools to give equal campus access to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal funds.

In oral arguments in the case Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, lawyer E. Joshua Rosenkranz of the New York office of Heller Ehrman attacked the law on First Amendment grounds as a form of compelled speech requiring law schools to adopt the message "Join the Army, but not if you're gay." But his arguments generated little sympathy from justices across the spectrum, who seemed swayed by Solicitor General Paul Clement's argument that the law is needed to enable the military to recruit "the best and the brightest" into the armed services. Since 1990, the Association of American Law Schools has had a formal policy against allowing law students to be recruited by employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Those schools' "refusal to send the message of the military" deserves First Amendment protection, Rosenkranz asserted.

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights is a coalition of more than 20 law chools and faculties, including Georgetown University Law Center, where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband, Martin, is a professor. She has not recused. The law at issue is known as the Solomon Amendment, named after the late New York Republican Rep. Gerald Solomon who sponsored it. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the statute last year....

Roberts fired back that there is also a "right to raise the military." He and other justices seemed to view the Article I power of Congress to "raise and support armies" as a justification for the recruiting statute that outweighs law schools' First Amendment objections....

At another point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Clement if a university could "symbolically" register its objections by giving military recruiters equal access but at a different campus location from other recruiters. Roberts interjected, in a mocking tone, "Sort of separate but equal."

Houston Symphony Plays Grinch

The Houston Symphony should be the latest organization added to the Grinch List. It refuses to use the term "Christmas" anywhere. However, unlike retailers, the Houston Symphony adds irony. One of their "holiday traditions" is a performance of none other than Handel's Messiah. Have they forgetton the definition of the word "Messiah" or the lyrics to the masterpiece of the program, the Hallelujah Chorus?

It defies common sense that any non-Christian who would be offended by the Houston Symphony calling it a "Christmas performance" would, at the same time, NOT be offended by the content of the program, which is completely devoted to recognizing Jesus as God's chosen one, and exhaulting Him as the "King of Kings."

As for the other programs, why not call it Christmas? The pieces performed were written for Christmas by Christians. If there are any Jewish pieces, why not call it "Christmas and Hannakah" traditions? If even the detailed description of the programs mentioned the word "Christmas" I would not be writing this email, but the concerted effort to describe the performances without using the term, makes it sound ridiculous. The bland word "holiday" reeks of non-sensical political correctness, especially when you examine the history and content of the program.