About Me

Name: Truth & Consequences
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Memorial Day Prayer

Dear God:

I pray for the fallen, those brave souls who gave their all for this country, never flinching from their duty, whatever they were called to do, and whether the leadership decisions that brought them to their last mission were well considered or not. They have given all they had, without question.

But I pray especially for the fathers and sons, mothers and daughters of these fallen princes, for they have to live on without, and doubtless would have taken their place without question, even if only to save themselves from such unbearable pain. Nothing can compare to the suffering endured by a mother who loses her child, or a child who loses his mother or father before their time.

The fallen sacrifice their lives; the family sacrifices the rest of their lives. They will never see what their beloved’s life could have become, will no more share life’s trials and triumphs with them, never again see their smile or share their warmth on a cold winter’s night. They live in a sea of grief and will carry that wound for eternity. So, please God, bestow Your Tenderness and Grace especially on these families, whose loss can never be repaid.

But God, I pray also for the rest of us, for we lose too. We lose what could have been, from among the most selfless, principled, promising souls of our living generations. I would gladly exchange any ten Harvard graduates for one serviceman who willingly walks at the knifepoint. He has more guts, more integrity, more fortitude and likely more resourcefulness than the lot of them combined.

So, God, please let not their ultimate sacrifice be in vain. See to it that the objectives they were deployed to obtain are achieved. See to it that we have the satisfaction of realizing their mission successfully concluded. God, preserve this country for which they gave their lives, and give us all the wisdom, humility, and virtue to fully comprehend and gratefully acknowledge their sacrifices for what they are; for "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

Amen

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Small Change

By Jim Simpson 

If the word “change” was a female, today she would be hiding in a shelter for battered women. Everywhere we hear the trumpet call for change. Change in Iraq, change in healthcare, change in our economy, change in Washington – change, change, change. We are being beaten over the head with it! Change has become Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, while Hillary Clinton contrasts herself by claiming she’s for Real change. These candidates repeat the word like lurid catcalls from street whores. It is mind numbing.

But what “Change” are they talking about? Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Since the beginning of this election season Barack and Hillary have basically been in a shouting match to see who can out “Left” the other. Among Democrats, what is new about that?

Both candidates claim to want troops out of Iraq. Here, change is nothing more than the decades old, tired, hackneyed and beaten to death phrase “America out of … (name your country, in this case obviously, Iraq),” although, the way they say it is, in Nancy Pelosi’s words: “smart.” This is not a compliment, only recognition that Democrats have managed to develop some marketing skills with age.

And if you are so ignorant as to miss the unmistakable replay of Vietnam War era protests in this idiotic shouting match, then you must at least acknowledge that this “new plan” for “change” has been in effect since the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As you recall, mere weeks after voting for the war, Congressional Democrats jumped back on the anti-war bandwagon with shouts of “Quagmire!” “Wrong War, Wrong Time,” etc. As I said, “America out of Iraq.”

So the Democrats’ calls for change in Iraq are only new if you think a four-year-old concerted policy aimed at thwarting our efforts in this war at every turn is new. But they don’t even mean it. Unless they are as mindless as their campaign slogans, they must recognize that leaving Iraq now would be disastrous. Indeed, both have admitted as much. So much for change.

Hillary’s website personifies that old saw: “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS.” Under the heading “Strengthening the Middle Class,” middle class tax cuts are the first bullet. Sounds good! But a read of the pages-long fine print finds only one vague reference near the end about “extending middle class tax relief.” What on earth does that mean? If you believe the Democrats, the middle class has gotten no tax relief for the past eight years – Bush only cut taxes for the wealthy. If that’s true, how can you extend what you never got?!? And the word “extend” itself does not suggest new cuts after all, just a continuation of what was before.

She does, however, promise to “return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s.” Well if your tax rates are “extended” while everyone else’s go up I suppose it could look like a tax cut if you were one of the lucky saps to avoid the increase she is talking about here. Another proposal included in this tome was to introduce earmark reform by developing “a set of budget rules similar to those we had in the 90s which required us to fund new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas.” She is referring here to PAY-AS-YOU-GO spending restrictions, called PAYGO for short. Only trouble is, it has already been done. The Dems restored that mindless administrative fig leaf in 2004, and as I have thoroughly explained elsewhere, it is a complete sham.

Seems like Déjà vu all over again!

But seriously, I ask you, please, I am scratching my eyes out, what is new here? Where is the Change? What policy is being described that has not been repeatedly flogging and fleecing We The Exhausted Taxpayers for the past thirty years? Please tell me! Change? Gawd! If this is change, please, please keep it! We’ve had way too much of it already! We’re drowning in change.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both cut from the same ultra-leftist cloth. Either one would offer the standard menu of ultra-liberal approaches to government – which is to say they would both be walking disasters. But new? Different? Hardly. They are no different – just more extreme. 

However they are right in one regard. If either one is elected, they will make those changes, and this country will go in a radically different direction than it has been for the past eight years. It will be the accelerated path to ruin socialism always guarantees, and this time, it may well be permanent. Whatever John McCain’s failings, they pale by comparison to the train wreck we can expect from either Hillary or Barack. Their election could spell the end for our constitutional republic. This may well be the most important election in our nation’s history. Vote well.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homegrown Terrorists for President; Part I

By Jim Simpson

Much has been made in recent days of Barack Obama’s associations with really questionable people, for example former Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama’s racist, agitator “pastor” Jeremiah Wright, who in addition to his charming hate speech, apparently supports the terrorist group, Hamas.

But this is truly baffling. If the national media is so foursquare behind Obama’s candidacy, as they seem to have been up to now, and are genuinely concerned with Obama’s radical roots, why on earth didn’t they long ago expose Hillary Clinton’s much deeper, lifelong commitment to, and involvement in, virulently anti-American, radical leftist groups? Why aren’t they doing it now?

For that matter, why did they dredge up the information on Obama at all? Everyone knows that advancement in today’s Democrat party requires making the rounds in leftist circles, paying homage to prominent leftists and cultivating the active support of movement radicals like Ayers. It's a rite of passage. These days, if you aren't a radical leftist, you aren't really a Democrat, as all those "moderate" Democrats elected in the 2006 cycle have since discovered.

Radical communist chic has been "mainstreamed." Politicians like Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, to name but a few, all attend cocktail parties with the Bill Ayers of the world. They all think Danny Ortega’s communist Sandinistas are swell guys. They all think we can “do business” with Hamas, Syria and Iran. They all still think the North Vietnamese communists liberated South Vietnam! They all think America is the bad guy!

And for the most part, our national news media heartily agrees with them!

To be criticized for carousing with terrorists is just silly! NBC’s Brian Williams even suggested our own founding fathers were terrorists. Michael Moore called Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq “Minutemen!” So what’s the big deal? The title of a Chicago Sun-Times article on the subject says it all: "Obama's Ayers Connections Never Bugged Anyone." They don't care. They really don't!

So, if it’s not their concern about Obama's terrorist connections that has the media raking him over the coals – and I assure you it is not – then what is it?

The scrutiny Obama is receiving has nothing to do with his radical roots, but rather the leftist media's recognition that an Obama candidacy, floating tenuously as it is, on nothing more than flowery rhetoric (hot air, in other words), could well sink Democrats' chances to regain the Presidency.

Despite his recent win in North Carolina, and yet more death knells for Clinton's candidacy, I will go out on a limb and repeat: the fact is Hillary is and always has been the more electable Democrat. Maybe the media is finally realizing this.

An even more cynical view however, is that the media artificially inflated Obama’s candidacy specifically to make for a heated race, thereby giving all Democrat candidates a lot of free publicity. Whatever the case, one can argue that this race has generated an unprecedented amount of press.

And while it appears the Democrats are tearing themselves apart now, leftists know something many of us overlook: the public generally has a very short memory.

I like Rush Limbaugh, but this time, I am afraid Rush may be all wrong. His “Operation Chaos” and other Republicans’ efforts to single out Obama are playing into the hands of the Democrats’ endgame. I believe the endgame is and always has been a Clinton candidacy with Obama as V.P.

Are you laughing? Hear me out first.

This idea has been repeatedly floated by the Clinton camp. And while Obama haughtily spurns such overtures, do you really doubt he would pass up the opportunity if he realized his prospects were otherwise doomed? Obama, like Clinton, is a leftist Democrat, which means practically everything he does and says is pure posturing.

Bait and switch; that is the essence of the leftist political tactic. Bill Clinton was a master, but they all do it. In order to woo conservative Pennsylvania voters, Hillary Clinton recently even went so far as to claim she supports the Second Amendment! What kind of idiots does she think we are? Pretty big ones, apparently.
 
And with justification, for today Hillary Clinton is considered, even among Republicans, as the more moderate candidate! This is truly Orwellian. The entire notion is preposterous, yet because she made the one calculated move of supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom in the beginning, she is now hailed as a "Reagan Democrat!" Democrats change like chameleons to suit their immediate needs, and usually the mass media works overtime to cover for them.
 
So I ask you, would Obama have thrown Rev. Wright under the bus if the media never mentioned him? Would he have pretended not to know William Ayers if the connection had not been revealed? Obama, like Clinton, will turn on a dime if his political fortunes are at stake – and make it sound just as convincing as all the other contradictory statements he has made. So why would you believe he is serious in spurning Hillary while being skeptical of his refutation of Rev. Wright?

A Clinton/Obama presidency would bring an abrupt end to all the internecine fighting, heal all wounds and create a ticket all democrats could enthusiastically support. The media meanwhile would go head over heels in their fawning for this "dream ticket" and quickly forget Obama's inconvenient, radical "past." After all, they never cared about it in the first place!

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be difficult to beat. But their victory would be certain if they somehow enticed a third party candidate to enter the race and split the Republican ticket, as Bill Clinton did with Ross Perot, twice. Remember: TWICE! And they may just have gotten their deliverance from an unlikely source: Conservative Georgia Republican Bob Barr has recently announced his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket. While he will probably not pull a lot of votes, the election promises to be tight for McCain in the best of circumstances. Bob Barr may yet become what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000.

A third-party-candidacy repeat of 1992, with a Hillary/Obama “dream ticket” has always been my nightmare, and I am afraid I am watching it unfold, praying nightly that I am wrong.
 
I know this entire theory sounds pretty outlandish, but the duplicity and Machiavellian calculations of todays' Democrat Party cannot be exaggerated. Furthermore, Hillary is so deeply entrenched in the radical leftist movement that has captured the Democrat Party that pretty much anything is possible.
 
While Obama is a radical leftist with many communist and other unsavory connections, Hillary is clearly the more dangerous of the two. She has been deeply involved with subversive movements and since college, and knows all the major players. Her election would spell an unprecedented disaster for this country, a disaster from which we may never recover.

Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House budget analyst and economist, who worked under Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. His articles have been published in the Washington Times, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune, Military Magazine and others.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »