At Liberty

2005-04-08T09:11:00.000-07:00

Would You Like a Slap With That Burger?

This was written during my employment as a cocktail waitress during the summer of 2002. It is a brief thought on why children act the way they do in front of their parents and complete strangers. Speaks briefly of my conservative values.

Would You Like a Slap With That Burger?

An account of one of many memorable waitressing experiences and what’s wrong with kids today.

By: Noelle Franzen

“Hey, where’s my burger?!” Ahhh, the wonderful sounds that come from the mouths of children. This surprising yet shocking statement did indeed come from a child. A child, from the looks of him, who really didn’t need that burger his parents had ordered for him. But alas, they are on vacation…so why not order the chubby kid a burger or two.

I spend my summers working as a poolside waitress at an upscale resort in Southern California, and these little “incidents” as I like to call them often spur a chain of reasoning in my own mind about the world today. Not just about kids, but their parents and the behaviors allowed and ignored by those parents. Suffice to say, the majority of these families are in the upper-class bracket of society. This does not justify, by any means, the behavior noticed by my co-workers and me. There are just as many middle-class kids who are as rude, but what struck me about this particularly jovial child was that as he so adamantly demanded his food, his parents sat right beside him and didn’t even flinch at his use of, shall we say, “smart ass” tone with me. ‘Hey Lisa, see that kid over there?’ ‘The fat one?’ ‘Yeah, the fat one, he’s a little jerk.’ ‘They’re all f***in’ jerks, Noelle.’ ‘Thanks Lis.’

Now let me offer that I am not yet myself a parent, however, if I had ever used that tone with any adult, let alone a complete stranger who was doing me a service, I would have been reprimanded appropriately (spanking). Who was this kid? Who was he to think he could speak to another human being like that…someone twice his age, who was bringing him food for the simple purpose of earning a tip from his “permissive” parents. ‘Mom, can I have a coke?’ ‘No. Water or milk.’ ‘But mom….’ ‘Don’t use that tone with me young lady!’

I kindly explained to the child that I was a waitress and not a cook, and that the cooks make the food in a certain order and when it was done I would bring it to him. He did not respond. I thought to myself an array of tones and explicatives I would have enjoyed using to combat the child’s rudeness, however, I like to think I am a kind and patient person who knows better than to lower myself to a 12-year olds realm of idiocy and irrationalism.

‘Hey kid, how many calories do you consume in a day?’ ‘What the hell is a calorie?’ ‘That’s what I thought you little porker.’

This child is obviously not told “no” a lot in his home, I’m sure. And why not? Well, lets evaluate the situation. Judging from the absurd amount of money these people were spending at the hotel, and the pool alone, this child and his siblings, God forbid there are more of them, are probably spoiled rotten. His mother probably works outside the home and is not there to “mother” him during the day or after school. His father has probably been swept up, as many men today have, in this “feminist empathizer” way of life: afraid to act like a man who is responsible for his family, the actions and appearance of his children and reluctant to put his foot down and appropriately punish his children for doing wrong. Hence, the blatantly rude and shocking words that so effortlessly tumbled from his child’s mouth.

‘Hey dad, bring me a damn beer!’ ‘But son, you’re only 11!’ ‘I said now!’ ‘Yes son.’

Kids get what they want and that is a sad fact of today’s world. Their parents don’t like to say no for fear of “hurting the child’s feelings” or something stupid like that. WHAT? Yes, that’s what I said…their feelings. Let me clarify: I do believe children have feelings—of course they do, but a parent needs to be rational when deciding what is or is not good for a child. And that includes limits, and ultimately, saying no to unnecessary wants.

For example: the toy aisle in the supermarket. Why is that there? What moron decided to put toys in the supermarket? I know, I know, its marketing and profits blah, blah, blah. Growing up, the supermarket was NOT a fun place. We knew what came out of that store: food. And maybe something to drink. Things we needed to sustain life on this planet and in our house. We had this ridiculous thing called a budget, God forbid, that allowed my mother to purchase enough food to make it through the week (hopefully) on the amount of money my father supplied to her from working hard to keep a roof over our heads. If we ever asked for a toy while in the supermarket we would get what we fully expected: a glare from my mother and a firm “no”. Looking back, I’m glad she said no, over and over and over again. I understand needs and wants, the difference between excess and necessity and I’m not afraid to assert my opinion on the matter, nor will I be when I have children of my own.

It’s funny what a kid who has probably consumed one too many hamburgers in his short pudgy life can make you think.

High School takes the P.C. Route

2005-03-17T05:38:00.000-08:00

There is a girl in Oregon who just wanted to show how proud she was of her Marine brother by bringing a picture of him into school for the "where are they now" bulletin board. He happened to be holding a gun. As all Marines and Marine families know, Marines' guns are a part of their being.

Her teacher was told to edit the photo. Read on...www.marinecorpsmoms.com

My letter to the school board appears there.

St. Thomas Here I Come!

2005-03-04T11:35:00.000-08:00

On Vacation until March 14.

Have a great week.

2005-02-25T08:51:00.000-08:00

Notice how the writer calls this man a "victim."
What a load of you-know-what.
This is a self-inflicted disease from having unprotected--and wildly promiscuous--sex. It's no one's fault but his.

Only a liberal would have the gall to blame someone else for this.

Super-HIV manhad sex with 100
BY PAUL H.B. SHINDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
BOSTON - The New York man who sparked fears of a powerful new strain of HIV had drug-fueled, unprotected sex with more than 100 men in the months before his diagnosis, a top researcher said yesterday.
Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan will unveil today a case study of the unidentified man, who his team believes may harbor a mutant strain of the deadly virus.
Skeptical AIDS researchers from around the world believe the case is isolated and not the beginning of a new epidemic.
In a preview of the study, Ho said the new strain is resistant to 19 of 20 drugs used to fight the HIV virus and becomes full-blown AIDS in months, not years. The development led city health officials to send out a dire warning earlier this month.
"We don't know if this is an isolated case or if there are more cases out there," Ho told the Daily News.
The victim, who's in his mid-40s, participated in wild orgies fueled by crystal meth before becoming sick, Ho said.
City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said yesterday health workers have been "working to identify [the man's] sexual partners, and urge them to be tested."
But he declined to say how many of those partners they'd been able to reach.
Despite the fears of a superbug, other experts have pointed out that rapid progression of HIV is not new, nor is resistance to multiple drugs.
Instead of being a new strain, the virus could have rapidly developed into full-blown AIDS because of something unique to the patient, said Dr. Douglas Richman of University of California at San Diego.
But even officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acknowledged the case is alarming. Originally published on February 25, 2005

Child of Liberals

2005-02-24T07:30:00.000-08:00

So, since this blog is really supposed to be about work and politics, I will recount to you a startling comment made by a child of one of my coworkers. I believe he is 10.

I work for a financial investment firm. We have a large television in our office. This television is tuned to CNBC for market news and analysis all day. They occasionally touch on daily news (outside finance) and one day, a few days before the election in Iraq, my coworker happened to be in the office with her children as she had just picked them up from school and had to come back for some reason (her husband is President and CEO of our company). She technically only works part-time, if that, so this whole kids-in-the-office thing isn't a common occurance. (Which, by the way, is a different story because it bugs the hell out of me that I am trying to work and there are two little kids running around stealing my good pencils and slamming doors....)

So this report on the elections in Iraq showed U.S. Servicemen setting up barriers and such to prepare for the election.

The boy asks a question, and his father, my boss, says something to the effect of "they are preparing the cities for the election this weekend and the soldiers will be keeping them safe."

The boy then says: "Finally, they are doing something good in Iraq."

WHAT?

And his mother, nonchalantly says "you think that because you have liberal parents." And laughed.

The part that angers me most is that I am sitting 10 feet away and everyone knows that I have a brother who spent 7 months in Iraq, who not only didn't do bad things, and most certainly contributed to the humanitarian relief our government is providing though these brave Marine and soldiers. I felt like slapping that kid on the back of the head and sending him to boot camp to learn about discipline, integrity and how to shut up. This kid isn't growing up in a realistic world...it's too bad his parents 1.) have exposed him to the adult world without preparing him and 2.) when his ready to discuss adult events, teach him how to make an argument.

It sickens me to know that this child will grow up jaded and uninformed, but then again so are his parents.

2005-02-23T09:06:00.000-08:00

I thought this was so good, I posted it here, in full, and on my other site.

February 18, 2005, 7:37 a.m.

Grand Old Party

Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats’.

Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson hosted his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture, "The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."

Thumbs up, Wilson exclaimed. The film "is like writing history with lightning," he remarked, adding, "it is all so terribly true."

This vignette — recently recounted in Ken Burns's PBS documentary, Unforgivable Blackness — was neither the first nor last time a prominent Democrat plunged a hot knife in black America's collective back. Each February, Black History Month recalls Democrat Harry Truman's 1948 desegregation of the armed forces and Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson's signature on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the greatest black legislative victory since Republican Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in 1863. This annual commemoration, however, largely overlooks the many milestones Republicans and blacks have achieved together by overcoming reactionary Democrats.

The House Policy Committee's 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar offers 365 examples of GOP support for women, blacks, and other minorities, often over Democratic objections. Among its highlights:

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

Contemporary partisan hyperbole? Consider this 1866 comment from Governor Oliver Morton (R., Ind.), who is immortalized in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall: "Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro school-houses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said. "Every New York rioter in 1863 who burned up little children in colored asylums, who robbed, ravished, and murdered indiscriminately in the midst of a blazing city for three days and nights, calls himself a Democrat."

White supremacists worked club in hand with Democrats for decades:

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

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

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

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

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

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

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

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.

Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker pleaded: "Vote for the crook: It's important!"

Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often against intense Democratic headwinds:

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

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

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

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

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

May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court's desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas's black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended "separate but equal" classrooms.

September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock's government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

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

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP's presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona's National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Republican party also is the home of numerous "firsts." Among them:

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America's first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first black governor.

August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America's first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, "White women may receive attentions from Negro men." As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: "The Choice Is Yours."

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

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

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

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice's confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most "No" votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

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

"We started our party with the express intent of protecting the American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that expressly made people inferior to the state," wrote Rep. Christopher Cox (R., Calif.), who authorized the calendar last year as House Policy chairman. "Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was then: free people, free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity."

"Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party," Cox continued. "Then, just as now, their hallmarks were politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual initiative...and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals."

But what about racial preferences? The GOP's embrace of color-neutral policies parallels Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality over racial scale tipping. "The constitutional amendments that the Republican party supported after the Civil War did not advance preferences by race," Cox told me. "They made government view every person as an individual, not as a member of a racial group."

Alas, even as Republicans promote work over welfare, educational choice, and personal retirement accounts, all of which would empower blacks, some 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat as reflexively as knees kick when tapped with rubber mallets. After inspecting the Democrats' handiwork — e.g. the tar pit that is public assistance, the Dresden that is the ghetto school system, and the pyramid scheme that is Social Security (which robs too many blacks who die before recouping their "investment") — black Americans should ask Democrats: "Yesterday's gone. What have you done for us lately?"

— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is an advisory board member of Project 21, a Washington-based network of black free-market advocates.

Happy Presidents' Day

2005-02-16T21:26:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid, we had both Washington and Lincoln's birthdays off. Oh well.
I'm off to Washington D.C. for the long weekend.
See you soon.

You won't be hearing this on NBC. Or CBS...or, well you get the idea.

2005-02-11T09:47:00.000-08:00

GUILTY IN ST. LOUIS

Michelle Malkin on some news you won't be hearing about anytime soon.

...On tape, Montgomery admitted taking from 1,000 to 1,200 voter registrations
to the St. Louis Board of Elections on Feb. 7, 2001, just before the mayoral
primary. Workers there launched an investigation after noticing that among the
new voters was longtime Alderman Albert "Red" Villa, who died in 1990.
Can't the dems come up with anything more creative than registering dead people? Come on!

Something else you won't hear in the news

2005-02-11T09:42:00.000-08:00

Can't they come up with a more creative idea than registering dead people? Bust 'em all!

Let them do their job

2005-02-11T09:25:00.000-08:00

This is from The Pirate King's site...I liked it. I think he has a very valid point about journalists who think they can write anything based on little or no real perspective on the matter, and often, harbor a bias against what they are reporting.

I can imagine what this “counseling session” would have been like. In this Yahoo news piece, Marine General Counseled for Comments, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who has commanded Marines in both Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), made the comments Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis is the commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.
According to an audio recording of Mattis’ remarks, he said, “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. … It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.”
He added, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis continued. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Lets see, the session should have gone something like this:

Commander: Look, you know there are a bunch of wussy journalists out there who think their idea of manliness is to catch the military doing or saying something, well, military like. These pansies can’t handle it, with their brains all muddled-up by their college professors post traumatic stress syndrome from a bad LSD trip while protesting VietNam.

General Mattis: But sir, we do enjoy shooting the enemy, thats our job.

Commander: I know that it is our job, and we do it better than anyone. And we are going to continue doing it. But if you see a camera, a tape recorder, or even someone with a notepad, you must make the frowny face and talk about regret and all that B.S., got it soldier?

General Mattis: Yes Sir!

Commander: Now go out and kill more people, and make the world safe for democracy, and even make it safe for the wussy Democrats even. Because thats what we do as United States Marines!

And an OOHRAH from me.

Some People Just Don't Get It

2005-02-09T14:27:00.000-08:00

Liberals are so tactful, aren't they?

I totally don't care that they choose to dishonor our military on their own property, but I hope they remember, many Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen have died for their right to be asses.

Why the Controversy?

2005-02-07T07:24:00.000-08:00

I don't understand what all the noise is about President Bush reading Tom Wolfe's latest, I Am Charlotte Simmons?

The article labels the book as "sex-soaked" then asks why might our President be reading such coarse literature.

Well, I read it and I'l tell you why.

Wolfe makes it very clear that our institutions of "higher learning" are failing to educate our children on an intellectual level--and through Charlotte's character, we are shown that only through initiative and hard work does anyone succeed.

There might be a lot of sex in it, but why should that stop the greater message? And why does the press automatically assume our President doesn't get that?

Maybe they should read the book (again).

Good Reading

2005-02-03T13:37:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter's new column is out. Take a look.

Can you say E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?

2005-02-03T13:10:00.001-08:00

Check out this blurb about the Carter Center and Jimmy Carter's total ignorance.

There is a lady I work with who just loooves Jimmy Carter...more on that later;)

Oh, those Democrats forget so quickly!

2005-02-02T20:36:00.000-08:00

Read this. First of all, this is getting old. The democrats keep challenging President Bush on issues they used to support during, well, anywhere in the past.

Either they all have really short term memories, or this proves that they are wrong.

I am willing to bet on the latter.

___________________

By the way, this blog is going to be about my trials and tribulations working with democrats. It's coming I promise. My other blog will be dedicated to non-work related political raves.

Should I say it...?

2005-02-01T14:20:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin hits it on the head with her Top 10 list here.
Might I add Barbara Boxer to the list of all time whiners.
***

Mark Brown's piece in the Chicago Union Tribune is doubtfully titled What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? But I can't help but think maybe, just maybe, he is not as doubtful as he thinks he is. Let's break it down:

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting
started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least
letting people know where you stood.

He is quick to point out that a) he is against the war--although doesn't state why--but b) also puts himself into the category of "pacifist" by letting people know what he thought about it and never actually acting on these feelings.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

It is interesting here that he admits, very shyly, that our troops did a thorough and efficient job yet calls the Iraqis who celebrated this great moment a "rabble" or a mob--it also means people who are of the lowest, coarsest class--trash, in other words. The best part about the first two paragraphs is that we see into the mind of an anti-war liberal very easily. He is a pacifist, he avoids expanations (ah, feelings) and he severly underestimated the impact our military had in those early days and continues to have today as I think we all witnessed this past weekend.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

Honestly, do liberals really think wars are easy and can be won in a matter of days? Then again, I don't know many democrats who would have been against pulling out, or at least giving up the idea that the Iraqis could live in freedom. Also, I don't know many liberals who said they "cheered Saddam's capture" without attaching a but...to their reason.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

Which is one of the reasons why the democrats will continue to lose elections: they don't have an identity; they vote against people rather than for them. Disapproval doesn't win elections: confidence does.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

Another problem liberals have: they doubt that freedom does something wonderful for oppressed people. They doubt that an evil dictator should be dethroned because "it's none of our business." Well, we are America--it's all our business. When you are the best, strongest, wealthiest country in the world, you must be an example, nay, you must lead by example.

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

If I were a liberal, I'd say so.

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

Actually, I was glad to read this. Finally, a liberal who is not slandering George W. Bush's good name or demeaning the troops.

He goes on for a few paragraphs that no, we do not have to concede just yet...but rather, consider the possibility of it. Then he really nails it for me, I mean, if people could actually think this situation out rationally, we might think something like this:

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

Some of the biggest problems liberals have with this war are these reasons exactly: too much money, too many lives lost and to much time trying to get an oppressed people to accept freedom.

I have always thought though, from the beginning of this war, that President Bush had a home run. That is not to say there were no snags, but this is war people, not a Broadway musical.

And as a sister of a Marine who proudly fought representing our country and Iraq I will tell you that even if he had come home dead, his efforts and dedication to the fight was worth every ounce of blood in him. Fortunately, he is home and his work continues--America's work continues.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

And he loses me.

But he ends gracefully:

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

For God's sake people, we have only been there for 2 years...get a little perspective!

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

Well, we'd sure welcome your vote, but I won't hold you to it Mr. Brown.

Amen and Hallelujah!

The sound of Freedom: loud and clear

2005-01-30T11:15:00.000-08:00

I can't imagine what the Iraqi people must be feeling right now. I woke up this morning and I was moved by the courage and determination, nay an undescribable pride that only comes with being free, of the millions of Iraqis who risked (note: in America risking your life to vote would be laughed upon) their lives to vote. Some women who voted even came with their children. It is simply put, an amazing day in the world--another country is being introduced to the great joy that comes with freedom.

And read this: A thank you from the Ajinas. Incredible, to say the least.

Surprise, surprise, John Kerry has something negative to say. And again, doesn't know when to stop talking.

You know, he lost the election for a reason. Democrats--liberal democrats in particular--have a huge lesson to learn, especially considering if they don't, they will continue to lose elections here and with that, lose footing in a world that needs pride, optimism and inexorable leadership.

The democrats' drug of choice is pessimism. Period. They don't understand that people want to be told about good things, be given hope and security and realize that even when bad things happen, there can be good made of the situation.

This election is the perfect example.

You know, after all of this, the sweeping victory for George W. Bush and republicans in 2004, the historic election that took place overnight in Iraq and many more strides toward freedom, democrats have had many chances to adjust their attitudes. They have failed every time. They fail to be bi-partisan in congress, they fail to realize that a country once ruled by an evil dictator is now free to choose their own leader and participate in their right to be free and vote and to see the good in that and they fail at changing their tune.

Folks, the democrats don't get it, and there is a good chance they never will.

I am so proud to be an American today, for those wonderfully brave people in Iraq, who have been given the greatest gift of their lives.

2005-01-28T19:49:00.000-08:00

It's okay, I'm a republican.

Hitler is the Insulting Name of Choice for Liberals

2005-01-25T14:09:00.000-08:00

TED TURNER COMPARES FOXNEWS TO HITLER
Tue Jan 25 2005 15:53:55 ETTed
Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII.Turner made the controversial comments before a standing-room-only crowd at the National Association for Television Programming Executives's opening session Tuesday.

His no-nonsense, humorous approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter, BROADCASTING & CABLE reports.While FOX may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said.

He followed up by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration. "There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.

A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well." In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. Developing...

So, I'm not sure how this makes legitimate the liberal argument that Bush is like Hitler. First of all, it is a moronic comparison based purely on bitterness and anger (and that liberals think Hitler was the most evil--maybe that's not the right word because liberals don't want to "judge" others--human being who ever lived). While that is debatable, calling President Bush Hitler is tantamount to calling my cat Hitler. It's pointless. Only angry, angry people resort to calling the President of the United States stupid names and think it means something.

Ted Turner is officially off his rocker. Hey Ted, take it like a man and accept the fact that the media that feeds unwitting Americans biased news is on the way out, and smart, even-handed news like that on Fox is here to stay.

The Liberal Life

2005-01-21T20:33:00.000-08:00

A "mom gone wild" goes a little too far...

Wonder where the parents are?

Robert Redford used to be good looking, now he's just annoying.

And of course, there are some folks who just can't accept the facts.

Good night, and God Bless George W. Bush.

Junk Mail: Do you want to kill your baby?

2005-01-20T19:50:00.000-08:00

The linked article is regarding a recent find that Planned Parenthood's free condoms, well let's just say they are free for a reason... http://www.lifenews.com/nat1085.html

Today on my way home from work, I stopped like I usually do to check my mailbox.
But today was the first time I received a letter addressed to me from Planned Parenthood.

I almost threw it away, but then decided it might be fuel to the fire for me. Hence tonight's entry.

First let me say that I am truly surprised to get this piece of mail; one, I have never EVER donated to any organization even remotely connected to Planned Parenthood (although, I believe my company has made past donations and somehow my name found its way there) and two, even if this was just "junk mail" like everyone gets addressed in their name, Planned Parenthood now does "junk mail"?

The letter begins, "Miss Franzen," Miss? This is my preferred title, but PP using Miss, not Ms.? Could that be right?

It goes on to state in a "did you know?" format that PP has been fighting for the simple right that you should decide for yourself when or if you want to have children. Interesting, maybe they should call themselves Unplanned Parenthood. Now, I was not a science major, but I believe that the planning part would come in when and if you decide to have sex, which is the preferred method of making babies. Pretty sure.

And I love that they refer to abortion as " effective family planning services" and beg, BEG you to believe that Pat Robertson is going to take over the world and stop sex everywhere! They also want you to believe that religious "fanatics" aka: Moral Christians are going to deny help to people who want to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.

The rest of the letter is just scare tactics and as a saving grace, in the end of the letter, they blame "anti-choice" or pro-life crazies for "more unplanned pregnancies, more teenagers having babies (which could be stopped with thousands and thousands of abortions!) more people contracting sexually transmitted diseases and (I'm not kidding) MORE ABORTIONS."

They really say that.

Wow, good try PP, but you don't quite get it do you?

I wonder if all the "religious fanatics" you sent this letter to through a mass mailing are really going to take the time to read your lies.

I wish all the dead babies could see what you've facilitated.

What if your mother had "chosen" to murder you?

Some Like It Hot

2005-01-18T13:03:00.000-08:00

Once again, the liberals are after Condi.

During Rice's confirmation hearings today, California (I apologize, I am from California) Senator Barbara Boxer tries to tongue lash Rice. As usual, Condi won't have any of that and fired right back in this exerpt:

"You sent them in there because of weapons of mass destruction. Later the mission changed when there were none," Boxer told Rice. "Let's not rewrite history, it's too soon to do that."

"It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction," Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) supported terrorism, attacked Kuwait and Israel and needed to be removed given the new U.S. threat perception after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

"We can have this discussion in any way that you would like, but I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity," Rice told Boxer. "I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly."

So, just so we have this straight, liberals want minorities to advance in all areas of public life, commerce etc. But if they are conservative, forget it. Just wanted to get that straight.

And by the way, why can't liberals get over the fact that we are already at war and bringing up why we went (WMDs) is a little stale compared to our job there now. Hey libs, support your troops and stop crying over George W. Bush's resolve.

All The News That's Fit To Print?

2005-01-16T15:17:00.000-08:00

There is a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps who deserves some attention. He is Brian Chontosh. Based out of 29 Palms, California, husband and soon-to-be father. He is an honorable man and a hero. And recently became the recipient of the Navy Cross, the second highest honor for combat bravery there is.

This will not be covered on the network news. No one wants to hear about a brave man...you will not read this story in the newspapers because pictures of insurgents setting off car bombs is more important.

It is a fact that during this war, the American media has not actually covered the American military. Sure, you hear stories about some idiot reservists who posed Iraqi prisoners for (what must have been the stupidest thing they had ever done in their lives) raunchy pictures, but you won't hear about our heroes. We are the most media-saturated country in the world and we are recieving virtually no TRUE reports on what thousands of what our fighting men are doing.

How many times will the evening news anchor remind us of how many servicemen have died? They will never call them brave, they will never call them heroes, they are just dead...and for what? That is what is constantly streamed to Americans, they are dead, dead, dead.

Those same newscasts can't wait to show us the latest footage from Al-Jazera television rather than pictures of Marines handing out school supplies to Iraqi children. It's sick. Let's show America haters talking about blowing up the United States instead of little kids getting medical care and school books in Iraq!

And since no one else will tell you, here is how 1st Lt. Brian Chontosh earned his Navy Cross:

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee. When all hell broke loose. Ambush city. The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him. So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came
under direct enemy machine gun fire. It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish. And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them. Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride. And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers. And he killed them all. He fought with the M16 until he was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion. When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more. But that's probably not how he would tell it. He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.
--To the mainstream media, to NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR and in particular, NBC's Kevin Sites who called a Marine a murderer for rightly shooting a wounded insurgent and protecting his fellow Marines, tell these stories. Tell them for all the wives, mothers, sisters, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles and friends at home. Tell them because these men make us proud, even if you can't figure out why.

All's Well that Ends Well

2005-01-14T15:06:00.000-08:00

Well, the selfish athiest Michael Newdow's objection to an inaugural prayer has been rejected by the courts as well...silly. Mr. Newdow INSISTS that saying a prayer forces one to be "indoctrinated" with religion. (By the way, I saw this guy on O'Reilly's show a couple nights ago and he's a snide, rude and petty man.) He also seems to believe that there is this "separation of church and state" to be reckonned with. I challenge him to show me where that exists in the constitution and also how saying a prayer (even if one ignores it and reads the program or looks at the various attendees) "forces" religion on someone.

Unfortunately, I don't think this guy is going to quit anytime soon.

Someone want to remind him that over 80% of the population believes in God? Or would that be indoctrination?

This is new to me...

2005-01-13T14:35:00.000-08:00

...but I figured, I can write, I have something (well, many things) to say, and not enough people get to hear what I have to say. So here I am. You're in for a treat!