Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Hillary Exposed 13:39

A 13:39 Google Video Presents Paul vs Clinton.

A Global Warming Analysis, by Andrew Benjamin

This post was submitted by Andrew G. Benjamin,

The Theory, the Conclusion, the Indictment. And the Trial, Conviction and the Incarceration -- from the author of "The Boiling Point", one of Al Gore's advisers. The other , Dr, John Gibbons, I took care of in my point-counterpoint debate a couple of years ago.

The Funny:

The Funnier:

And the Funniest -- from The Union of Concerned Scientists, the same people (activists mostly, not scientists) who ejected real scientists who had the nerve to disagree with them (meaning the term "consensus" will remain unchallenged.) Do you think we have a debate today because there is consensus on climate change?

And the "enablers" (mainstream media) made it official here, from the Clinton News Network...(where else?)

Pretty funny huh?

Now lets turn the page to:

A (REALLY) Inconvenient Fact :

I wonder how these charts sit with Gore's heavy lifting?


Note the frequency AND severity of hurricanes have fallen decade by decade.

finally, here's more "consensus" from real scientists, not those who'll try to make Americans believe there are no records for pre-industrialized America:

I love it when someone tells me "It can't be done" or "It doesn't exist," don't you?


I live in a hurricane zone, so I am terrified of hurricanes.

But what I have learned about the predictions of, especially from the left which is always, and without exception, politically tinged and motivated, is this:

Man proposes; G-d disposes. Man plans; G-d laughs.

well, didn't you know it was Bush's fault? I did.

So are the wildfires.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Enviro-arsonists Exploit Wildfires

By Tony Vega for
Monday, October, 29, 2007

Every conscientious American should respect Mother Nature. Part of that respect should include not creating residential structures in the midst of natural fire corridors, now that’s a mutual respect both man and nature can live with.

Obviously we are allowed to build homes abutting the tinderbox zone of Southern California. Environmentalists agree that the brush should be cleared from around the immediate areas of the homes in order to create a defensible space from wildfires. The brush management can not, however, coincide with the nesting season of the gnatcatcher. The gnatcatcher nesting season is approximately six months out of the year. Some of you may be asking: what’s a gnatcatcher? Glad you asked. It is a 4 ½ inch bird that nests in the chaparral-the coastal sage scrub of Southern California. Here are some facts about the chaparral:

It is a very low growing, dense brush known as coastal sage scrub.

Found primarily in Southern California.

Home to many small woodland creatures such as the kangaroo rat.

It is the most fire prone area in America.

The brush management must be done in a way that does not harm the native plants, soil, or habitats. Are you confused about how one might accomplish this task? Well you might be if you were attempting to create a defensible space around your home without violating any laws. Perhaps, this brush management policy should be re-visited. I surmise it is politically expedient to allow human homes and lives to burn, while protecting the rights of the bird, plant, and rat.



We’ve heard the dishonesty from California’s Senator Barbara Boxer, blaming President Bush and his Iraq policy in regard to the deployment of the National Guard. Senator Boxer’s claims were clearly debunked, for further information on that subject click here: article. Senator Reid and other enviro-arsonists have blamed man induced “global warming” as a cause of the wildfires. There is evidence that man had a part in these fires. Police have effected multiple arrests of individuals intentionally starting fires, as was the case in many of the past wildfires. These intentionally set fires albeit tragic wasn’t the root cause, these crimes exacerbated a pre-existing serious condition. There is no calculable evidence that global warming was the cause of these wildfires.

For many years now we have been hearing the sky is falling from a variety of enviro-arsonists. These tales have taken off, well, like wildfire. Pardon the pun. And while the rest of America, North and East of this fire belt spend time punning, and spinning yarns of folk lore, lives are at risk, and there are men and women engaged in heroic efforts fighting these fires. As long as politicians distract us with nonsensical rhetoric, very real questions remain unanswered, such as: why are realtors developing so close to the natural habitat of the chaparral? Are the zoning laws adequate?

We hear dire warnings emanating from the same sector about melting polar ice, and the dangerous warming of Greenland. What we don’t hear about is scientific data indicating that the region was warmer for several decades in the early 20th century, before human influence over the climate. There are also significant accounts of a California wildfire in1889, dubbed the “Great Fire of 1889”. This fire pre-dated fire suppression efforts of wildfires burning through wilderness areas. There are accounts of early Spanish explorers during the 1500’s speaking of the “winds of Satan”, a reference to the Santa Ana winds. These winds are associated with some of California’s deadliest and largest fires. There are Native American stories indicating the use of fire, which included concern over wildfires. A report of fire ecology by the California Coastal Commission revealed a belief that fire has been an important component of the chaparral for two million years. The common causes are lightning, spontaneous combustion of plant matter, sparks from falling rocks, and volcanic activity, this is not an exhaustive list. The evidence of human contributing factors include, ironically, fire suppression. Fire suppression of this natural burn prevents adequate consumption of brush, thereby leaving the fuel to grow and remain for the following season.

History and rational science don’t share the alarmist views of modern day enviro-arsonists, such as Albert Gore, Senator Reid, and the rest of their ilk. It should be noted that the chaparral habitat covers only 8.5 percent of California. And yet we must develop there. The elite left will continue to enflame public discourse with the inconvenience of dishonesty, in order to further their agenda. A more honest discussion would focus on development in these areas, as mentioned by Jamie Lee Curtis. Bobby Nimmo, an attorney residing in the area aptly stated that he and his fellow residents are “living in a fantasy by living in brush area thinking we can beat Mother Nature.”

The sky is falling agenda has generated more than four billion dollars in tax revenue. Tax payer funded programs have encouraged various Universities to dole out rewards to faculty generating research data. Down playing the significance of global warming is not a healthy concept to the funding.

Enviro-arsonists like racial arsonists exist to alarm the public in order to maintain or earn a benefit, akin to “ambulance chasers” only worse because many of them hold a public trust. This is achieved by exploiting and propagandizing local and world events. The desired reaction is fear, and public outcry, resulting in the pandering to the specific group. The more sensitive and popular the issue, the easier it is to shape public policy.

The Boys and Girls in Blue

A Tribute

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Political Firestorm over California Wildfires

By Tony Vega for
Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Orange County Tip Line is open and a
$ 70,000 Reward leading to an arrest is offered. 1-800-540-8282

California is in a state of emergency due to the wildfires plaguing seven counties. Billions of dollars in property damage will result and more lives will be lost before the fires are extinguished. This is a tragedy of epic proportions to say the least. California is evacuating people in record numbers, an amount of evacuees this country has never seen, not even during the Katrina crisis.

California has implemented NIMS (National Incident Management System) as a result of a multi agency response to combat the wildfires. This system is a mandate put in place by President Bush post 9/11. Geraldo Rivera on the ground has reported communications between the varying agencies are in place and working very well under this universal system.

Now enter the elite left, such as Senator Boxer. It is amazing how the left loves to wallow in negativity. It is shameless that Senator Boxer will exploit the California situation in an attempt to embarrass President Bush. In a hearing, today, Boxer claims that most of our National Guard troops and machinery were in Iraq, therefore unavailable to assist with fighting the fires. Senator Reid made similar comments. California’s Lt. Governor Garamandi states a visit by the President will serve only as a distraction. He commented on MSNBC, referring to the Presidents planned visit, “we’ll be polite, but frankly that’s not the solution.” He claims the fire is worse because of the war in Iraq. The Democratic Lt. Governor poses this question, apparently to the President: “how about sending our National Guard back from Iraq so that we have those people available here to help us”? There were also complaints from certain sectors claiming federal air response was inadequate.

The comments made by these politicians are simply dishonest. It’s an attempt to mislead the American people. According to the Pentagon there are more than enough resources available to rapidly mobilize and provide assistance, Major General William Wade of the California National Guard mirrored these comments. Further reports claim that there are 17,000 National Guard troops available in the states awaiting word from California Governor Shwarzenegger to mobilize. It appears that there are only 2,000 National Guard members assigned in Iraq and Afghanistan. In regards to the air federal response, Californian local authorities, themselves, held up that response for pragmatic reasons. A common method to combat wildfires is a technique called “backfires” this is when fire fighters intentionally and strategically set fires to eliminate the fuel and contain or redirect the fires marching in a certain direction. Local authorities, such as CalFire know where the back burn fires are located. The fear was that the federal air response would spot these isolated fires and douse them. Therefore, California authorities were endeavoring to have a local air vessel armed with this information to lead any federal response.

There is no need for partisan politics during a time of crisis. It appears that it’s chic amongst the left to exploit the war in Iraq during trying times in our nation. Whether it’s an attempt at insuring our children, as the SCHIP post points out, or fighting fires in California, the Democrats embark on this antiwar campaign of misinformation. Americans should resent this blatant attempt by these politicians to manipulate us.

The FBI and ATF have confirmed arson in the Santiago area. Santiago is in Orange County, one of the designated counties in the emergency zone. Evidence was recovered in three different distinct areas.
The Orange County Tip Line is open and a
$ 70,000 Reward leading to an arrest is offered. 1-800-540-8282

Monday, October 22, 2007

The President Doesn't Abandon SCHIP

By Tony Vega for
Monday October 22, 2007

There are children that qualify for Medicaid and those that receive health care from their parents insurance plans, typically in conjunction with their employment. There are poor American children that fall in between this gap and receive no health insurance. The State Children’s Health Insurance Plan(SCHIP) was to bridge that gap.

In 1997 the Republican Congress enacted SCHIP as the largest expansion to health care since the 60’s. This health plan was designed to reach those that earned too much to qualify for Medicaid and those that were unable to afford private insurance. Ten years down the line today’s Democratic Congress was in charge of extending and continuing this coverage for the children. What we saw instead was political wrangling of an unprecedented magnitude. The House Speaker, the third highest ranking governmental official in the land, Nancy Pelosi makes the claim that her Congress passed a bipartisan bill before it was sent to the President’s desk. I’ll start there. A few Republicans signed onto the bill, true, but that didn’t make it a bipartisan effort. If the Legislative Branch keyed the Executive Branch in during the draft as per request then a bipartisan bill may have been possible. President Bush forewarned Congress that a veto would be forthcoming if the bill was not designed according to its intended purpose.

On October, 03rd A forwarded bill not adhering to SCHIP’s original mandate looked something like this: An inclusion of hundreds of thousands of adults, folks, that should ring some bells right there. Hey, it’s all in the title of Children’s Health Insurance. This bill also included upper income children already covered under private plans. Families in some states, specifically NY, earning upwards of 83,000 dollars per annum would have been allowed to continue to solicit for inclusion. I know, ridiculous to say the least. President Bush vetoed the measure as warned.

Next, a campaign by the left was launched. Poor, disabled children were exploited. Children in wheelchairs, children in hospitals were paraded in front of the cameras to tug on the heartstrings of America. By putting a face to those that would be most affected by a failed measure would have given credibility to the left when they blame the President for the failed measure. Shrewd indeed. The inaccuracies of such claims are tantamount to propaganda. Nancy Pelosi continued the exploitation. She began to stoke our feelings of disgust over the war in Iraq. During an interview, she consistently claimed how 40 days in Iraq would equate to 10 million children covered under the proposed bill. More bells should start ringing. It’s not about the amount of children that should be paramount here, I mean we can load up the numbers and really make it seem like we’re doing something. Why don’t we bloat the numbers and include Donald Trump’s children, or hey why not just create universal coverage for anyone under 30? It should be about the amount of children in need. Another Democratic plan that should go up in smoke is the desired manner to fund the program. A 61-cent tax hike on cigarettes is the proposed method. It’s flawed in the ideology. The prevailing theory is that an increase in tobacco prices will reduce the sale and use of cigarettes. So, is this a case of the liberals trying to have their cake and eat it too? Under this taxation plan and tobacco formula, how can the SCHIP extension sustain adequate funding? It is obviously flawed and disingenuous at best.

President Bush appears to be willing to compromise and reach a bipartisan effort to reach the children of our working poor, and the forgotten middle class. I haven’t been able to say this much as of late but, I am proud of the President’s efforts here. He has 15 months left to his term and it is obvious he is not going out as a lame duck President. Perhaps, that’s what the Democratic majority in Congress was counting on.

It appears the elite left knew no bounds during their attempt to smear the President while endeavoring to garner enough votes for an override attempt in the House. On October 18 the override attempt failed. There was one House Democrat in particular that followed Madam Speakers lead and took up the antiwar mantra. Rep. Pete Spark accused the President and the rest of the "chicken hawks" in Congress of funding the war in Iraq while not funding the children’s health plan. The self described atheist, earlier decried how the Republicans were "going to spend it(funds) to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." This kind of rhetoric is from a senior member in his 18th term of the House, representing the East Bay near San Francisco. This is just a small sampling of the extreme and duplicitous nature of the elite left. They would rather throw these incendiary comments on the floor than face the legitimate issue at hand, the millions of uninsured children in America.

It should be obvious to anyone witnessing this debacle that the true agenda of the left is not to insure our children via the bill that was introduced. I will pull short of a Hillary Clintonesque cry of conspiracy. The true agenda was to backdoor their coveted universal health plan. Listen, we have a process. If there is merit to such a plan, debate it on the floor. Draft legislation, and introduce it as a stand-alone bill. This, of course, is a complex, hot button issue. The left is aware that most Americans don’t want Cuba, or Canada’s health care system despite Michael Moore’s movie. The alternative should not be to disguise it in SCHIP. Shame on Madam Speaker and the Democratic majority in Congress.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

America Discovers Christopher Columbus

Friday, October 12, 2007

Children across America are learning that Christopher Columbus was a vile, European interloper. OK not quite in those words, but you get the idea. Certain academics with a certain agenda will have us believing Columbus killed off the indigenous people via germ warfare and that he destroyed paradise in the pursuit of colonization.

Did Columbus and his crew spread sickness and disease?
Did Columbus commit atrocities?
Did Columbus build upon pristine land?

I am sure if you follow the evidence the three questions above can be answered in the affirmative.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for Columbus, I will elaborate. Disease was spread through ignorance and germs were spread from foreign men and livestock. It was not introduced to the people via some Saddam Hussein like bio warfare.

In the pursuit of progress, nature sometimes takes a back seat to human advancement, i.e. adequate shelter and water closets that may house one's chamber pot; necessary advancements for a sustained civilization. I cannot fathom any justification for rape, murder, and/or slavery; that is the opposite of civilization and the epitome of savagery.

The problem is not full disclosure of history; it’s the viewpoint. History should not be viewed from the left or right angle. We should focus on the entire picture.

Spain battled Muslim forces for hundreds of years and by the year 1000, Spain was the most oppressed part of Europe. The Far East trade routes linking Spain from across the Middle East and North Africa was exploited and under consistent Muslim control. Through unity, bravery, and the dogged pursuit of Freedom the Christian forces were able to sustain and reconquest.

By the 13th century, Christian unity began to wane and the Muslim forces were able to stop the Spanish Reconquista. The divided were conquered. Spain endured the plague of invasion from the Moor dynasty, which included the Almoravids and then their replacements, the Almohads, who waged jihad on Christianity.

The approximate span of eight centuries of resistance finally saw Spain liberated as Muslim tyranny was ejected.

In 1492, remember it was late this year when Columbus set sail, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella forced out all Muslims including those claiming a re-conversion to Christianity. It was obvious that the king understood history and had a grasp of the consequences resulting from division.

King Ferdinand would not risk the fall of his people to radical Islam. With the zeal of extreme nationalism, there was no longer any room for non-Christians or Muslim sympathizers, suspected or otherwise, resulting in the expulsion of all Jewish people as well.

Let’s not forget the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453. This marked the end of the Byzantine Empire and cemented the power of the Ottoman Empire.

Christians had very bleak options under the guise of an alleged multi-ethnic and accepting Ottoman Empire: Convert (to Islam), Dhimmitude (a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation), or death. In addition, trade routes to the East were closed. This devastated European trade, in which the typical overland route was no longer feasible.

39 years later, in 1492, There was a vision to bypass the Muslims altogether. This vision saw a route by sea making it possible for Europeans to reach India and continue the trade for spices, silk, and other goods. This visionary was Christopher Columbus.

With the procured commission of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Columbus set sail for the ocean blue. This was not without serious challenges, for the Ottomans did have a naval presence.

The Vikings and others made expeditions to the Americas, but there was no notable gain until the crew of Columbus spotted the Bahamas. A link to the New World and the Old was established, this set in motion what we are enjoying today.

The mindset of a free Medieval nation, with a constant acknowledgment that extinction or subjugation is at hand in the midst of a warring world, must be one of survival and expansion at all costs. Again, I am not attempting to apologize or rather justify atrocities, for there is no justification. I am merely bringing to light the mindset of the period.

Christopher Columbus the man may be viewed as despicable and controversial even in the 1400’s. Christopher Columbus the symbol represents bravery, hope, the positives of capitalism, and yes, however ironic, the spirit of Freedom. It is difficult to separate the man from the symbol, particularly since America’s federal holiday on Oct. 12 bears his namesake.

To continue with irony, the only other American holiday bearing the name of a man is Martin Luther King Day. Dr. King represents the champion of human rights. Despite an overwhelming amount of support for this leader of American civil rights, the decision was still met with some controversy.

Hmm…imagine a world 500 years from now where the citizens in Iraq are all on holiday commemorating George Bush Day. In this futuristic Iraq, there is dissent amongst the free citizens in which there is much debate over the American George Bush a former president of the greatest country in the world. Oppressor or Freedom Fighter?

Perhaps, we should stay away from naming federal holidays after men, for it will be difficult to separate the sinner from the symbol.

Perhaps, folks, it’s the symbolism that is important; a symbol that represents our way of life and the obvious successes of a Free America; a place in which one can enjoy diversity and be enriched by multiculturalism rather than defeated by it; a place with a rich history and some ugly practices during the birth of a New World.

Yes, if you listen closely you can hear the rattling of skeletons in the closet of that new world.

Be thankful that we are Free enough to decry such dark practices and to ensure that: We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

God Bless America.
If you’re reading this thank a teacher, if you’re reading this in English thank a soldier.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Safety recall

FYI: Please pass along to all who may be affected.

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (Oct. 11) - Johnson & Johnson on Thursday voluntarily recalled certain infant cough and cold products, citing "rare" instances of misuse leading to overdoses.
The recall follows an August FDA statement warning parents not to give cough and cold medications to children under 2 years of age without a doctor's direction.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Banking in America

It was disclosed in early 2007 that Wells Fargo & the Bank of America were offering credit cards along with other products to ILLEGAL aliens -none having a valid social security number...... welcome to America.......

An afternoon out at the ball park......... $110. 00

Your basic 12 gauge shotgun..........$ 462.00

An apple pie..... & 6.97

Sneaking into our country illegally, and LEGALLY obtaining a credit card and preferential treatment from Bank of AMERICA.........SHAMELESS!!

When does it end my fellow Americans? ! I know what I would do if I had any accounts with
these institutions....I would close them all & let management know exactly why.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Our Withdrawal Implications

By Tony Vega for
Sunday, October 07,2007

Why are we hearing so much abut Iran and what are the implications of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, is there a nexus? Well let's see...

Iran is the largest military power in the Persian gulf. Iran is backed by Russia & China. If Iran takes charge of Iraq they will control the entire region & oil prices will sky rocket. Vladimir Putin will continue to increase his profits as a result of the chaos in Iraq.

Let's continue to analyze this. The Iranian nuclear threat is very real but probably 5-10 years away. It is definitely something we must address and take seriously, however, the immediate threat is Iran taking control of the Arabian peninsula (if we pull out) with implications regarding Saudi oil.

Don't forget Iran's comrade Putin has his arm around her shoulder and will profit big time as a result of the instability in that region. Remember that Russia is wading in black gold and even out paces Saudi Arabia in production. Putin also has veto power in the security council there by in effect paving the way for Iran to continue with her nuclear endeavors without any serious sanctions imposed by the U.N.

There shouldn't be any doubts regarding Iran's hostile position regarding Israel. Not even the most extreme apologist for Ahmadinejad should be able to reconcile that in good conscience. Yeah there I go again assuming the extreme left has a conscience. Ahmadinejad may have enjoyed a platform at one of our esteemed learning institutions and expressed a desire to pay his respects at ground zero & to some he may have appeared to be striking a conciliatory pose toward us-don't you believe it ladies & gentlemen not for a NY minute. Just the opposite is true. Iran's desire is to damage America and certainly with big brother Putin in her corner along with her silent partner China -Iran is posturing. Iran is enjoying such strong backing and throw the nuclear measure in the mix and Iran significantly strengthens her position.

Sometimes I forget that Jimmy Carter is a former POTUS. When do I forget that fact? Whenever I see or hear him speak. Nonetheless our former President just doesn't seem to grasp the threat. Need I remind you this was the same leader in office during Ayatollah Khomenie's rise to power? Now I won't jump on the bandwagon here and claim Carter's Persian appeasement is due in part or whole for that matter to anti -Semitism/Zionism. Who truly knows what lurks in the heart of any man? Don't say the shadow knows.... come on that's an obvious reference to:

"The Shadow" a fictional character created by Walter B. Gibson in 1931 with the first story title "The Living Shadow". The character is one of the most famous of the pulp heroes of the 1930s and 1940s -- made even more famous through a popular radio series originally played by Orson Welles, The Shadow has also been featured in comic books, comic strips, television, and at least seven motion pictures. Regardless, The Shadow is best regarded for its radio years, in which pulp crime fiction received perhaps its most compelling broadcast interpretation. Even after decades, the unmistakable introduction from The Shadow, intoned by announcer Frank Readick, has earned a place in the American lexicon: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"- wikipedia

OK sorry about the distraction, now back to the central theme here... I do beg your pardon, but one can't always talk about grave world threats without a little digression. Now where was I? Right- Mr. Carter and his Persian appeasement. It quite boggles the mind how far some of the elite left will go to be an apologist for Iran and many of our enemies. Do we not learn from history? Particularly in Mr. Carters case. It wasn't so long ago when Mr. Carter ran this country while that infamous Ayatollah rose to dangerous power. I made reference to possible anti-Semitism/Zionism claims regarding Mr. Carter as the cause for his blindness. I don't know this to be factual. I'm sure Mr. Carter's actions will provide that evidence and the world will judge for themselves. I do know, however, that anti-Israel sentiment is growing or just perhaps presenting itself in the wake of the U.S. being embroiled in the Iraq mess. Caution my fellow American; do not allow such a sentiment to dilute your view against a very real threat or take a soft stance against an enemy just because that enemy is opposed to Israel.

Fact: We are engaged in a strong military action in Iraq. Like it or not. And U.S. interests are at stake.

As long as we are tied up in this quagmire that is Iraq, Russia profits, and Iran continues to jockey for position.

Iran has a strong stake in our failure. Iran doesn't want us to stabilize Iraq and install a Sunni government. That will lessen Iran's power base. And control over the region and Saudi oil no longer seems such a viable acquisition.

Another trip back in history -a quick trip to the 80's. Well let's back up a year to 1979. That's when Americans were seized and held hostage in Iran with the acquiescence of Ayatollah Khomeini and of course this took place during the Carter administration. This was also after a successful Iranian revolution in which the Ayatollah became Supreme Ruler in the new Theocratic government. The culmination of such tumultuous Persian events, which left Iran with a weakened military, and the obvious conflict with the U.S. and other Western governments emboldened Iraq to invade Iran. The ensuing Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988 caused an estimated one million Iran casualties, in which 100,000 casualties was a result of chemical warfare by Iraq. In a nations history it seems as though that took place yesterday.
To further complicate this conundrum, we have in place here a dominate Iranian Shia faction where as the Iraqi leading elite is predominately Sunni despite Iraq's majority population of Shia Muslims. You do the math....

Pulling out of Iraq posthaste may feel good, however, we mustn't leave without securing our interests. That's right we must ensure that American interests are paramount in any withdrawal plan. And it is quite obvious that in order to achieve a semblance of order and protection from state sponsored terrorism we need to leave Iraq with a government that can withstand an Iran incursion. Folks it is a bleak outlook. I certainly don't have much faith in this quasi Iraqi parliament, or much confidence in Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki despite Dubya's endorsement. It's a mess & there's no easy answer.

Be careful of forming opinions or endorsing policy from sound bites and catch phrases. When the left warns of foolishly sounding the "drums of war" toward Iran & launch a campaign to make Iran appear innocuous what are they really doing? They are exaggerating our response to this very real threat and exploiting the disgust most Americans feel regarding our presence in the Middle East. Because we want out of Iraq it is very hard to fathom a delayed withdrawal due to another issue that is Iran. Many Americans are ignoring that shadow in our peripheral vision. Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean the bad guy can't see you. That practice only appeases the psyche of a two year old. We must remain awake and vigilant and secure our interests in the middle east. With a proper & methodical withdrawal we may be able to temper Iran without any further military skirmish. Hell we still have a military presence in Korea after a cease fire in 1953. And like every runway model & Ms. America I wish for peace on earth. But I believe in war if necessary.

I am in no way suggesting a military response toward Iran - I don't believe we are at that juncture yet. I am merely bringing to light the complex issue of our immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and how it benefits Russia that we remain bogged down in Iraq. We must stay the course in order to gain solid ground prior to any withdrawal.

Iranian President Visits Columbia University

Monday, September 24 2007, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, did I spell that right? I meant to write : President Ahm-on-a-jihad enjoyed a forum at Columbia University sponsored by the university's president Lee Bollinger.

A couple of quick points about Bollinger... Here's a guy, president of a reputable university, that claims he's a champion of free speech. Oh really?

Bollinger supports the banning of ROTC on campus.

Bollinger took meaningless action against students that disrupted and threatened the head of the Minutemen, effectively denying that American's freedom of speech.

Should Ahmadinejad have been afforded this opportunity to speak at Columbia? If you ask me the answer will be NO. You see I don't believe he deserves the status to speak at an American institution, not while he is a sponsor of terror.

Does that sound hypocritical on my part? Deny him a platform because his message doesn't fit my agenda?
The short answer: I will support & fight for the right of all AMERICANS no matter how vile to exercise their right to free speech.

There were some good points of this affront I suppose, just as I'm sure we can glean something helpful by listening to evil speak... The danger, however, with Ahmadinejad's shrewd denials is that it will reach the looney left of our country and they will feel obliged to believe this monster.

Also notable was that Bollinger obviously felt the heat of concerned Americans. He denounced the Iranian President during the intro. Well Mr. Bollinger you didn't appease me.

And let's not forget we did learn from the Iranian President that there are no homosexuals in his country & that we need more research into the notion of the Holocaust.... the master of spin & propaganda.

Free speech is an honor that should be enjoyed by all Americans. We should not allow the heads of state that sponsor terrorism to use that right against us. If in Iran you or I may get stoned for exercising "free speech" and not the good kind of "stoned".....

It is, however, a testament to this great nation of ours that an American institution has the freedom to offer such a controversial, if not morally reprehensible, invitation to this sponsor of terror.

Mr. Bollinger used his right as a leader of a prestigious American institution to showcase a grave oppressor.

Was this invitation worth it?

Ahh the liberal world of academia. Such Hypocrisy. Deny Free speech when it doesn't fit your agenda, champion it to this extent if it's an enemy of America, an America led by Bush that is.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend? What a dangerous sentiment. Be careful Americans. It appears trendy to hate Bush & Israel. We all know how Americans love trends.... but to what extent? Hell at this rate the enemy wouldn't have to sneak through the back door. Some good intentioned, well educated, I don't have to mention how he votes-I'm sure you can guess, American will roll out the red carpet for him.......

God Bless America.


Saturday, October 6, 2007

School Uniforms

By Tony Vega
Tuesday, September 25, 2007

I think the advantages are obvious. Let's face it what our kids wear matters-It matters to them and that's very important. A mandatory, standardized policy puts EVERYONE on a level playing field-fashion wise that is. This major issue, particularly in the public school environment, is conquered due to a mandated policy. Right out the gate the uniform removes this huge fashion distraction. Something as simple as a uniform can improve a child's attention span.

A mandatory policy helps create an environment that's conducive to learning- and isn't that an important point in the world of academia? It creates a uniformed atmosphere, a stricter environment that encourages a more focused approach. A uniform will also create a sense of community, a team spirit by promoting the school they attend-it becomes "my school". A child in uniform will less likely to engage in anti social behavior. I didn't say it would eliminate negative occurrences, but it will reduce them & that can make a big difference in a kids life particularly when speaking of violent occurrences. I am not claiming it is the answer to all of the ills. If little Johnny is a "D" student a uniform will not make him an "A" student. But a B+ student may very well become an "A" student. If your kid couldn't play the drums, putting on a uniform isn't getting him a gig with the marching band-unless of course it's not talent he lacks, but just a sense of discipline....well then who knows........

A lot of critics will speak of the Individuality of the child. What happens to "self expression"? Sorry, but I must answer that with another question: Do we want our children to express themselves and exercise their "individuality" via the latest fashion brand? Self expression should not be determined by Nike or roc-a-wear.

A mandatory uniform policy will promote self expression & individuality in areas such as art, poetry, writing, painting. Let our children express themselves with a brush, a pen, their own fashion sense through design and the creativity of their imagination. Isn't this what we want our children to do? By guiding our children, leading, and pointing them in this direction indicates that we are being parents. Remember we are talking about children and they need our guidance, nurturing, leadership, and of course love -that goes without saying.... I think we can all agree with that.

So.... why when it comes to the issue of uniforms we want our children to have this complete independent, free reign to express themselves through wardrobe? And oh no.. we can't stop them we may stunt them, come on folks we're not hindering our children-we are affording them an opportunity to express themselves in areas that are productive and free of unnecessary distractions.

After 3:00 they have plenty of time to flourish as an individual via baggy jeans, baseball caps, custom tee-shirts, coach bags, and whatever else will make you believe your children will excel with this wonderful freedom of self expression.

I hope you've noticed the use of the terms "mandatory" and "standardized", without that it's almost pointless. You can't have a mixed bag, with that issues that other wise aren't present are created. And the following questions are born: "why doesn't Suzy have to wear her uniform and I do?", "Come on it's picture day can't I wear regular clothes?" Without a standardized policy it's just a come as you want to, dysfunctional system.

I'm not quoting any sources or experts here. These are my ideas, based on the experience of being a Dad & raising children through the public school system & one into college. And patrolling the mean streets of NYC as a Police Officer and a Sergeant of Police from Staten Island North to Brooklyn North.

Hey if you would rather listen to Dr. Spock go ahead.....

If your reading this thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English thank a soldier.