Feb 26, 2010

Only One Answer

There is only one answer to the turmoil in this nation; there is only one way that America will ever be healed. Simply put, we need God in America again.

The gospel singer Carmen wrote a song a couple decades ago called "America Again." I encourage you to watch the video below.


Inner Turmoil

This entry will serve more as a personal reflection than any other article I commonly write. Normally I would keep this to myself, or pen articles dealing with certain issues. Yet when I find that I am kept awake at early hours in the morning due to such disturbing thoughts, I must find release. That release is what I shall write here.

I am facing a personal struggle as I attend college. The Political Science class I'm taking, Intro to American Government, is frustrating me to no end. What I am dealing with is brainwashing and indoctrination on an insidiously evil level.

It started out with the professor twisting around common definitions: Conservative & conservative, Liberal & liberal. Lower case conservative is what we as Americans consider in this country - limited government, freedom, all the rights and liberties that we are currently fighting for. Upper case Conservative is how the rest of the world views that ideology - large government, limited personal liberties, etc. The same is done with Liberal and liberal, where the definitions are completely twisted. The professor does not teach America's view of the two philosophies, but the world's view. As such, many students become confused, an issue that the professor has pointed out. Yet the results are the same: Conservativism is taught as something virtually opposed to freedom where as Liberalism embodies it.

Next is the definition of the term "Feminism," as taught by this professor. According to her, anyone who supports equality (be it based upon sex, religious persuasion, racial differences, etc) is a Feminist. It is no longer taught as an ideology of extremist women who loath men.

Then the term "Environmentalist" is defined as anyone who promotes stewardship of the world's natural resources - which is of course opposed to how people have always accepted the term of environmentalist - those who engage in movements such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), or the "global warming" scare mongers.

Finally, there is the definition concerning "Fascism" where we are taught that it is a "right-winged totalitarian government."

As a result, students are taught that if they come across anyone who defines themselves as a Conservative, who is right winged, and is also opposed to feminism and environmental movements, to view those people as the enemy.

When I asked the professor where these definitions originated, she became visibly flustered and said that she didn't know, but that they just "evolved over time."

Next comes the confusion of what a Democracy and a Republic is. I have her on record, via my digital recorder, as stating that a Republic and a Democracy are pretty much the same thing. In fact, according to her, those two terms are interchangeable. This is an outright lie, as a Republic like the United States is not a Democracy.

Then of course is the text book used for this class. I will not get into details here concerning it, as I have previously written an article on it dealing with just a single chapter of its contents. The book does not get any better.

The last straw happened this past Wednesday where she showed a video which proclaims to show how freedom of speech is being attacked in this country. Who are the villains? Bloggers such as myself, and reporters such as Bill O'Reilly and David Horowitz. As well, McCarthy was labeled a monster when he headed investigations into prominent Communists. It does not matter that after the fall of Communist Russia, those whom were put on trial were, according to Russia's own records, exactly what they were accused of.

Worst of all was the treatment given to Ward Churchill. He was portrayed as a persecuted saint, and while they were playing in the background an interview of him where he blamed America for 9-11, video was shown of victims jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers. Those victims had only two options: either being slowly roasted alive, or having a quick death on the pavement below. After that segment was shown, I could stand no more. I walked out in the middle of class.

A liberal friend once asked me why I take this so personal. How could I formulate a response to her, one that she could understand? Would she understand that it is not for myself that I am so concerned and angry, but for those multitudes of minds who enter our universities and end up being brainwashed in to believing that evil is good? Would she understand if I tried to describe how a sea of American soldiers fought and died so that we could have liberty - only to have that liberty lost by bits and pieces at a time as each day arrives? Would she understand if I told her that I am extremely concerned for my two young daughters - daughters who are being raised in a country that welcomes Islamic Extremism with open arms while at the same time continuously launches attacks upon Christianity?

I knew that this was going on in our universities. I fact, I expected it. However, I was unprepared for the outright assault on the foundations of America. I attend one of the more "conservative" universities in the nation. I shudder to consider how such topics are taught in other settings of "higher education" where campus policy more openly leans towards the liberal leftist ideology.

Yes, I am struggling with an inner turmoil. I loath having to attend that class, knowing that any objections I raise will be scoffed at or thrown back into my face. I become sickened in my heart when I witness the transformation into progressive liberals already occurring within the souls of my classmates. Yet I remain. I remain because I want to be fully informed about what these socialist professors are teaching our children. For with that information, I will fight back with the pen and boldly confront the evil where it resides. I will not surrender, no matter the cost.

Feb 25, 2010

Maintaining a Verticle Separation of Powers

As published on American Thinker:


Maintaining a vertical separation of powers
Philip Damon

In all matters where upon liberty is the purposed goal of a united citizenry, active vigilance must be practiced at all times to prevent governments from devouring those rights which free people embrace. Thus it was that when the United States was formed, those freedoms were kept in the forefront of its founders' hearts and minds. Thirteen colonies joined together as States, individual entities united in their desire for independent liberty, under a unifying federal government and purposed to remain as such. With that intent firmly implanted upon their souls, the founders proceeded to craft what is perhaps one of the world's most influential documents: the Constitution of the United States.

Only seventeen powers are enumerated to congress as listed under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United States Constitution. In addition, the ninth amendment to the Constitution stipulates that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The tenth amendment goes even further to state that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yet some proclaim that the Constitution is a "Living Document," vague in its wording, and hence, should be interpreted according to judicial opinion. Interestingly, as David Fowler points out, the term "Living Document" was not coined until 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt "appointed eight justices to the High Court who radically accommodated their 'interpretation' of the Constitution to comport with Roosevelt's expansion of central government authority and power." Up until the Civil War and the influences of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt, the Constitution was the strict Rule of Law for the United States, taken literally and as its writers intended.

This proposes a conundrum to those who maintain the "Living Document" theory. If the Constitution is so vague, how were our national leaders able to apply Constitutional law prior to judicial legislation? As the website FoundingFathers.info describes, the leaders were able to find their answers via the Federalist Papers - a collection of writings that describes the intent of the Constitution's writers. Published during the years of 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers is a series of essays outlining the new Constitutional government: how it would operate, its limits, and why it was the best choice for the United States.

Vertical separation of powers between the States and the Federal Government was intended with only limited powers constitutionally derived for the Fed. The United States Constitution was written and amended with this concept in mind, and has been maintained throughout the years. However, that concept has been under attack since 1937 and the states are losing the battle.


Philip Damon is an English major and maintains the blog: The Troubled Patriot. He may be contacted at thetroubledpatriot@gmail.com

Feb 23, 2010

Romney Stumps for McCain

Sigh - and the Republican party wonders why people say it needs to change? Add Romney to the list of people whom no longer have my support.

From the AP:

BOSTON – Mitt Romney is endorsing former rival John McCain as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee fights to keep his Senate seat.

Romney said in a statement Tuesday the Arizona senator's "record of service and sacrifice for America is honored by all." The former Massachusetts governor added, "It's hard to imagine the U.S. Senate without John McCain."


McCain may have had an honorable service record in the military,but he certainly doesn't have a good record for "service" in the Senate. Contrary to Romney, it is quite easy to imagine (dream of?) the Senate without McCain!

Feb 21, 2010

Trouble in France

Jesse Petrilla, a Republican running for City Council in Rancho Santa Margarita recently went to France. While there, he witnessed an Islamic demonstration. This will happen in America as well if we don't stop being PC towards the militants within our own borders.


Feb 15, 2010

The Great Defection

As I said concerning the Massachusetts election for the U.S. Senate, the Democrats are running for cover and do not want Obama to campaign for them. For further proof of this, take a look at the LA Time's piece, "Some Democrats keep distance from Obama:"

Aligning themselves too closely with the White House could be a strategic mistake ahead of the midterm election, they fear. It's an approach that has the administration's tacit blessing.

Reporting from Washington - As President Obama's approval ratings sag and the mood of voters sours, some Democratic congressional candidates are distancing themselves from the White House, with the back-channel blessing of party officials.


If you want a true marker of the effectiveness of a sitting President, you simply need to look at his party. Never before in the annals of U.S. History has this ever happened. Yet the reality of the situation is that it isn't simply the President that Americans are angry with, it's the Democrat party as a whole.

Every single Democrat voted in favor of the disastrous "health care reform" bill, despite the fact that the majority of Americans did not want it. With the House and Senate being under Democrat control for the past few years, American's have witnessed their country fall into the worse recession since The Great Depression - some economists believe that our current decline is even worse than that. The Democrats spent eight years blaming the Bush administration along with all Republicans for the decline, yet they soon realized that Americans are waking up to the truth of the situation. It has been the Democrats who have economically ruined this country.

It is ironic that those communities who voted heavily in favor for Obama and his cronies are now facing extreme hardships. From the article quoted above:

Cardoza's district went heavily for Obama, but it has been devastated by the recession. One county he represents, Stanislaus, has the highest foreclosure rate in the state, with 1 out of every 107 homes receiving a foreclosure notice last month. Cardoza has suggested that Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan needs to resign for failing to deliver needed financial assistance.


On the heels of such knowledge, America is witnessing a storm of resignations from prominent Democrats. They know, even though they won't publicly admit it, that their party is about to witness one of the most stunning defeats ever in the history of the United States.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people.

Feb 13, 2010

Ideological Indoctrination

The textbook used for my political science class - Introduction to American Government - is Keeping the Republic, 3rd Brief Edition written by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright. For verification purposes, here's a link to it's listing on Amazon.com. I'm simply going to post verbatim some of what the authors are telling their readers. I'll post my own comments as well.

In the introduction to chapter 2 of the book, the authors spend a couple paragraphs discussing Timothy McVeigh and the terrorist act that he committed. Following that, the authors write:

McVeigh's claim to be protecting the U.S. Constitution against the U.S. government itself puts him in the company of thousands of American militia members, everyday men and women who say that they are the ideological heirs of the American Revolution ... Today's so-called Patriot groups claim that the federal government has become as tyrannical as the British government ever was, that it deprives citizens of their liberty and over-regulates their everyday lives (Barbour Pg. 41).

Sound familiar, friends? There's more.

They go so far as to claim that federal authority is illegitimate. Militia members reject a variety of federal laws, from those limiting the weapons that individual citizens can own, to those imposing taxes on income, to those requiring the registration of motor vehicles. They maintain that government should stay out of individual lives, providing security at the national level perhaps, but allowing citizens to regulate and protect their own lives. Some militias go even further. Many militia members are convinced, for instance, that the United Nations is seeking to take over the United States (and that the top U.S. officials are letting this happen)(Barbour p. 41). - emphasis mine.

As can be seen, if you feel that the government is huge, that it is illegally regulating intimate aspects of private citizens' lives, that it should only provide protection, and that the United Nations is a corrupt organization bent on the "New World Order," and that our leaders have not been preventing this (NAFTA, Global Warming, etc), then you are part of a militia. That's right, fellow Tea Party compatriots, this book is talking about you.

The book then focuses on the early history of the United States:

Schoolchildren in the United States have had the story of the American founding pounded into their heads. From the moment they start coloring grateful Pilgrims and cutting out construction paper turkeys in grade school, the founding is a recurring focus of their education, and with good reason. Democrat societies...rely on the consent of their citizens to maintain lawful behavior and public order. A commitment to the rules and goals of the American system requires that we feel good about that system. What better way to stir up good feelings and patriotism than by recounting thrilling stories of bravery and derring-do on the part of selfless heroes dedicated to the cause of American liberty?

The history of the American founding has been told from many points of view. You are probably most familiar with this account: The early colonists escaped to America to avoid religious persecution in Europe. Having arrived on the shores of the New World, they built communities that allowed them to practice their religions in peace and govern themselves as free people. When the tyrannical British king made unreasonable demands on the colonists, they had no choice but to protect their liberty by going to war and by establishing a new government of their own.

But sound historical evidence suggests that the story is more complicated...After much struggle among themselves, the majority of Americans decided that those agendas could be better and more profitable carried out if they broke their ties with England (Barbour pg. 42,43). Emphasis mine.


This is indoctrination, pure and simple. Instead, let the facts speak for themselves. One must simply read the Declaration of Independence to see the truth as to why our Founding Fathers chose independence. Among some of the reasons listed:

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
The "He" referred to in the Declaration is the King of England. What I have listed above is only a smattering of the reasons our founders gave. Yet it is quite plain to see that the founders were concerned with their liberties, not with certain "agendas." To say otherwise is to re-write history in the shadow of ideologies that deserve to remain within the darkness from which it sprouts.

The book continues on within chapter 2 describing the "evolution" of the U.S. Constitution. It brings to light the Articles of Confederation which is described as: our first constitution, created the kind of government the founders...preferred. The rules...shows the states' jealousy of their power (Barbour pg. 50). Emphasis mine

The description continues with how the states placed an emphasis on retaining their own powers by not relinquishing it to a higher authority. A negative emphasis is placed upon that stance while also pointing out the true facts that there were problems with the original documents. However, the text diverges into a "blame game" where the rich were ultimately responsible for the issues the nation was facing at the time.

The radical poverty of some Americans seemed particularly unjust to those hardest hit, especially in the light of the rhetoric of the Revolution about equality for all (Barbour pg. 51).


The writers obvious intent is to show that there was an extreme imbalance concerning wealth which was unconnected to the claims of those who advocated for a revolution. Notice the strong emphasis on the descriptives "radical poverty" and "rhetoric." While there was indeed injustice under the Articles of Confederation which lead to Shay's Rebellion, things were not as dire as described by the authors.

Keeping the Republic then gives a brief summary of the debates leading to the writing of the Constitution. It mentions the Virginia Plan (stating a preference for large, more prosperous states) and the New Jersey Plan (described as a reinforcement, not a replacement of the Articles of Confederation). Once again, the wording reveals the ideology of the text book's authors.

It then goes on to give a brief description of the Constitution - the articles, what powers they grant, etc. While describing powers granted, the authors delve into how the Constitution can be amended. They state, and I quote:


amendability - that is, the fact that founders provided for a method of amendment, or change, that allows the Constitution to grow and adapt to new circumstances. In fact, they provided for two methods: the formal amendment process outlined in the Constitution, and an informal process that results from the vagueness of the document and the evolution of the role of the courts (Barbour pg. 63, 64).

Notice something here? This is the liberal ideology which states that the United States Constitution is a "living document," and as such can be interpreted differently over time. In fact, there is only one way for the Constitution to be changed, and that is through an act of Congress. Activist judges such as we have today are violating the Constitution by applying their personal spin while "interpreting." Yet judges are not the only ones at fault for this. A very recent example can be given in relation to the health care debates.

In October of 2009, a reporter from CNS asked Pelosi where the Constitution authorizes government to force citizens to purchase health insurance. Her response was, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The article goes on to state: Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

This is a prime example of what happens when people "interpret" the Constitution as a "living document." In addition to effectively proclaiming the Constitution as a changing document, the authors also give validity to the courts in creating law.

Naturally, by establishing how a given law is to be understood, the courts (the agents of judicial power) end up making law as well. Our constitutional provisions for the establishment of the judiciary are brief and vague (Barbour pg. 60).


As can be seen, a particular ideology is taught to university students to view those who oppose government control over their lives as wrong (referencing McVeigh), that the history "pounded into our children" is wrong, a "jealous view" of states rights is extreme, the rich have always oppressed the poor, that the Constitution is a vague document open to interpretation, and that judges have the right to create laws.


*Special thanks to a reader who's volunteered to be my editor. Kuddos to you!

Feb 6, 2010

Tea Party - Losing Its Way

During 2009, millions of people across the United States protested in what became known as "Tea Parties." These gatherings brought together people of all creeds. Republicans and Democrats stood side by side to protest the destruction of the United States as we know it. With them stood blacks, whites, and everything else in between. Men stood with women, atheists with Christians, heterosexuals with homosexuals - it was something that bypassed all the barriers that normally kept people apart. As well, angry Americans went to town halls to let their representatives know exactly where they stood on issues which were important to them.

The main focus of the protests were the established political elite. They were sick and tired of those who entered into office for numerous terms (mostly life long ones). Those who were entrenched in office soon found that they could pretty much get away with anything and still be re-elected with hardly a whimper of protest. The elites then began to feel entitled to their power, and if some new "upstart" entered the field, and if that person didn't pull the particular party line, that new candidate would be effectively squashed.

Tea Partiers didn't accept a dime of support from any political party as all funds were donated by individuals. Speeches made at the rallies lambasted entrenched leadership on both sides of the isle. The participants stood their ground among assaults from progressives both at home and in the mainstream news media. Terms such as bigotry, racism, sexism, and intolerance were thrown their way, yet the Tea Partiers stance remained firm. They didn't care about what they were called. They just wanted to save their nation for their children.

Something is happening, though, which is perverting the movement. Some elites are now working hard to turn this movement into yet another political party. This is something that disgusts me to the very core of my being. America has enough political parties as it is, we don't need another one. What we need are moral men and women to replace the corrupt ones we already have in power.

Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily, along with others who became leaders in the Tea Party movement, are joining forces to get a new beast off the ground. Having started Thursday, and going through today, there is an event entitled: The First Tea Party Convention.

Some may say that this isn't true, that this isn't an effort to start a new political party. Instead, this is just a gathering of people from across the nation getting together to work on the 2010 elections. Well, just take a look below concerning what is being proposed. From Fox News:

If a particular candidate meets the proposed Tea Party criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots Tea Party support.

Once elected to office, members would be required to join a Congressional Tea Party Caucus, attend regular meetings and be held accountable for the votes they cast. Those who stray from the Tea Party path would risk losing it's support and a likely re-election challenge.

...

Organizers suggest creating political action committees, a large scale fundraising apparatus, and starting the development of a national network of pro bono attorneys to deal with the myriad legal-political riddles that such undertakings face in campaigns and elections.


Shockingly, there are people now trying to hijack the movement and place restrictions on whom can get grass root support, and whom cannot. Just as the elites in the Democrat and Republican parties, the elites that arose from the Tea Party protests are now starting to dictate what can and cannot happen. What will the result of this be? Will the millions who protested last year be prevented from protesting this year (or any future one) under the label "Tea Party?"

One of the speakers invited to attend the conference is Sarah Palin, a person that Tea Partiers strongly supported during 2009. Palin quickly became the sweetheart of Americans during the 2008 elections. Indeed, she is probably the only reason McCain ever made it to be the final challenger to Obama. Conservatives who went to the poles to vote during the Presidential election weren't voting for McCain, they were voting for Palin. Even then, it wasn't enough to get him elected President.

After the elections were over, Palin left her position as Gov. of Alaska to support the conservative movement. Indeed, she made a comment that many across the nation applauded. She stated that she would support any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, if that person supported core conservative values. She then wrote a very successful book and toured the nation selling it.

Yet something has happened to her. I don't know if it was fame and fortune, promises made to McCain, or what have you, but her moral stance has become corrupted. She is actively stumping for McCain against opponent J.D. Hayworth.

Hayworth, who had a conservative radio talk show that he had to abandon because of the stink McCain threw up, is the epitome of what the Tea Partiers were seeking. He's conservative to the core, has no inhibitions when it comes to what's right and wrong, and he seeks to overthrow one of the Republican Party's entrenched elitists. Yet Palin is supporting McCain over him. What happened to her promise of supporting whomever, regardless of party affiliation - not worrying about her popularity with party elitists? Regardless, she was invited to speak at the Tea Party convention.

What once was almost an impromptu gathering of Americans across the nation to protest corruption is itself turning into what its very participants were against!

I participated at a Tea Party protest in my home town. Although my contributions were not as large as others, I did attend planning meetings and I became a representative of the movement as I was a greeter. In addition, I was also one of those who made a speech. I believed, and still do, in the base principals of the Tea Party movement. However, I do not agree with the direction it is going. I do not want yet another party telling me who I can and cannot vote for. I do not want to be associated with another movement that compromises its core convictions simply to get it's candidates elected.

As of right now, I am wavering on whether I will continue to support the Tea Party movement. If it continues down the path it seems to have chosen, it will be leaving me behind. I'm certain that I won't be the only person who steps back.

If the Tea Party gatherings are to be successful, they need to go back to their roots. They need to stop this unholy union that seems to be taking place and remember why they stood up to protest in the first place.

I will not belong to a movement which states as part of it's goals:

Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform, though without any specific litmus or purity test.


I joined the Tea Party movement to support those who love the Constitution of the United States, not those who support any particular party.

Feb 5, 2010

What is a Nuclear Power?

I obviously don't know the definition of "Nuclear Power" when it is use to define nations who have nuclear weapons capability. For example, my Political Science professor stated that Israel is a nuclear power while North Korea isn't.

My understanding always came from this: A nation is labeled a nuclear power when is has been verified to have nuclear weapons. I guess the fact that Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons (although it is assumed to have them by a majority of analyst) while having actual data of North Korea detonating two nuclear bombs would mean that North Korea is certainly one with Israel probably being one.

For example, a recent article from the Washington Times reports how North Korea is suspected of adopting their current nuclear weaponry to include nuclear tipped missiles. The article shows how North Korea has already performed two underground nuclear tests, and how

On North Korea, the report disclosed for the first time the U.S. intelligence estimate of when Pyongyang will be able to reach the technically challenging threshold of producing a nuclear device small enough to be carried on a missile.


Concerning Israel, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reports:

Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.


Interesting. A nation which we know for certain has nuclear weapons is not labeled as a "nuclear power," while a nation that still has not yet admitted to having them is labeled as such.

Thanks for clearing that up for your class, professor! It's amazing how much the leftists in college love Israel and are always trying give the nation such glowing praise!

Feb 2, 2010

Blaming Bush

Monday in my Political Science class, Obama's speech to the union came up. In response, one of the students echoed Obama's claims that Bush was at fault for what is happening today in America. I then asked, "How long will the Democrats continue blaming Bush? Obama has been in office for a year now, and the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate for almost four years."

The professor responded by laughing that comment off and stating that, in politics, everyone always plays the blame game towards the previous administration.

Not true.

When W. Bush came into office, he did not launch into a blame game against the Clinton administration. As a matter of fact, when it became apparent that the Clinton administration bore some responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had the Justice Department quash what they called, "unfounded rumors." In what could have been a perfect opportunity for Bush to strike out at Clinton (remember the damaged keyboards left behind and the stolen artifacts the Clintons took with them when they left office?), the President instead looked to unify the country in the face of Islamic Fascism. During Bush's entire eight year term, he always looked to unify the country, but it was the Democrats who were intent on division.

Indeed, the blame game was strong even then with the evil accusation that "Bush stole the election!" The Democrats did everything in their power to demonize Bush and the rallying cry for all progressives soon became: "Bush Lied! People Died!" If anything, Bush is at fault for swallowing his pride and not being more persistent in pointing out the Democrat's hypocrisy as well as the damage that they have continuously caused the United States. Yet, as Bush is a man of character, he did everything he could to try and unite this country during one of its most trying times.

When Reagan was elected President, did he continuously blame the Carter administration for the mess the country found itself in? Absolutely not. Reagan took the reigns of this country and turned it's course on to the road of prosperity.

It is high time that the progressives and liberals all over this country start facing the fact that they are the ones who continuously cause divisions. They are the ones who continue to bring up racism. They are the ones who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. As always, they continue to spitefully accuse others of all sorts of hurtful and unfounded acts.

This is perhaps one of the least of the lies portrayed in today's classrooms of "higher learning."

Feb 1, 2010

The Troubled Patriot Update - February 2010

As predicted, my postings have slowed down a bit due to my college schedule. However, it has provided me some new topics on which write about.

In the near future, I will be discussing how America's universities are actively brainwashing your children. I'll discuss why those who graduate from college despise those who: are conservatives, oppose feminism, oppose the environmental movement, are right of center in political views, have a confused understanding of Republic vs. Democracy, oppose Christianity, support Islam, abhor Israel, believe in evolution and global warming, and ultimately vote people like Obama into office. I kid you not, I am facing this indoctrination process on a daily basis.

My heartfelt thanks goes out to my parents. As a result of their personal conviction to raise their children to love God and love country, I have firm ground to stand upon. My parents never once backed away from tough issues, and they always stood resolute no matter what opposition came their way. Sadly, by observing the youth today, this is not the case with this current generation's parents. They have allowed government and socialist liberals to do the parenting for them. The result is what we have witnessed in recent years. I must be blunt and ask you - how are you raising your children?

Although my postings are not going to be as frequent as in the past, I strongly feel that the issues I'll be writing about will confront the core of corruption that has assaulted our country. As well, I will occasionally be posting links to articles I have come across that I believe need to be read. I'm doing this mainly because I don't have the time myself to dedicate to such issues.

Lastly, I have posted a link on my student profile to this blog. I honestly hope that my professors and fellow classmates read what I write. To those of you who do, please be aware that what you read here will be in direct opposition to most of the ideologies which are proclaimed on campus. You will be challenged in your beliefs, and some of you will be offended. However, I do ask that you keep your mind and heart open, and be willing to listen to the truth.

To those of you who have remained faithful readers and supporters, you have my thanks. Some have not appreciated my bluntness and have gone into the deserted wasteland of Political Correctness. Yet as I have stated time and time again, I will not compromise my principals - principals I believe with all my heart that our Founding Fathers held dear.

Philip Damon
February 1, 2010

Of All The Moronic…

Of all the moronic, imbecilic, stupid, and insane things to do, the United States has warned Iran that they are deploying anti-missile weapon platforms to the Gulf. Why would you even consider a warning? It would have been better to say that the weapons have already arrived and are ready to respond to aggressor actions. Alas, no. They have informed the pariahs of the Middle East that they are currently deploying weapons systems. That gives the Mad Mullahs a window to strike before the weapon platforms are in place.

To make matters even worse, the weapon platforms themselves have been proven unreliable in a very recent test where

A U.S. attempt to shoot down a ballistic missile mimicking an attack from Iran failed after a malfunction in a radar built by Raytheon Co (RTN.N), the Defense Department said.


So let me see if I can understand this correctly: at the same time that the United States warns Iran that it is deploying a “missile shield,” The U.S. also informs them (and the rest of the world) that the technology is defective. Ahmadinejad must be quaking with fear in his camel-skin sandals right now!

As moronic as this is, I cannot lay the blame entirely at Obama’s feet. He’s simply following an insane policy used by both President Bushs and President Clinton. When Iraq was invaded, what did the United States do? They gave the camel jockeys in power a tremendous amount of warning - even a date! When the U.S., in effect, took over “peace keeping” missions during the Muslim slaughter of Christians in the Serbia/Croatian conflict, they pretty much warned them when the strikes were going to happen. In fact, that last conflict that the United States engaged in without giving a definite time frame for its entrance was the 1989 raid in Panama where Noriega was captured and brought to justice.

Am I the only one who sees how wrong and demented this is? Does anyone in the positions of power have even the smallest amount wisdom what so ever?

Israel should just ignore the United States and the rest of the world when it comes to their security. The world is sitting back on its heels and allowing hate-filled Muslims to run all over them. The world is allowing Iran to construct its nuclear beast with barely a whimper. A missile “shield” only sounds good until you realize that it has but to fail once for nuclear fallout to happen. Just once, folks.

Don’t think that the United States (the Great Satan) is immune from Iran’s sadomasochist schemes either.

Anyone who believes that it’s ok to slaughter their own citizens - nor anyone who believes that to bring in their “savior” they need to start a world conflict - will stop until the world is in a full fledge nuclear conflict.

Israel, please do the rest of the world a favor – bomb Iran back into the Stone Age (you know, how they were just a few decades ago?)!

George Washington