Potpourri

"Man, I am just flat worn out!" ~ Me

Since my new wife had never been to Kansas or Missouri, I wanted to show her some of my favorite sights and monstrosities located in Kansas City, my adopted hometown, and Wichita, my actual hometown. Most importantly, I wanted to treat her to some of restaurants that I used to eat at but don't exist out here on the east coast.

Unfortunately, our time was limited, and she was tired, so we didn't get to very many places. I managed to show her those ridiculous modern art "sculptures" (and I use the term loosely) mounted on the top of the pylons over Bartle Hall in KC, but only from a distance. I don't know if she got the full impact of them or not.

I wanted to treat her to Gate's Barbeque, too, but didn't have the time. All I could do is point one location out to her as we drove past. Gate's is famous as much, if not more, for the greeting one gets as soon as one enters ("Hi, Can I help you?")as their tasty barbeque.

We left our motel room early Sunday morning and I intended to take her first to Oklahoma Joe's Barbeque, which I think is the best in the world, but we were too early and it wasn't open for business yet, so we drove on southward.

Then, after visiting "The Kansas Sampler" a store that sells souvenirs of Kansas and Kansas City, and buying an armload for friends back home, I wanted to treat her to the absolute best frozen Custard anywhere in the U.S.A. (sorry, this was the biggest picture I could find, and this one is in Chesterfield, Mo. I should have taken a picture of it myself, but I explained why I didn't in my previous post)It's called Sheridans Frozen Custard, and the reason it's the best is because of the secret ingredient. I know the secret ingredient, because I was once a manager for Sheridan's, but I won't divulge it here.

Again, my intent was stymied, because on Sunday mornings, Sheridan's doesn't open until 2:00 P.M. The sign says they are "In church", and at the original location, I'm sure that's true, as I know Jim Sheridan, and he is a church-going man, but the one in Olathe is owned and operated by a Jewish man, and I doubt he is in church on Sunday mornings. Alas, it was closed, too.

So, disappointed, we drove on down to Osawatomie, Kansas, where my daughter and her family live. After a very nice visit, we left for Wichita, but I wanted to make a quick stop in Ottawa, Kansas, to treat my wife to Taco Tico, the closest Taco Tico location to Kansas City. Most are located in and around Wichita. Again, to my consternation, we found Taco Tico no longer in Ottawa, the building now occupied by a fish restaurant. So, we ate at Sonic, and continued on to Wichita.

After we arrived in Wichita, my wife at last got the opportunity to sample Taco Tico, and she agrees it is much, much better than Taco Bell. I was pleasantly surprised as well. It was even better than I remembered. Unfortunately, after eating Mexican food once, she didn't feel up to sampling "Lil Mexico", another of my favorites.

Oh well, at last we had the pleasure of eating at both Oklahoma Joe's (Yes, it is located in a gas station. I even got a T-shirt that reads, "My favorite Restaurant is in a gas station") and Sheridan's on the way back through Kansas City. She agrees they are both as good as I predicted.

Also, in KC, I tried to show her some more sights like the Country Club Plaza,
including the J.C. Nichols Fountain, (above) and other Kansas City tourist attractions, but she was so engaged in a phone conversation with AAA securing a motel room for the night, she totally missed most of what I showed her.

Upon arriving home to Virginia, I checked my e-mail and found this interesting picture sent to me by a friend: The caption said something like, "If you're going to feature the flag in a photo-op, you might consider holding the phone right" or something like that. I can't think of the words to describe what I think.

I'll leave it to my readers to decide what might be a better caption.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

"Travel only with thy equals or thy betters; if there are none, travel alone". ~ The Dhammapada

Here are some pictures I took on my trip to visit my mother, siblings, kids, and grandkids.



Clouds in the mountains of West Virginia.


My grandchildren Alaina and Aaron, also known as A.J. He turned his head just as snapped the photo, and I didn't take another one, because I didn't know my memory card held over 200 images. I thought I only got about 27, like regular cameras. I thought my exposures were limited. OK. I'm old!

One wall of the Knute Rockne memorial at the Matfield Green, Kansas turnpike rest stop, featuring his famous "Gipper" speech. (You can click for an enlarged picture) Knute Rockne was killed when the airplane he was traveling in crashed on a hill in the nearby Flint Hills. One can see a cross on the top of the hill from the highway.

A shirt in the window of a store in Mission, Kansas, near Kansas City.

The "portal" to Delano, Kansas, which is what west Wichita, Kansas used to be called, in the 1860's. Nineteenth century Wichita, contrary to popular belief, was not the "wild and wooly" town of movie and dime novel fame. It was quite civilized and peaceful. Delano was where all the gunfights, prostitution, gambling, etc took place. You can see the two tallest buildings in Kansas in the background. The one that looks taller is actually the second tallest. it's a matter of perspective. The other is further away.

The "Keeper of the Plains" statue created by Blackbear Bosin, Native American artist from Wichita. It is located at the confluence of the Big Arkansas and Little Arkansas Rivers in Wichita, in front of the Mid-American Indian Center Museum and cultural center.

By the way, in Kansas, these rivers are pronounced "ArkanSAS", not "ArkanSAW" like the rest of the country pronounces them.

The other two of my grandkids, Tristan and Alexia, with my son Anthony, who has no kids but is holding our Pug, Suzie.

Incidentally, both my daughter and my daughter-in-law are pregnant with their third children. I will soon have two more grandkids.

A souvenir shop somewhere in Central Missouri. We got some Wizard of Oz stuff, Betty Boop stuff, and a Barney Fife T-shirt. "Nip it!"


A statue of some guy sniffing his own arm pit in front of the Tamarac Center in West Virginia. And the Tamarac Center. I didn't go in. I had to stay outside and walk the dog.


The Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia.

Whew!

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"There's a fly in my suit!" ~ Orlando Jones

I found this on Youtube. It's a hilarious scene from a little known film called "Evolution". It stars David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, and Orlando Jones. In this scene, a small alien creature has cut it's way into a HAZMAT suit worn by Harry Block, played by Orlando Jones, and then entered his body.



Hey, I can't be held responsible for things I'm thinking when I wake up! It just happens and no one knows why.

Terrorists For Obama

"We are advertis'd by our loving friends." ~ William Shakespeare

While I was driving back home on my road trip to Kansas City and Wichita, Kansas, and scrolling through the radio stations, I heard a short blurb from American Family News Network about illegal campaign contributions to B. Hussein Obama's campaign.

Naturally, I tried in vain to find anything about this story on any "mainstream" media network, but couldn't find it anywhere. Not even on Fox News.

It seems to me this should be a major story. As it has been reported, According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.

The report goes on to say, Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt.

And, Attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel notes foreign nationals are barred from making contributions in connection with any election -- federal, state, or local -- and an individual is allowed to give only $2,300 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

"The donations are basically through and through illegal -- that's number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it," Schlussel chides. "They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the 'GA' from Gaza so it makes it look like it's legal; and then for the zip code it says '972,' which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza," she contends.

I echo Ms. Schlussel's observation that, if the Obama campaign is willing to "accept thousands of dollars beyond the legal limit and they're also going to flout [Federal Election Commission] restrictions...that's very indicative of what kind of president [Obama] is going to be."

I will go one further that that. I have always said I don't rule out the unlikely possibility B. Hussein Obama is an undercover Muslim who is trying to get elected President so he can destroy America from the inside. I'm not asserting that theory to be true, I'm just not ruling it out.

Even if he isn't a Muslim plant, and if the contribution came from Hamas or terrorist supporters in Gaza, this story would seem to indicate the terrorists want Obama to be elected President. If that's true, it begs the question, "why would terrorists want Obama to be President of the United States?"

It could be they see Obama as the "Paper Tiger" that Usama bin Laden declared the United States to be, (back during another Democratic administration) or it could be they truly have an ally in Obama. In any case, they obviously don't see Obama as any threat.

Whatever the reason, the fact that B. Hussein's campaign is not only accepting illegal campaign contributions from Palestinian nationals, but covering them up as well, should send up a huge red flag to patriotic Americans of all parties.

On The Road

"Travel only with thy equals or thy betters; if there are none, travel alone". ~ The Dhammapada

I'm leaving today for Wichita, Kansas to visit my kids, grandkids, siblings, and mother. We are going by car.

I know many of you will want me to stop by for dinner or coffee, but the way the trip is planned, I probably won't be close to anyone except perhaps Dan Trabue (going through Louisville), but I doubt he wants me to stop and converse. Anyway, we won't have time.

I doubt I'll have any time or place to blog at least until after we arrive in Wichita. My mother has a computer but I don't think she has high speed.

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it." ~ Stephen Leacock

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"One fist's iron, the other one's steel. If the right one don't get you, then the left one will." ~ Merle Travis



Tennessee Ernie Ford

One Question

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." ~ Mother Teresa

There is a popular game (more of a diversion, really) called "Twenty questions". My siblings, parents, and I played it often on long road trips when I was a child. The object of the game, for those readers who have never heard of it, is this:

One person in the group thinks of a person, place, or thing, and the other players ask yes or no questions about it until they determine what it is, or until twenty questions have been exhausted.

Usually,the first questions are asked to determine if the the object or substance etc, in question is animal, mineral, or vegetable. If, by answering these questions, one has determined the answer will be a person, another question is usually asked to determine if the person in question is living or dead. This line of questioning will narrow the possibilities down quite a bit, allowing the questioners to more quickly draw a conclusion. If the questioners can determine the answer within twenty questions the questioner who gets the right answer wins. If the questioners don't determine the right answer within the allotted twenty questions, the answerer wins.

This has since become a popular internet game and a rather ingenious electronic game that can be purchased at various stores. One can find and play it online by simply going here.

Recently Marshall Art posted an entry on his blog expressing no small amount of outrage at Planned Parenthood for requesting government funding. His entry has generated about 79 comments to date.

I've written about this before. I am very passionate about this subject.

Once again, I allowed myself to be drawn into an insult trading contest with a certain commenter whose name I won't mention as it is not an integral part of the discussion. I don't wish to go into that at this time. Or ever, for that matter. So, if you follow the link to his post, please disregard the mud slinging by myself and a couple of others and focus, if you will, on the subject matter.

I would instead focus on the subject brought up by a couple of otherwise seemingly intelligent commenters on the "personhood" of a fetus.

I had thought this particular argument moot, due to the determination of just about every non-biased scientist (with the exception of those who graduated from the Josef Mengele school of medicine) on the planet that the fetus is a living human entity at the instant of conception, but apparently, there are still a few dinosaurs left who cling to the unscientific belief that somewhere during gestation the human fetus becomes a person, but starts out dead. Or, as they prefer to put it, "non-living". However, these same people can't seem to come up with a precise moment when the lifeless lump of tissue becomes a living human being.

One commenter actually said, "They do not kill babies. They perform abortions. There IS a difference."

This is a 3-D ultra-sound picture of my grandson. Some people say he isn't a living human being, and can be put to death. Say that to my face.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between abortion and killing babies. It is my contention that a human conceived embryo is a human being from the exact instant of conception.

After that, the discussion degenerated into a discussion on when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

I will now present my side of the argument:

There is, and never has been, any time in the history of mankind wherein anything but two humans came together to create life naturally, biologically, in the womb, without aid of test tubes or other medical equipment.

Actually, even with test tubes and up-to-the-minute advances in medical science, the human egg still requires human fertilization in order to advance through the stages of development and become a living, breathing human baby. There has never been any human pregnancy that resulted from two different species, such as a Rhinoceros and a Hibiscus. Or even a human being and an animal. Human pregnancies always are a result of a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.

It will never be any different.

Thus, to suggest that at any time during the stages of human development the embryo is anything other than human, one must ask oneself, "If not human, what?"

It takes, as I mentioned, a human cell called a sperm cell from the male human being to fertilize a human cell called an egg which issues from a woman human being's fallopian tubes to create a human cell called a zygote. This zygote becomes a human embryo, which, in turn becomes a human fetus.

At no point during these stages of development does the zygote, embryo, or fetus ever become anything other than human.

The question with which these abortion rights advocates would attempt to cloud the issue is, "At what point during the developing stages does the fetus become a human being?"

They would argue that somewhere during the development cycle a non-living fetus becomes a living human being, but they cannot decide at what point. It would seem to me that if they don't know when it becomes a human then they can't say it isn't a human being.

To put it more simply, A human man impregnates a human woman, and within 9 months, give or take a few days, the result is a human baby. If it takes two humans to conceive, how could the resulting baby ever, during any stage of it's development, become anything other than human? And if it can, what does it become? And when does it change to whatever it becomes? And at what point does it change back to human?

These questions will be argued by abortion rights advocates as a question of semantics. They will no doubt say something like, "We aren't saying it isn't human. We are saying it isn't living!" They will offer variations of this same statement, but it makes the same point. And it means basically the same thing. Their point will be, unless it breathes, or can exist outside the woman's body, or it's heart is beating, etc, it isn't a living being.

But that is flawed logic , to wit:

At the very instant of conception, the female human egg cell begins to divide and grow. It is microscopic, and although it starts with only one cell, as soon as the male human sperm cell binds with the egg, it becomes two cells, and from there, it continues to grow, unless impeded, until it becomes a fully developed human being.

If it grows, it must be alive.

What, if anything on this planet, has grown while dead? What living entity on this planet does not continue to grow until death? Point being, if it grows it is alive. At what point in development does the human embryo not grow?

So, I will submit that the question is not, "When does a zygote, embryo, fetus, et al, become a living human being?", but rather,

"When is it not a living human being?"

He Really Said That?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” ~ Romans 1:22 KJV

Something new has been added for this entry! Footnotes! Check ‘em out!

AlGore, the self-appointed Goracle of the second newest religion on the planet, AlGorianity, (1. which teaches a philosophy that posits man made Worldwide climate change, particularly unavoidable, unchangeable, gradual warming Global temperatures, is an immediate and imminent cataclysmic, life-ending danger to all life on this planet, has (again) made an amazingly astounding (and confounding) pronouncement. (2.


According to Ann Coulter‘s weekly internet column, “On ‘Meet the Press’ last weekend, (Al)Gore called on America to be carbon dioxide-free within 10 years“.

Really? Carbon Dioxide-free?

As I said, “Astounding“!

Now, I am aware that some skeptics consider anything Ann Coulter has to say to be unadulterated lies, but I’m fairly confident a quick Google search would confirm the validity of Ann’s claim that AlGore really did make that absolutely incredible statement, so I‘m not even going to do the research myself. I’ll leave that task up to the unbelievers.

I have scoured my brain thoroughly in search of some logical explanation as to why this Caliphate of Climatic Calamity, this Pope of Pomposity, would make such an asinine proclamation, and have only been able to come up with two possible explanations:

1. He thinks Americans are morons, or

2. AlGore himself is a moron.

What should we call worshippers of AlGore, anyway? Christians are named for their founder, Jesus Christ, so let’s just call AlGore’s disciples “AlGorians“, shall we?

But I digress. Here, for the logically-challenged, hereafter to be referred to as “AlGorians”, (3. is a scientific fact, which incidentally, I learned in Mr. Clarence Zink‘s eighth grade Basic Science class: (4

Bi-pedal Carbon-based life form units (That’s human beings, to offer clarification for any AlGorians who happen to be reading this) and animals (all animals) breathe by inhaling into their bodies, air, which consists mostly of oxygen. By a remarkable chemical conversion process, that same oxygenated air is converted somewhere within the body, to air consisting of mostly carbon dioxide, which is then expelled from the body through the process of breathing out. (5. Here is just one web site that supports this claim, but more scientifically than I.

It reads, and I quote:

“When we humans breathe, we breathe through our lungs. The air we pull in when we inhale through our nose and our mouth moves into our bronchial tubes, then into our avaoli sacks, and from there into our blood stream. Once in the blood stream the oxygen travels through our bodies. At the same time we are breathing in the oxygen we are exhaling the carbon dioxide. The CO² leaves our bodies when we exhale“.

In layman’s terms, that means we expel Carbon Dioxide directly into the air during the basic, natural, normal process of breathing. Breathing would be virtually impossible if Carbon Dioxide were eliminated. And without breathing, life on this earth would be non-existent. Breathing is one way in which living entities are distinguished from non-living and/or non-thinking entities, such as mountains, rocks, most Hollywood celebrities, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and B. Hussein Obama.

Conversely, plant life on this planet (plants, defined for the benefit of AlGorians everywhere, as trees, flowers, grass, weeds, etc.) breathes air exactly opposite the way people and animals breathe. (6. They inhale carbon dioxide, and expel oxygen!

Well, I suppose eliminating all Carbon Dioxide on this planet would create an immediate, imminent, cataclysmic end to life on this planet after all.

But wouldn’t that be a self fulfilling prophecy, if by some supernatural power, AlGore was indeed actually able to accomplish the elimination of all Carbon Dioxide on the earth? Hmmmm. .. Maybe he’s on to something after all.

But seriously, folks. Can anything AlGore says really be taken seriously anymore?

Maybe AlGore has discovered some way of inhaling oxygen without expelling Carbon Dioxide. I wonder. Where would the air that isn’t expelled go? Would it be excreted through the pores of the skin by osmosis? Or would it simply build up within the body until the body burst, like an overfilled blimp or helium filled balloon? Perhaps both! Helium filled balloons eventually just lose helium, if they don’t burst first, don’t they?

I’m no scientist, but I’ve always assumed the helium slowly passes out through the pores of the rubber of the balloon, and that’s why they eventually sink to the ground and get smaller, but I could be mistaken.

Hmmm… come to think of it, His Holiness AlGore has been looking a little bloated lately.

But wait a minute. That wouldn’t work either. Whether we burst from too much retention of Carbon Dioxide in our bodies or we excrete the gas through the pores in our skin, Carbon Dioxide would still be released into the atmosphere eventually. Right?

What to do? What to do?

I just don’t see how we are going to be Carbon Dioxide-free in ten years. Or ever. Unless we all cease to exist, that is. Isn’t ceasing to exist the very condition the AlGorians are trying to avoid?

Somebody throw me a bone here.

Well, perhaps AlGore, the God of Global Warming, has transcended mortal human existence and has become omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-everything else. Because that’s the only way he could ever accomplish the elimination of Carbon Dioxide without killing off all life on Planet Earth.

Which brings me back to my original summation:

He’s either a moron, or he believes everyone else are morons.

Wait! There’s another option to consider:

3. Perhaps he fancies himself the ultimate Svengali, who has accomplished the monumental task of mesmerizing all humans on this planet into believing even the most preposterous hypnotic suggestion. (7.

Actually, whether AlGore is a moron or not, anyone who believes the nonsense he spews is by default, a moron, in my humble opinion.

Unless, of course, he has his minions mesmerized. There. I’ve provided a ready-made excuse for you Liberals out there.

No doubt the AlGorians are already scrambling to offer plausible explanations for their Master’s idiotic statements. You know, “That’s not what he meant! You’re taking it out of context! Waaaaahhh!”

Actually, Ann quite effectively put everything he said into context, so that what he said could be better understood. I saw the interview, which, I mean to tell you, was a particularly excruciating experience, so my Conservative friends won't have to suffer through it themselves. (You can thank me later) He actually said "100% Carbon free in ten years", Which is even more impossible than merely Carbon Dioxide free. We all are, after all, carbon based life forms. I think Ann was actually giving him a break. Later on he used the term "Carbon Dioxide" to further clarify his stated, intended goal.

Seriously, after this ludicrous pronouncement, how can anyone, even the most illiterate, naïve, stupid, blind, AlGorian believe anything this self-appointed Messiah of the Masses says? (8. About anything?

What? Am I insinuating I am more intelligent than AlGore and his followers?

Yes.


1. The newest religion is "Obamarama-ding-dong".
2. How’s that for a long, rambling, much too wordy, grammatically incorrect sentence?
3. To distinguish them from members of their parent church, the church of the Lemming-mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.
4.Carlton Jr. High School, Derby, Kansas 1964-5 (now defunct)
5. Which, according to another religious philosophy called Darwinism, merely invented itself naturally, without intelligent design.
6. That’s grass and weeds you walk on, not smoke. I have to keep in mind that I’m explaining this to Liberals, also.
7. See Svengali - www.Google.com
8. Including GK-S, drlobojo, and Dan

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"When I grow up, I want to be a Pip." ~ Me

I woke up in the middle of the night and "T'aint nobody's business if I do" (performed specifically by Gladys Knight, Chaka Khan, and Etta James, with B. B. King from an old Showtime Blues special) was in my head, and I just couldn't go back to sleep without searching it out on youtube.com and posting the video. Here it is:



I am a huge fan of Gladys Knight, so I just can't stop there. Here's a couple of other songs from the same special:





By the way, it was on this program that I first discovered Etta James. I became a big fan of her, too. Here's one by her and Dr. John:

War Is Hell

"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." ~ Robert E. Lee

I found this story on the front page of our local paper this morning:

The March 2003 image became one of the most iconic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq: that of a bespectacled American soldier carrying an Iraqi child to safety. The photograph of Army Pfc. Joseph Dwyer, who was raised in Mount Sinai, was used by news outlets around the world.

After being lionized by many as the human face of the U.S. effort to rebuild a troubled Iraq, Dwyer brought the battlefield home with him, often grappling violently with delusions that he was being hunted by Iraqi killers.

His internal terror got so bad that, in 2005, he shot up his El Paso, Texas, apartment and held police at bay for three hours with a 9-mm handgun, believing Iraqis were trying to get in.

Last month, on June 28, police in Pinehurst, N.C., who responded to Dwyer's home, said the 31-year-old collapsed and died after abusing a computer cleaner aerosol. Dwyer had moved to North Carolina after living in Texas.

Dwyer, who joined the Army two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and who was assigned to a unit of the 3rd Infantry Division that one officer called "the tip of the tip of the spear" in the first days of the U.S. invasion, had since then battled depression, sleeplessness and other anxieties that military doctors eventually attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The war that made him a hero at 26 haunted him to the last moments of his life.

War is Hell.

I've always said I am against war. I've also always said sometimes war is the only option. The fact that Pfc Dwyer suffered from PTSD (or maybe just paranoid schizophrenia) has nothing to do with whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.

There have been, and there will be many more stories like this one. Most will be printed as an indictment against the Bush administration and it's policies. I will agree that mistakes were made in the prosecution of the current war on terror. We should have taken a much more aggressive strategy. We should have put an adequate number of troops on the ground from the beginning. We should have started "the surge" on day one.

Well, no one is an expert in war.

The story of Joseph Dwyer describes an unfortunate by-product of the terrors of war in general. And many will point to this as proof that the war we are currently engaged in is an immoral and unnecessary conflict.

But remember this:

The terrors that Pfc Dwyer experienced in Iraq came not from our involvement over there but from the terrorists who target innocent civilians in their misguided quest to convert the entire world to their obscene murderous concept of religion. It is because of terrorism our soldiers are there. We are there to protect the innocents who otherwise would be left to fend for themselves against an enemy determined to wipe out everyone who doesn't believe.

We do not attack innocent civilians. We do not murder innocent men, women, and children with bombs devised wholly to maim, kill, and destroy lives. Our enemies do that. We are there to prevent it from happening if we can.

If not for Pfc Joseph Dwyer and all those others who have volunteered to protect and defend freedom all over the world, there would be thousands more deaths in Iraq, and indeed, the rest of the world.

Pfc Dwyer is a hero. He is the human face of the U.S. effort to rebuild a troubled Iraq. The death of Pfc Joseph Dwyer is not a propaganda tool of the anti-war left in this country.

It is a tragic reminder that all war, even a war fought with righteous intent, is still Hell.

We must continue the fight, regardless of the short and long term repercussions associated with the horrors of the war. Terrorism cannot be allowed to win.

For the innocent victim's sake. For our Country's sake. For the world's sake.

For Pfc Joseph Dwyer's sake.

What Was In My Mind When I Awoke

"Don't worry. Be happy." ~ Bobby McFerrin

I Am An Elitist

"We've traveled the world, we've known Kings, we've known Princes, discoursed with scholars, and reasoned with fools." ~ Unknown (Scottish folk song)

It has recently been suggested to me that I keep a dictionary handy, presumably so I can use it to look up the word "compunction". The author of that comment apparently assumes, for whatever reason, that I am not as erudite as he. Perhaps it's because I prefer to keep my writing style simple enough so that readers like he cannot misunderstand the intent of my elucidation. I don't content myself to merely imply that I think the aforementioned commenter is a hypocritical jerk.

I prefer to make it quite clear that I think he is a hypocritical jerk.

Furthermore, he goes on to state, curiously, and at great length, that he doesn't really care what I think, to which another commenter pointed out that he certainly goes to no small amount of effort to impress someone he doesn't really care about impressing.

I have to admit I found that exchange amusing.

Perhaps some background behind the exchange of ad hominen attacks on each other is warranted here. The commenter, who's name (his initials are GK-S) shall not be revealed in this entry, remarked that he was celebrating the fact that the late Senator Jesse Helms was now, as he put it, "worm food". He didn't explain why he thinks Mr. Helms was such a deplorable person that he would deserve such disrespect, but I feel it only fair to point out the fact that Jesse Helms is not in any way "worm food", now or ever. Jesse Helms is in spirit form, wherever he now resides. The only thing remaining of Senator Helms that is "worm food" is the vehicle which carried his eternal soul around on this earth. And that vehicle was created by Helm's Creator to be disposable.

As is mine. As is Mr. GK-S's.

Let me state for the record that no dictionary was required. I am quite familiar with the word "compunction" but I never use it myself, primarily because I find the word sounds like it should have an entirely different meaning. Don't ask me to explain why. It just sounds to me, on intonation, rather coarse and vulgar. There is no sound reason why I feel that way. I just don't feel a compunction to use the word.

Heh Heh.

Be that as it may, I will admit that this naked intent to offend me had its desired effect, because I was duly insulted.

I'm funny that way. I get insulted over the most trivial of slights while casually brushing aside much stronger verbal assaults. If I am called ugly, I laugh. If I am called simple, I shrug. Call me an elitist if you will and I will not disagree, although I myself will use that word often to describe and denigrate those who I consider to be lemming mentality bleeding heart liberal sob sisters.

Of course, when I use the word "elitist" to describe a Liberal, I use it with a negative connotation. When I apply it to myself, it carries with it a very positive connotation.

The word "elitist" springs to mind almost every time I hear a snippet from a speech by B. Hussein Obama, yet I don't mind the appellation when it's applied to me, because, quite frankly, I consider myself an elitist, but in a good way.

I am not a "redneck", nor have I ever been. I don't care if someone calls me a redneck, but the appellation is not applicable in any way to me or my character.

I wouldn't want anyone to infer that I have anything against rednecks, because I don't. I just don't consider myself thus.

I could be a redneck easily enough, though.

God knows I wasn't born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. Quite the contrary, I was born the sixth child in a family that struggled week to week, month to month, just to put enough food on the table to keep us all properly nourished. Often, we as a family would have either chicken or pot roast for Sunday dinner, and then subsist on the leftovers as long as they lasted, then finish the week eating navy beans and cornbread. Then, the cycle would begin again the next week. And so on.

We didn't rub shoulders with the upper crust, and we didn't attempt to ingratiate ourselves into their company. We were erusticated but proud. It is that pride, I think, that compels me to consider myself elite. I have tried to raise my own children with that attitude. I have often repeated to them, "We may be poor white trash, but we don't have to act like it".

You will excuse the faux pas of ending the previous sentence with a preposition, one of my pet peeves. It is what I say, and it makes the point.

I wasn't always an elitist. I suffered from class envy myself until I was well into my twenties, or maybe even into my thirties. I don't recall when the realization came to me that the wealthy were not to be scorned but appreciated for their ability to amass large amounts of money. It is no small task. I suppose it would be fair to say I still envy the rich, but it is with admiration rather than scorn now. If they didn't attain their wealth by hard work and intelligent decisions, they most certainly maintain their riches thusly.

I should probably add here, that I still am not a wealthy man, by any one's estimation. I still struggle week to week, sometimes barely making it to the next paycheck. I am not whining, just stating a fact. I am always working hard to improve my situation. Sometimes I make wrong choices, which result in getting myself into dire straits, but I don't ask for sympathy or help from anyone. I am responsible for myself. I either succeed or fail on my own. I guess it's part of my elitist pride. I refuse to accept pity or assistance from anyone.

I certainly have little right to consider myself elite. I don't possess a degree from any institution of higher learning, unless high school is considered higher learning. I did complete 26 hours of University study, but because of a typical youthful lack of money and ambition, I never finished. Unlike three of my five brothers and sisters, I didn't earn a full academic scholarship.

Nevertheless, I am an elitist. This is not to say I am arrogant, because I'm usually not, although I sometimes catch myself being condescending to others. (In much the same way as GK-S, but not as frequently) Most notably, as it happens, to rednecks. Jeff Foxworthy defines a redneck as someone "with a glorious lack of sophistication". I am loathe to admit it, but I consider myself too sophisticated to be a redneck, at least in the way Foxworthy defines them.

Yes, I'm rambling. It has been a few days since the aforementioned nasty argument occurred. It took this long for the offense to really start eating at me, so much so that I found myself lying awake in bed tonight, mulling over possible retorts.

But, I am better than that.

I lowered myself to GK-S's level by responding in the way that I did, and I am not remorseful for that, because in my opinion, he deserved that and more for his irreverent, smarmy, un-Christian remarks. What I am ashamed of is that I allowed myself to be drawn into a sophomoric, pointless sort of argument, which is better left to the non-thinking Liberals in the blogosphere.

I am above that.

Incidentally, I mentioned that I don't know why he held the opinion that Senator Helms was such a deplorable person, and unfortunately and wrongly, I resorted to the old Liberal tactic of pointing to an example of a Democrat Legislator who's prejudices are arguably as bad or worse than those attributed to Helms. Robert Byrd, to be exact.

What I should have done, was do some research into the life and career of Mr. Helms, and countered with that, instead.

Not knowing the exact reasoning behind the offending commenters disrespectful comments has me at a disadvantage to be sure, but I would assume he was referring to the supposed racism that Liberals and Democrats (the two are not mutually inclusive) of which Mr Helms has often been accused.

The truth can be easily ascertained by a simple googling of Jesse Helm's name. It would seem that Helms has been pretty much a lifetime victim of slander. He wasn't a racist by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, he was quite the opposite.

I got this information from Ann Coulter's online column, which I realize has no credibility in Liberal circles. But before any Liberals raise their expected objection to my using Ann Coulter as a resource, let me point out that in the same article she praised Ted Kennedy for maintaining a good relationship with his staffers, so it must be factual. Here is what Ann says about Jesse Helms:

Helms was viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist -- including in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week. In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.

Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."

Helms was for integration; he was simply against "movements." He would later hire James Meredith, who was the first black to attend the University of Mississippi -- with the assistance of federal troops. By 1989, Meredith's views had come around to those of Helms, not the other way around.

After years of reading and studying and attending law school at Columbia University, Meredith concluded that blacks had been better off when they worked for themselves and not for white liberals.

Now, if Mr GK-S has some reason to dislike Jesse Helms other than the false allegations of racism leveled at him by Liberal Democrats, perhaps he would care to educate us poor, dumb, uneducated bloggers.

Keeping The Airwaves Fair

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." ~ Albert Einstein

Every now and then some Democrat starts pushing the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine" again. Recently it was San Fran Nancy "Stretch" (Bela)Pelosi.

For the uninitiated (is there really anybody more uninitiated than me?), the Fairness Doctrine presumably would force radio and television outlets to present equal time to all sides of every issue. Political, social, religious, and any other category.

Democrats insist we must level the playing field, but why must we level it by lowering the more productive to the level of the less productive? Why can't we try to level it by elevating the less fortunate?

To take the idea to extremes, the Fairness Doctrine would, presumably, insure that Saturday morning gardening radio shows offer equal time opinions on why planting vegetables is more important than planting flowers, and vice versa.

But that isn't really what Democrats have in mind. They want to silence free speech. Not all free speech, of course. Only the free speech with which they disagree.

No, wait.

That isn't completely true. I find it highly unlikely that they really disagree with many Conservative ideologies.

It's probably more accurate to say they only want to silence free speech that might cause their Liberal constituencies to think.

After all, it is to the Liberal Democrat politicians advantage to make sure their constituency doesn't think. Thinking is a political liability to Democrats.

Within minutes after a Liberal Democrat begins logically thinking on his own, he becomes a Conservative.

I would say he becomes a Republican, but John McCain disproves that theory.

The point isn't whether Democrats personally disagree with things like the myth of man-made Global Warming, or that Homosexual marriage is in direct juxtaposition with the original concept of a one man, one woman marriage, etc.

It's about political expediency. And about money. If a Democrat can see a monetary or political advantage in an ideology, it doesn't matter whether they personally agree with the concept.

So, the idea is to prevent people from thinking logically. Hence, the "Fairness Doctrine".

The "fair" part of the "Fairness Doctrine" means, according to the Democrats, that all opinions on any given political subject should be presented within an equal amount of time with every other opinion. Thus, a Liberal viewpoint would get equal time with a Libertarian viewpoint, and a Conservative viewpoint, and a Green viewpoint, and a Judeo/Christian viewpoint, and a Satanic Viewpoint, and a Nazi viewpoint, and a Communist viewpoint, etc, etc, etc.

Which, admittedly, seems to be -- uh ---fair.

But what of the radio and television executives? How fair is that to them? They are in the business of making money. Everyone works to make money. Even Liberals, in spite of their insistence that they only do what they do to make the world better. They wouldn't be community activists or politicians if it didn't make them money.

Some of us work to get rich. Some of us work simply to make a living. But both wealth and merely getting by requires money.

My point is this:

If the fairness doctrine is implemented in the way Democrats say they want it to be implemented, it would severely decrease the numbers of listeners/viewers, and without listeners, their advertisers stop buying airtime to promote their products, and the radio/TV networks would lose so much money they would be forced to shut down.

So, I suppose the Democrats would eventually get what they really want. The end of Conservative talk radio and TV. But many Radio and Television personnel would be out of work.

Now, wait a minute, Liberals. Try to think logically about this assertion. For once.

Lets say, for example, Rush Limbaugh wants to present his opinion on Gas Prices. He has a certain amount of time to present his opinion, and then he must move over to let a Liberal (Al Franken perhaps?)talk show host present his side. The Liberal has the equal amount of time to present his side, but then, he also has to move over so the Conspiracy theorist can present his side, and so on.

Now. Rush Limbaugh has high ratings for his rant. Then, the ratings drop precipitously. Liberals don't get the ratings to sustain an entire network of Liberal talk shows, let alone short segments when any liberals in the audience have to sit through an hour of common sense talk by Rush Limbaugh first. The ratings for the Liberal host are dismal at best, and ratings for other crackpot rantings even worse.

Aside: I would tend to listen to a conspiracy theorist before I'd listen to a Liberal, and I suspect, so would just about everyone else. I suspect the conspiracy theorist would garner even better ratings than the Liberal.

Many Democrats have questioned why Conservatives have better ratings then their Liberal counterparts.

Their reasoning is that Conservatives have monopolized the market, hence, the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation.

This theory defies logic, which should be pointed out, is why it is such a popular theory among lemming mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.

Here is the real reason Liberals don't listen to Liberal talk radio:

They don't listen because they prefer to listen to music and/or comedy programs. Particularly music and comedy that bashes Conservatives. They do not want to listen to talk radio. Talk radio of any kind prompts the listener to think.

Liberals don't like to think. Logic interferes with their need to feel.

While feelings and logic are not necessarily mutually exclusive to each other, the Liberals need to base their political ideology on emotion usually cancels out logic.

Conservative talk radio invites the listener to think logically and even disagree with the hosts conclusions on occasion. Liberal talk radio invites the listener to agree with everything the hosts say, whether it is logical or not.

But, either way, if a listener listens long enough to either, whether said listener is a Conservative or Liberal, the listener begins to think for himself.

Then, the Liberal begins to see and understand the fallacy of the typical Liberal ideology.

And when that happens, Liberal talk radio becomes irrelevant to the thinking listener. Hence, Liberal talk radio loses listeners to Conservative talk radio.

Conservative talk radio is already fair.

It gives the listeners what they want. It enables the listeners to stay Conservative and the Liberals to continue listening to George Carlin and Marilyn Manson.

What is more fair than allowing the listener to make their own choice?

Playing Music

"One never knows, do one?" ~ Fats Waller

My wife just bought a brand new car, a Kia Spectra. She gave me her old car, a Ford Taurus. While I was going through the mountain of CD's, separating hers from mine, I came across a CD I had burned on my old desktop computer. It is a compilation of some of my favorite old time jazz and pop songs recorded by various artists from Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, to Linda Ronstadt and Fats Waller.

Here is a video of one of the recordings by Fats Waller:

Vincent

"And when no hope was left in sight, on that starry starry night, you took your life as lovers often do" ~ Don McLean

I found this video while searching for another one by Don McLean (which I didn't find). It's just too beautiful not to share.



For those of you who don't already know. This song is about Vincent Van Gogh, who created a painting called "Starry Night". This is what it looks like:

I Am A Kool-Aid Drinker

"Oh, Yeah!" ~ Kool-Aid Man

I've been planning on saying this for a long time. I really hate it when I hear people calling other people Kool-Aid drinkers to describe them as crowd followers.

Conservatives refer to Liberals as Kool-Aid drinkers. Liberals refer to Conservatives as Kool-Aid drinkers. In my humble opinion, Liberals may drink Kool-Aid, but it must be laced with hallucinogens. That's the only logical explanation I know of for their lunatic notions.

And I understand the origin of the term. I know the term originated with Jim Jones and Jonestown, when he managed to convince over 900 of his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid in a mass suicide.

I get it.

I understand the term now applies to all those people so committed to a political cause or candidate that they senselessly ignore facts in conflict with their political viewpoint.

But I like Kool-Aid.

I am a Kool-Aid drinker and proud of it. But it has nothing to do with my political ideology.

If you want to classify Sheeple Liberals with some kind of catchy term, how about using the phrase, "Lemming mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters"?

Oh Yeah! Works for me!

Empathy: A Judicial Qualification?

"I figure it must be the will of the Lord because it seems so right to me." ~ Dan McBride

It's indeed gratifying to discover that old men can still learn new things. In my case, I have learned my readers are not Opera fans. Or maybe I've learned I no longer have readers. I certainly can't blame anyone for giving up on me. I have been derelict in my blogging duty.

Be that as it may, there have been a lot of events transpire since I last did a serious entry on this blog. I will now comment on a couple of them.

The Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, has determined that the Constitution is not a valid document by a ruling stating non-uniformed enemy combatants have some kind of previously unknown right to be tried in a civilian district court of law during a time of war.

Needless to say, the basis for this ruling is found nowhere within our Constitution, which basically means it's not a Constitutional ruling. Which means our esteemed Supreme Court of the United States is once again roving around outside the bounds of their jurisdiction.

And Obama wants to appoint more of these renegade judicial activists to the bench, if he is elected President, to wit:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

What does he mean by the word, "empathy"?

I don't know how Obama understands it, but Webster defines empathy (partially) as:

"The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this."

In other words, empathy is like sympathy, but it's more intense than mere sympathy. Occasionally, men who's wives are expecting a baby experience what is called sympathy pains. They actually experience contractions and morning sickness as if they themselves are pregnant.

That's the best way of describing empathy I can think of.

This is typical of the Liberal mindset here in America. And if anyone fits the description of Liberal, it's B. Hussein Obama.

Liberals feel. Conservatives think.

But I thought Obama was an attorney. Was he somehow missing the day his professors explained how justice is dispensed in America? Was he snoozing when the rest of his classmates learned that Justice is supposed to be blind? Or is he just an idiot?

Empathy has nothing to do with the judicial process. It has no place in a court of law. No matter how unfair it appears to be. After all, in a court of law, fairness is objective. The law has no sympathy, let alone empathy. Ideally, it has only justice. Often times sympathy and justice are in direct juxtaposition to each other.

Whenever there is a point of law being argued, one side always loses. If a judge has empathy, he cannot decide in favor of either side for fear of hurting the other side's feelings. It is not a judge's job to have empathy. It is the judge's job to impartially dispense justice as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

And that's the point. The Supreme Court must dispense impartial justice as defined by the Constitution of our country, not by some legal code of some other country.

And not by their own personal perception of what seems to be right regardless of what is set forth within the Constitution.

Only by our Constitution.

I don't like the fact that sometimes guilty people go free. I don't like it when innocent people get sentenced to prison. I can, and often do, sympathize with people who get the shaft from the legal system.

But it's the law. That's the system designed by the framers of our Constitution.

Is it always fair? Is it always right?

Not always. But one thing is sure:

If Obama has his way, the Constitution will have no relevance to the courts in this country.

What Was In My Head When I Awoke (Sorta)

"Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast, To soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak" ~ William Congreve

I'm not a big Opera fan, but here's the background: I woke up this morning with a J.G. Wentworth commercial running through my head. I don't know if Wentworth is nationwwide or local, but the commercial is an opera singer singing, "I have a structured settlement, and I need cash now!" Then a chorus of Opera singers sing, "J.G. Wentworth, 877-CASH NOW!" and so on.

J.G. Wentworth is one of those attorneys who advertise their office on TV.

But, instead of that commercial, I decided to find some real opera to post. My sister, who graduated from Wichita State University with a degree in Music Education appeared in a couple of opera there with the great Metropolitan Opera star Samuel Ramey. Seems he got his degree from Wichita State, also, but unlike my sister, who went on to teach middle school music, he went on to fame and fortune at the Met.

I tried to find a video of him singing the part he played in WSU's production, but I was hindered by the fact that I don't remember the name of the Opus he and my sister were in, nor the names of any of the arias he sang.

I do remember my sister had a line in that Opus. I don't remember if she had more than one line, but it was either, "Wast ist Das?" or "Das ist der Mont!"

Incidentally, At one point during the Opus, the stagehands neglected to turn off the back lighting after Mr. Ramey (playing St Peter) sang, revealing the stepladder he was standing on to appear as if he was floating in the clouds. At this point, Ramey invoked the name of God, not knowing the microphone, like the lights, was not yet turned off. It went something like this: "G--D--- it! Turn off the lights!"

He didn't sing the words, either.

So anyway, here, for your enjoyment (or agony) is Sam Ramey , Metropolitan Opera Basso extraordinaire:

How To Destroy America

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

I recently received this in my e-mail from my daughter, who, I just found out, is expecting her third child. She has a boy and a girl already. Soon she will be able to say, "I have three children. One of each!"

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC , filled to capacity by many of America 's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia" explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."

"Here is how they do it", Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims."

Lamm went on:

"Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds".

"Third, we could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school".

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology'. I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. 'E. Pluribus Unum' -- from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will 'Balkanize' America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology', I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia'. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate "diversity". American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984" . In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace", "Freedom is slavery", and "Ignorance is strength".

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.