The Cowards of Palestine

Friends,
I am going to start this off with a disclaimer. This posting will be very slanted. I hate cowardly murderers. They remind me of hyenas; they wait until their prey is completely defenseless and then they strike. They will normally take great delight in causing pain and shock whenever they know that they are not in the line of fire. You now know my leanings and you can read the rest of this with that knowledge.

Several weeks ago it was announced that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was considering a prisoner swap with Hezbollah in the name of peace. This swap was negotiated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Hezbollah is not in the habit of making one-for-one exchanges when these swaps are negotiated.

What the Israelis got were the bodies of sergeants Elad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. What the Israelis gave to Hezbollah were five prisoners. All five of these were Lebanese; but one, Samir Kuntar is considered to be one of Israel’s most reviled prisoner. What did he do? Just exactly what did this coward do?

On the night of April 22, 1979, when Kuntar was only 16 years old and already a veteran of terrorist training in Lebanon, he and one other Hezbollah coward rowed their rubber boat ashore in northern Israel with the intent of kidnapping Israelis. During the raid, they invaded the home of Danny and Smadar Kaiser in Nahariya, six miles south of the Lebanese border. Smadar and their daughter Yael, 2, hid in the attic but Danny and their daughter Einat, 4, were taken to the nearby beach when they heard the police coming. They made Einat watch while they shot Danny to death and then killed Einat by beating her in the head with the butt of a rifle. This was a defenseless man but worse was the cowardly killing of a four year old girl. This is an abbreviation of the raid that the New York Times says “went horribly wrong.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/world/middleeast/16kuntar.html The rest of the story can be read at http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008710 in the Wall Street Journal.

The government of Israel has bent over backwards time after time to try to bring peace to their country. So far, nothing has worked. They have had the “Land for Peace” program, this program, that program, and numerous prisoner swaps. Each time, the cowards from Palestine come out way ahead. Now, it looks like the cowards have done it to the Israelis again. They murder two brave soldiers and give back the bodies and get, in return, bloody cowardly terrorists.

When Kuntar crosses the border into Lebanon he will receive a hero’s welcome. You see, the Hezbollah honors baby murderers. What they seem to be unable to understand is that these actions exemplify their lack of manhood. They recruit children to strap on bomb vests to blow themselves up in the name of the Allah. If martyrdom were so glorious, why don’t the adults to it? This is obviously a rhetorical question because we all know they don’t do it because they only have conviction for martyrdom if someone else is getting killed.

Just the fact that the Israeli government would even consider giving these animals back is disappointing and shows the level to which the Olmert government has sunk.

Looking at the political situation in our own country, there are people here in the US that believe that we can just take these cowards aside and “dialog” with them, and they will “play nice” with us. To these people, I say, “Wake up and smell the cordite.” These animals have proven that they cannot play nice with anyone. This was foretold in Genesis 16. When the angle of the Lord spoke to Hagar about her son who was soon to be born he said:
“Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name £Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone’s hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”
This is how it has been with the descendants of Ishmael and how it will be. These cowards revel in their perversion and we here in the United States, as well as all of the free world, had better know who the enemy is.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Government Crush

Friends,
In this election year, there is a lot of discussion on the economy, the environment, the terrorist threat, the oil/price crisis, entitlements, and a myriad of other “hot buttons.” What I hear precious little about is what is really great about our country; what is really great about our people.

When we look back on the accomplishments that have come out of the USA we cannot help but marvel at the ingenuity and perseverance of American entrepreneurship. However, when we look back at the golden age of the Industrial Revolution, one thing that stands out as different from today is the lack of government regulation and taxation.

Back when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and the other industrial titans got started they were not hampered with such onerous regulations as Sarbanes Oxley. They were not taxed to the point that exploration and experimentation were activities that could only be undertaken after all of the government regulations and accounting had been satisfied. That was a day when the entrepreneur was able to let his ideas soar.

Today, the entrepreneur is buried under a mountain of regulation and is often taxed out of existence. If this intrepid entrepreneur is foolish enough to take on five or more employees, he comes under the laser beam of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Here is a true story. I know a man who is the safety engineer for a company that cleans meat packing plants. One of the safety requirements of the workers is that when they are working over a certain height off the floor they must wear a safety harness to arrest their fall in case of a mishap. This requirement was/is well briefed and enforced for all employees. During one shift a few years ago, an employee neglected this rule and fell off a catwalk and tragically died. This happened several hundred miles from my friend’s office. My friend was not at the site of the mishap when it happened. Enter OSHA. The OSHA inspector wanted the US Attorney to prosecute my friend for murder because the worker neglected to fulfill his responsibility to protect his own life. Fortunately, the US Attorney did not deem it a credible case and did not prosecute.

This is only one example of the crushing bureaucracy that the federal government has placed on us. There are such examples as declaring a farmer’s field unworkable because a mouse lives there or a forest cannot be logged because an owl has taken up residence ten miles away. The worst case for the United States is banning oil exploitation in that massive wasteland called ANWR. If you have seen photos of this barren frozen desert you would be as aghast as I am.

Our current Democrat-controlled Congress is crushing the very livelihood out of our country. Please do not mistake my ire as to be aimed only at Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans out there who are complicit in this crush. We are at a point where we are going to finish sliding all the way down that slippery slope into a totally socialistic society where the government controls every facet of our lives, or we are going to take it back and re-take our position as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. It is time we stop living with our hands out for our daily pittance and take responsibility for our own actions and living. It is time for the federal government to discontinue its evolvement into what Lenin made of Russia. It is time to return to the ideals of conservation of the US Constitution.

As always, I welcome your questions/discussion.

Dan

Friends,
One of my readers has sent the following for posting. I am doing so without comment except to say that it is well thought out and expressed.
Dan

Why I must vote for John McCain

I want to start this off from the beginning. I had never planned on voting for John McCain. Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, “An Independent is someone who can’t make a decision.”

I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren’t quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.

Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway.
However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain. The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!

Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place? Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.

Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue.
Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list. But I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight. A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don’t get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.

For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can’t seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this. Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?


--
Shawn Mullen

Friends,
Since I started these postings, I have never hidden the fact that I am a strong supporter of Congressman Lamborn. His campaign has asked me to forward the following. The only comment I will make regarding the blog contained within is that I have met Mr. Crater and am familiar with the Wilberforce Center. I have found Mr. Crater to be a highly intelligent individual who fully understands and espouses Conservative Values. You are invited to consider this posting.
Dan

Subject: The Transparency of Congressman Doug Lamborn

In the Interest of Full Transparency...

In the interest of full transparency Congressman Doug Lamborn has released his funding requests. http://lamborn.house.gov/issues click on FY2009 Funding Requests

"There are only 110 lawmakers in the House and Senate who either don't request any earmarks or disclose their earmark requests." - Steve Ellis, Vice President of Taxpayers for Common Sense

Taxpayers for Common Sense is a nonpartisan group that demands and promotes fiscal responsibility and government accountability. They vigorously watch for and report on earmarks.

Congressman Lamborn's funding requests simply divert existing funds in the defense budget to areas with higher priority and away from failing or stagnant projects. This does not raise overall spending.

The Congressman has repeatedly been acknowledged and praised for his fiscally responsible and conservative actions.
Among these acknowledgments are:

- The "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from the National Taxpayers Union.
- A 100% anti-pork rating from the Club for Growth.
- A 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.
- A 100% pro-growth rating from the Club for Growth.

In fact, National Journal has ranked Congressman Lamborn as one of the top eight most conservative members of Congress.
______________________________________________________________________________
Here is a blog entry we found interesting and informative.
We thought you might want to read it.
Defend Doug
By Dave CraterJune 8th, 2008
http://backboneamerica.net/2008/06/08/1017/
“If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug”
It’s Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..

Let’s start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.

Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that’s five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation’s leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php

This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legislature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as “earmarks”), and tax increases.

With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That’s right, franking expenditures.

The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman’s official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.

The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, “rock the boat” of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.

Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.

No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.

Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank’s criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:

Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force Base
Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center
ACES 5 Ejection Seat
Expeditionary Alternative Power Generator
Radiation-Hardened Memory Technology
Digital Engine Technology
Military Information Management Software
Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools
High Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance System
Improved Ground Access to Peterson AFB
Improvements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6

With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank’s rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn’s history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.

As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them “earmarks” as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, “increased spending for the HH-6OL program” in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank’s lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?

In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better “leadership” in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn’s leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn’s legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.

Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank’s former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber’s CEO.
“Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation’s defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation’s defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you’ve requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace.”
Sound suspiciously like leadership?

It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn’s stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank’s ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn’s league.

There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.

The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org

The Farm Bill

Friends,
Yesterday, our Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, once again got it wrong. He said, “President Bush’s veto of the farm bill is an insult to rural America and would hurt all those who benefit from the food our farmers provide.”

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Pork by any other name would smell just as foul.” America’s farmers can hardly get any more crops into the ground and they are reaping huge profits off those crops, and they deserve every penny. A farmer’s life is hard; they deserve the profit they earn.

However, I see no reason for the massive subsidies promised every year, in some cases, subsidies to NOT plant. According to the Associated Press, $40 billion is to go to farmers for subsidies, $30 billion is to also go to farmers to NOT plant, and the rest goes to nutrition programs such as food stamps, etc. As I understand it, this is the government’s way of regulating how much of what crop is made available. What happened to the governance of the marketplace, and the law of supply and demand? The federal government has been manipulating the agricultural market for decades. It is time they stop!

We are looking at a $290 BILLION tax on the American public. We are being taxed into the ground as it is and the concept of paying one segment of our workforce to do the job (or not do the job) they have chosen is ludicrous. The farmers are working for the consumer, just as the plumber or the carpenter. I have yet to see any subsidies for plumbers and carpenters to NOT go to work. That would be called welfare.

I fully understand that there is a segment of our society that needs a hand up. Some school children must have subsidized breakfasts and lunches or they will go hungry. The question is why parents are not held accountable for this lack of care? Where are the mandatory education and/or training programs for those who cannot care for their children? Do not misunderstand me; I know that there are some who are not physically or mentally able to accomplish this. These folks need whatever assistance they can get. But isn’t that a state concern? Where in the Constitution is this type of aid authorized?

I have written our Congressman and two Senators to urge them to vote against this pork.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan

Illegal Aliens and the War Supplemental Bill for 2008

Friends,
Below is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Senators Allard and Salazar:
Senator,
It has been brought to my attention that Senator Feinstein has successfully attached an amendment to the War Supplemental Bill for 2008 that would give legal status to an estimated 1.35 million illegal aliens working in agriculture. I have also been informed that this bill is to be voted upon in the Senate in the next few days.
I strongly urge you to vote against this bill and work for its defeat. Illegal aliens are, by definition, law-breakers who have proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country.
There is an alternative to having illegals working in agricultural jobs. That is to have an established “guest worker” program such as that proposed by Marsha Looper in the Colorado State House. Using this approach, we would know who is coming in to work, where they will be working, and when they will leave. If they come in on a permanent work visa, we will still know who they are, where they are working and their exact status.
Why should illegals be given preferential status over those who stand in line and have respect for our laws?
Sincerely
Daniel C. Lanotte
Falcon, Colorado

S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007

Friends,
The US Senate is getting ready to vote on S.2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill, introduced by Senator Obama, is just one more piece of legislation that the Liberals want to use to promote their “One World Order.” The wording of the bill as printed on Senator Obama’s website is:

"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House in September." http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/
As a further example of the intent of this bill, the following is also copied from the source above:

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

The goal is to work toward the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ . If this legislation passes, it would obligate this country to billions of dollars for world welfare. This clearly goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers.

This has been, from its inception, a country based on the principle of each individual working for and achieving goals based on the sweat of the brow. For this country to take on the responsibility and financial burden of over 1 billion souls would drive us so far under the financial curve as to permanently bankrupt us. The Liberals of Congress have, for the past 75 years, worked to turn this country into a totally dependent entitlement society. The Soviets finally realized that type of society does not work and they collapsed for trying. Now, our Liberal-led Congress under the tutelage of House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid want to contribute to turning the rest of humanity into a completely dependent entitlement world.

When I first found out about this bill, I contacted Senator Salazar (D-CO) to urge him to work to defeat this bad piece of legislation. He sent this response:

"As you know, S.2433 would direct the Secretary of State to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.S.2433 currently awaits action in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am not a member. However, please rest assured that I am fully committed to combating poverty, disease, and hunger around the world, and that I will consider S.2243 with that commitment in mind should it come to the full Senate for consideration."

Senator Salazar is playing very loose and free with your and my money, with the intent of sending it around the world. It was always obvious that Senator Salazar was sucking on Ted Kennedy’s Kool-Aid, but this time he has really gone too far. I urge all of my readers to contact their respective Senators to urge that they work to defeat this really bad piece of legislation.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan