Can any one name me just one time in the last 30 years that the Democrats have been serious about protection of the nation??

Bosnia, Kosovo and Hataii under Clinton do not count.

Just name me one time??


And now they do not want to even protect our borders.

The Dem candidates will all state they will protect the nation when asked because they have to. 

What candidate will state other wise?  Still I ask where is the proof to believe them?

I read a column today stating that the GOP's chances of winning next year about as good as me hitting one of the score board at Wrigley Field ( it has never been done).  I am no completely sold on this concept.

Now I will admit that as this piece is being written that all seems to be aligned for the Democrats to win in 08.

st:  With the exception of Roosevelt and Reagan the 2 term presidents have tended to have the opposing party gain control in the last 50 years.

nd:  There is a marked lack of enthusiasm for the announced GOP candidates so far (all though to be fair this could change).

However before we automatically assume a defeat of 1932 propositions (though the left bloggers already consider this a forgone conclusion). Leave us consider some of the following.

In 1932 the whole world was at the bottom of a world wide depression.  There is no such correlating financial catastrophe facing either this nation or the world as whole, nor is their likely to be in the next 18 months.

The depression and the seemingly arrogant and condescending way the republicans handled it as exhibited by Hoover allowed Roosevelt to clean up big time.  Bush has completely mismanaged the war their can  be very little debate about that.  However this nation is divided as we all know into blue and red.  Where is the pent up demand for a liberal/progressive solution to the nations problems? 

In addition the democrats are most likely going to nominate either a trial lawyer (John Edwards), a woman Senator (Hillary) or an African-American Senator (Obama). 

Any and all 3 of these will offer a target rich environment for the GOP. 

Hillary we already pretty much know about.

Edwards:  This nation does not nor never has embraced class warfare (with the possible exception of the New deal) and the conditions of doing so just do not exist in my opinion.

Obama:  To put it bluntly do you really think that the nation is ready to elect a extremely liberal African-American President??

So we see that although our outlook is not nearly as good as one would like, we can  be sure that the Democrats will over reach believing that they have the country complexly on their side (they do not) and we also know that much can change between now and November 2008.

We shall see what happens

You know I am amazed at what liberals are willing to put in print.

As Rush says you just can not make this stuff up.

The excerpt is taken in part from the local Pittsburgh paper and written by a gentleman who is identified as a retired diplomat and member of this newspapers editorial board.  You will not believe it.

"Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

See what I mean.

Nothing more needs to said this nut stated it all.

And the liberals say they are in favor of protecting the constitution.

Yeah Right!!

You think we as a nation would be used to this by know.

The nation has a gets pulled into a military confrontation and it lasts longer than the Democrat party would like, and presto chango thay want to surrender.

It was like that for the War of 1812, the US Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wr 1 and now in Iraq.

The Democrat party never ever changes it's tune.

Always cut and run and always surrender.

The only 2 wars they somwhat supported were WW1 (which Wilson totaly screwed the poach on the peace treaty ending thereby ensuring a WW2) and WW2.

One wonders if the Japaneese had played their hand a little better if the Dems would have have supported a entry into WW2 because of German U-Boat action in the Atlantic.

Well Rudy is right and if this nation does elect a Democrat next year you can take it to the bank that more American blood will flow.

I imagine that this has been commented on before but when looking at how the Democrats are bleating about Gonzalez and his appearance before the Senate regarding his lack of memory one can only remember the part in the movie Casablanca where they so called authorities were stunned to find gambling going on in Ricks Place.

I seem to recall almost total amnesia by more Democrat operatives called to testify in any number of Clinton peccadillos up to and including Hillary having no idea how those files got into the private quarter of the White House, or how confidential FBI files got into the White House.

Guess it is okay when the Democrats can not remember.


Right??

This is my first blog posting and it seems to me to be some how appropriate to begin the same way I began my first column for the Parkside Ranger in 1993.

Then as now I lament the fact of the lack of inspirational or for lack of a better term heroes for people to look up to an aspire too emulate.

Look at the Drudge report and the report of the rapper who would not report a killer because it would hurt his business and/or violate his ethics.  Hurt his business??  Violate his ethics??  Is this what we have come to??

One can only wonder how Teddy Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin or even Bobby or John Kennedy would react to this kind of garbage.

I wrote in 1993 that I thought that Winston Churchill was the hero of the 20th century (he was so judged by Time magizine as the hero of the first 50 years of the 20th century).  Sadly he was not PC enough to be judged so by the oh so tolerent and benevolent left at the end of the century.

So that begs the question who are today's heroes, or at least people of merit who deserve some measure of respect and maybe asperiations to immitate.

In no real order I offer some choices.

A.  Norman Schwartkopf:  His leader ship in the first gulf war was outstanding.  In retirement he keeps to him self does not critize and carrys himself with dignity and respect.

B.   Bill Cosby:  Think about what he has accomplisched, how he has conducted himself and how he wants to help the african american community.  Than think of the race hustlers like the rappist drudge quotes or Sharpton or Jackson.

C.  President George H Bush (AKA: 41).  He conducts himself with class in comparison to a certain other ex-president who shills for his wife or another ex democrat persident full of bitterness and anit-semitism.

D.  Joe Torre:  Manages for an ogre of a owner and does so with dignity and class.

E.  Lovey Smith and Tony Dungy:  For the way they conduct themselves and the way they  coach.

F.  The many members of the armed forces who go about doing a hard and thankless job with bravery and commitment.

I could name many who are sadly no longer with us, but I wanted to limit it to living for the time being.

I close by listing

Billy Graham:  For helping many avoid an eternity without God and for the way he has conducted his life and the class way he has handled his declining years and health.