Russian warships at DNC? Really? #DNC #Obama

Does no one in the Democratic Party have a grasp on our military and its history?

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

Source: Navy Times

This is what you get, I suppose, Admiral, when you choose to support the anti-military party in America.

Waiting on the MSM to cover this major gaffe… 3…2…1…

The Atlantic: The Military’s Deepening Geographic Divide

Very interesting information about the home states of our military at The Atlantic:  The Military’s Deepening Geographic Divide – Richard Florida – Business – The Atlantic.

The variance across states is quite substantial: 13 states are home to fewer than ten military personnel per 10,000 people, while six states have more than ten times as much and three have more than 200 military personnel per 10,000 people.

Aside from relatively high concentrations in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington state, and North Dakota, the military is overwhelmingly concentrated in two distinctive areas of the Sunbelt: The southeast running from Virgina and North Carolina through Kentucky and down through South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi; and the corridor from Texas through Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. Texas and California now drop out. The upper mid-west and the northeast, especially New England, which tend to be more liberal and left-leaning than the rest of the nation, have very low concentrations of military personnel.

 My observation — Comparing the map to the Electoral College map for the 2008 election is interesting.  Much of the higher concentrations of military personnel in the above map correlates to those states that voted “red”/Republican in the last Presidential election (map below).

Is it a coincidence?  I report, you decide. 🙂

UPDATE 2/25: GOP nixes the Dems sneak attack in the bill; Democrats more concerned about terrorist “phobias” and sleep deprivation than defending American lives

Scroll down for UDPATE.

Today, while the Obamacare kabuki theatre was well into its purposeless discussions, the Democrats in the House were busy making sure that our country is less safe from the actions of terrorists who wish us dead.

From National Review Online:

The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today.  It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

(As an aside–I watched almost the entire Obamacare summit today, so I feel really dirty and a little worn after watching Dems pull out their healthcare sob stories about people that supposedly exist.  I also grew quite tired of Obama’s pursed lips and defensive posture each time Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan clearly stated the discrepancies in the bill versus the rhetoric from Obama’s lips.)

So….I won’t comment any further on this intelligence bill article.  Andy McCarthy at National Review sums it up very well.  Here is the rest of his piece (my emphasis):

The provision is impossibly vague — who knows what “degrading” means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I’ll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to” the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

 “Waterboarding” is specified. In one sense, I’m glad they’ve done this because it proves a point I’ve been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law.  The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they’ve been saying is not true — waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute — only the CIA.

More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.

In any event, waterboarding is not defined in the bill. As Marc Thiessen has repeatedly demonstrated, there is a world of difference between the tactic as administered by the CIA and the types of water-torture methods that have been used throughout history. The waterboarding method used by the CIA involved neither severe pain nor prolonged mental harm. But it was highly unpleasant and led especially hard cases like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (i.e., well-trained, committed, America-hating terrorists) to give us information that saved American lives. The method was used sparingly — on only three individuals, and not in the last seven years. The American people broadly support the availability of this non-torture tactic in a dire emergency. Yet Democrats not only want to make it unavailable; they want to subject to 15 years’ imprisonment any interrogator who uses it.

What’s more, the proposed bill is directed at “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” conducting a “covered interrogation.” The definition of “covered interrogation” is sweeping — including any interrogation done outside the U.S., in the course of a person’s official duties on behalf of the government. Thus, if the CIA used waterboarding in training its officers or military officers outside the U.S., this would theoretically be indictable conduct under the statute.

Waterboarding is not all. The Democrats’ bill would prohibit — with a penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment — the following tactics, among others:

– “Exploiting the phobias of the individual”

– Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions

– “Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care”

– Forced nudity

– Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them — not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, “exploit his phobias”)

– Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)

– Exposure to “excessive” cold, heat or “cramped confinement” (excessive and cramped are not defined)

– “Prolonged isolation”

– “Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual”

 Naturally, all of these tactics are interspersed with such acts as forcing the performance of sexual acts, beatings, electric shock, burns, inducing hypothermia or heat injury — as if all these acts were functionally equivalent.

In true Alinskyite fashion, Democrats begin this attack on the CIA by saluting “the courageous men and women who serve honorably as intelligence personnel and as members of our nation’s Armed Forces” who “deserve the full support of the United States Congress.” Then, Democrats self-servingly tell us that Congress “shows true support” by providing “clear legislation relating to standards for interrogation techniques.” I’m sure the intelligence community will be duly grateful.

Democrats also offer “findings” that the tactics they aim to prohibit cause terrorism by fueling recruitment (we are never supposed to discuss the Islamist ideology that actually causes terrorist recruitment, only the terrible things America does to provide pretexts for those spurred by that ideology). These “findings” repeat the canards that these tactics don’t work; that they place our captured forces in greater danger (the truth is our forces captured by terrorists will be abused and probably killed no matter what we do, while our enemies captured in a conventional war will be bound to adhere to their Geneva Convention commitments — and will have the incentive to do so because they will want us to do the same); and that “their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.”

 Unmentioned by the Obama Democrats is that officers of the executive branch have a solemn moral duty to honor their commitment to protect the American people from attack by America’s enemies. If there are non-torture tactics that can get a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give us information that saves American lives, how is the use of them inconsistent with our values?

 Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

(H/T: Gay Patriot)

UPDATE 2/25/10:  From Michelle Malkin :

Well, House Republicans were on the ball and tonight, they forced the intel bill that contained the stealth measure to be pulled…..

…….House Republicans charged Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation….

…..Republicans criticized the language and the way it was introduced.

“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.).

He added that it had appeared “out of nowhere” in a manager’s amendment.

UPDATED: Thoughts on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy

The Obama administration is going full court press on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for gays serving in the military. Of course, Congress must pass a new law to overturn it, but Obama is also directing Robert Gates and military leaders to do everything they can to work around the existing law until, God forbid, Congress changes the law.

As a refresher summary on the DADT policy:

The 1993 law enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Clinton prevents homosexuals from serving openly. The policy also prohibits the military from asking recruits on the front end if they are homosexual.

It is also pertinent to note (my emphasis):

It [DADT] is, by the way, similar to the way heterosexual relations are treated as well.  Men stay away from women altogether in uniform.  It isn’t practiced, it isn’t discussed, it is frowned upon – in theory.  This isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen, any more than DADT would imply that gay sexual relations don’t happen.  It does mean that there are certain requirements in the military that comport with good discipline, and they are enforced to the extent possible. 

……But in the end, DADT has been a mainstay of operations for a while now, and revoking this policy might mean more than a little change to the military….

…..For a branch like the Marines which has as their cornerstone removing differences and enforcing sameness (or at least relegating them to unimportant status – e.g., no one can remove language barriers), it probably will have a significant affect.

So as a part of discipline, “open” heterosexuality is also something that the military frowns upon.   I see no problem with that, just as I see the DADT policy as something that enforces discipline among military members.  And the argument for promoting “sameness” rather than differences is a valid and important issue to address when speaking of the repeal of DADT.

And let’s not forget the bottom line–the US Military has a mission to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic.  That is the ultimate goal.   Issues and policies that can hinder or overshadow that goal should not be taken lightly or decided upon by the whims of “social change” agents.

 Obama had this to say in the State of the Union speech on January 27:

Obama declared during the Jan. 27 State of the Union address he would work this year “with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Well, as is his usual schtick, Obama’s making a statement that is simply not true in order push his point of view.  The DADT policy doesn’t permit the open discussion or practicing of homosexuality.  But any homosexual may serve in the military and they do.  So it is disingenuous to tout the repeal of DADT based on a lie that gays can’t serve in the military.  This line is regularly used by those who wish to repeal DADT.

In addition, many who serve have no problem serving alongside homosexuals, just as many have no problem serving alongside women.  However, many of those same people are opposed to doing away with the DADT policy.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal writes:

 It’s appropriate to convey the thoughts of at least a few contacts active in the military.  My contacts – who by the way aren’t opposed in principle to the idea of gays serving alongside them – seem to pan the idea pretty much across the board.

It is also interesting to note that many in the military are against changing the DADT policy.  And many say they will not re-enlist or continue serving in the military if the DADT law is changed to promote homosexuality in the military (my emphasis):

A Military Times survey of subscribers released in December 2008 found that 58 percent of active military personnel oppose repealing the current policy. Additionally, if the policy is overturned, nearly 10 percent said, “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” while another 14 percent said, “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” A 2006 Zogby poll found only 26 percent of military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan supported overturning the current policy.

So, it clearly seems that vast majorities of those serving in the military are against the repeal of DADT.   Why does it seem reasonable to repeal it if that is the case?

And just like many social issues of today, why is it so “urgent” to do this now?  Our military has existed for well over 200 years.   It is quite arguable that America, for many years, has had one of the best fighting forces on earth.    And it has all been achieved without mandating by law that the sexual preferences of military members must be out in the open in the name of “integrity” and “rights”.  

Just as the culture, society, traditions and founding documents of this country have sustained us for over 200 years without so-called “gay marriage”, the purposes and mission of the US Military and its members have excelled for over 200 years without open homosexuality.

Why is it so darned important now — in 2010 — in the midst of two wars to heap a huge left-leaning social change onto our military, particularly when those serving honorably don’t want it? 

I believe that DADT should not be repealed.  I do understand that decent people can disagree on this policy.   It is not hateful or bigoted for those with strong religious beliefs or lengthy military backgrounds, as two examples, to oppose gays serving openly in the military.   And it is not unreasonable for me to understand the viewpoint of those who may believe that the repealing DADT is worthwhile.

But, as in the gay marriage debate, many who push for the gay agenda, do so by getting personal and calling the opposition names instead of understanding the values for which they may be espousing.

Good example comes from blogger CDR Salamander.  CDR Salamander is for repealing DADT, but can see where Admiral Mullen’s statement on the subject offers nothing positive, but rather makes its personal by accusing the oppostition of being without “integrity”.  From CDR Salamander:

I support the repeal of DADT – but I also think that those who want to keep it are on balance people with the best interests of our nation at heart. Good people can disagree on issues of substance.

I don’t know what he was trying to do – but Admiral Mullen just made it personal, and that is sad.

“No matter how I look at the issue,” Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: “For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

I suppose that the very Navy that has promoted the Admiral to a high rank, has been without integrity for its entire existence then?   What does that make Admiral Mullen for spending his entire career in leadership of an institution that, in his words, is lacking integrity?   And as for the lying — DADT does not require anyone to lie.  There is no asking, so there is no lying.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal has a view against repealing DADT….and he doesn’t engage in personal attacks against those who think otherwise.  His reasoning makes sense:

Now for my own views.  I thought about this position within the context of the only exception that I can think of, namely, marriage.  Men and women are allowed to be married in the military.  But marriage is not performed by the Marine Corps or Army.  It is performed and recognized within and by states which have laws that govern such things.  Imposing homosexual marriage on a branch of the service just to say that there is no exception to the way gays and heterosexuals are treated under DADT is a false dilemma.  It is imposing a foreign problem on the military – a consideration that should be irrelevant to the conversation.

In a republic such as ours, laws are changed by legislative process which usually begins with advocacy.  One group or another wants a law changed or enacted, and that group presses the issue.  If gays want to marry, changing DADT isn’t the way to go.  Changing laws is the way to go.  No gay marriage (insofar as DADT applies) in the military (similar to no gay marriage in most states)  is an output (or outcome) of the debate, not an input to it.

In summary, DADT is the perfect solution to the issue.  There is to be no sexual relations with other service members, and no discussion of it.  This is true regardless of orientation.  DADT is a subset of that regulation, not an exception to it.  It doesn’t prevent gays from serving in the military.  Its revocation would serve no useful function, and therefore TCJ opposes its revocation unless someone can come up with something better than the false mantra that some service members must “lie about who they are.”

I’m sure this is a debate that will rage on this year.  But regardless of where you stand on the issue, you must ask yourself, “Why now and why make major social change in the midst of two wars, not to mention the pressing issues at home?”   Makes no sense.

UPDATE 2/8/10: From the blogger Villainous Company comes some interesting statistics on discharges from the military over the course of the last 30 years.  Result:

Note that in no year did DADT discharges reach even one-tenth of one percent of the active forces.

If all the losses since 1994 were combined into a single year, they still don’t come to even 1% of the total force structure.

At Villainous Company they also compared the DADT stat of  less than 1/10th of 1 percent for discharges to non-deployable women because of pregnancy.  Depending on the branch of armed services 5-26% of women are non-deployable due to pregnancy.

So VC asks the legitimate question of the military commanders who believe the military would be so weakened by continuing DADT:

If the military has decided it can easily tolerate having anywhere from 5-26% of our forces in a non-deployable status due to pregnancy, why are losses of under 1/10th of one percent unsupportable?

The answer is because repealing DADT is 99.99999% political and an attempt at further social experimentation in the military at the expense of troop cohesiveness, enlistment, and retention.

Who needs private sector experience in a “hope and change” world?

Who needs private sector experience in a “hope and change” world? Apparently not too many cabinet members in the Obama administration.

This graphic certainly explains alot.    It would explain the vast growth in government jobs made available, the lack of understanding or concrete plans for generating private sector jobs, and the disdain for capitalism that sits like a never-ending virus in the Obama administration.

Another couple of interesting tidbits:

Among President Obama, his Vice President and 15 Cabinet officers, number with military experience:  2 (Gates at Defense and Shinseki at Veterans Affairs).
Number of lawyers:  8.

This is the change that NO ONE was waiting for!

Even though Obama is clearly setting a new low standard here, in a broader sense, this graph also depicts how far from their constituents many in Washington can be, even as far back as 1909.  I mean don’t you think at least a comfortable majority of public sector experienced individuals should be a common statistic in cabinet picks?  But that hasn’t happened much in the last 100 years. 

I’m sure the Founders didn’t much count on “career politicians” and lawyers running our country.  Seems in the last hundred years, only Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes understood the need for a big dose of private sector experience when running this country….

(H/T: The American Thinker – Private Sector experienc in Obama’s cabinet…graph of the day)

Why the Left fears Sarah (and who can possibly relate to her?)

I just read an article at American Thinker about why the Left fears Sarah Palin…..and they do.

Sarah Palin has been persecuted by the Obama-loving media, the so-called print media, and left-wing attack groups since her arrival on the national stage last year.

From American Thinker, excerpts (my emphasis):

Have you ever seen so much hatred for, and vitriolic criticism of, someone who had only a brief stint on the national political stage? More than a year after the presidential election in which Sarah Palin, as the GOP nominee for Vice-President, campaigned for about three months, she is still being pilloried by the left-wing loons as though she had been elected and were actively engaged in dismantling the liberal establishment. Not a day goes by in which we don’t hear or read vicious attacks on a woman who represents the wholesome conservative values of Middle America — values that have been insidiously and incrementally eroded during the last few decades.

….What this country needs is a strong conservative leader with the courage of her convictions. Sensing those qualities in Sarah Palin, the liberal left is becoming frantic because they can’t seem to halt her popularity. The reason they’re panicking is because they’re afraid of her connection with regular folks who work for a living, pay their taxes, attend a religious worship service regularly, and believe that our country has lost the moral fiber that once united us.

……I could illustrate hundreds of other examples of rampant corruption by people in elective office. Pointing to government decay is the job of the free press. But are they hounding any of the power-hungry scoundrels that masquerade as symbols of decency and honor? No, they’re engaged in a continuous merciless attack on a woman who has led the way in the fight against the very corruption being overlooked by those who have become blinded by ideology.

Sarah Palin is a threat because she symbolizes decency in a country taken hostage by moral degenerates. If she isn’t stopped, this country might end up reclaiming some of the values that made us the envy of the world.

This is exactly what is happening in the attempts to bring Sarah Palin down.  

Frankly, I really don’t know if she could win the Presidency or if that is her desire.  What I do know is that her brand of conservatism and love of America is a threat to those who view America as evil and who apologize for America.  And I believe that she has a perspective unlike just about anyone else on the national stage right now. 

Sarah Palin embodies the experiences of a wide cross-section of Americans.  She is the exact opposite in her beliefs and experiences than what the liberals and media elites believe is “correct” in a popular politician.    She is pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-American, pro-Capitalist, pro-free market, pro-family, pro-national security, pro-Constitution, and a devout, unapologetic Christian.    And did I say she is wildly popular?  Her book*, Going Rogue, was an unprecedented best seller before it hit the shelves this week. 

Thus, you see the Left’s urgency in attempting to bring Sarah Palin down politically and personally.

My own personal opinion on her popularity and also the source of the vitriol from the Left is that Sarah Palin can relate to different aspects of many American lives…and vice versa. 

This is in stark contrast to many of the “professional politicians” leading our country who have attended elite schools, have made leaching from the government their life’s career, and are smothered in the snobbery of thinking they know better than everyday Americans.

Sarah Palin hits a chord with many different groups and types of Americans, thus the huge interest in her.  Many politicians and those in the public eye can voice opinions on issues such as conservation, outdoor sports, hunting, guns, abortion, motherhood, war, babies, special needs children, and more.  But few of those politicians and figures have ever truly experienced or embodied the actual values they espouse in those areas.  Or, at least, many don’t have the list of experiences in those areas that Sarah Palin possesses. 

What experiences and with whom does she seem to so naturally connect?

Average ordinary Americans – Sarah Palin wasn’t born with a silver spoon, she attended a “regular” college in Idaho, she married her high school sweetheart.  She wears a $35 wedding band. She eloped with Todd at the age of 23.  She grew up in the same manner as the vast majority of Americans  in a middle-income household with two parents who love her and taught her many of life’s lessons.  She didn’t attend Harvard or Yale, she didn’t need “affirmative action” to take the place of real credentials, and she didn’t set out to be a career politician.  She’s not a lawyer and she doesn’t have labor unions in her back pocket (or the other way around.)

Hunters, Outdoorsmen (and women), and True Conservationists –   Sarah Palin learned to hunt and respect the land she lived upon from a young age.  Where she was raised in the state of Alaska, many people engage in hunting and live with a respect for the balance between wildlife, land, resources, and human needs.   Like many older and rural Americans, Sarah Palin understood and has lived this balance long before the “green religion” was thrust upon us.  She is the complete opposite of the fat, meat-eating, jet-flying, carbon generating, false “green” prophet, hypocritical Al Gore. 

Gun Owners – Palin is an advocate of gun ownership.  She believes in, defends and exerts her Second Amendment rights.  She actually owns firearms…and she knows how to use them!  (Wonder how many of the anti-gun lobbyists and politicians have actually owned a gun, much less shot one?)

Mothers – Sarah Palin is the mother of five children.   Mothers, stay-at-home mothers, mothers of special-needs children, single mothers….all have a role model in Sarah Palin.  Mothers who’ve sent their sons off to war have a role model in Sarah Palin.   Mothers with teenage daughters can relate to Sarah Palin (especially those with daughters who have found themselves as unwed mothers at an early age).    Mothers relate to other mothers…especially those who have: remained married to the father (Todd), taken the responsibility for raising their own children, made parental mistakes, forgiven their children’s mistakes, and faced the ups and downs of parenthood with grace.  She has a happy, traditional family.  Unbeknownst to many liberals, that still resonates in America.

Men – Let’s face it.  Even aside from Palin’s experience, knowledge and “essence of ordinary” — she’s is considered hot!  (Of course, unfortunately, that can also work against her professionally)

Women – Educated and career-oriented women have a role model in Sarah Palin.   Young women can see the potential in themselves by studying the life and career of Sarah Palin.   Older women can respect the traditional life and values of Sarah Palin.   Self-made women can relate to and admire Sarah Palin since she went from  housewife to holding local office, to mayor, to governor to VP  of the USA candidate.  Doesn’t get much more “self-made” than that.

Pro-lifers – Sarah Palin, while faced with an unexpected pregnancy AND impending birth of a Down Syndrome baby, chose to keep the life that God created.  It probably wasn’t much of a “choice” since she believes all life is sacred, but it resonates BIG with those in America who also believe all life is sacred.    Sarah Palin also encouraged and supported her own unwed, teenage daughter to keep her child when she discovered the teenage pregnancy.

Parents of Special Needs children – Sarah and Todd Palin are the poster parents for embracing the love and special place that these children bring to a family.  These children are not mistakes and parents of these children know it experience God’s little blessing everyday.  These children bring many lessons, much love, patience, and enjoyment to the families for which they belong.   Parents of special needs children have a connection and bond that other parents do not.  And Sarah Palin has stated that one of her passions is elevating the understanding of and the place for these children in our world.

Americans with loved-ones in the military and fighting in the War on Terror – Sarah’s own son just returned earlier this year from a one-year tour in Iraq.  Sarah Palin proudly displays a blue star mother flag and lapel pin.  Patriotic, proud Americans with loved ones in the military know that Sarah Palin understands their plight like only those who’ve sent loved ones to the War Zone can.  Not only that, Sarah Palin is unabashed in your support and love for those who have chosen to serve our country….and it is sincere. 

The list is long and the areas I’ve mentioned are life areas and not particularly political or policy areas in and of themselves.  If you include Sarah Palin’s policy and professional experience you would have to list among those curious and intrigued by her as those involved in energy, security, local governing, state governing, and other business arenas.

All I can say is God Bless Sarah Palin and I hope she succeeds in promoting her Reaganesque conservatism to the masses … whatever form that may take.

(*I am awaiting the arrival of her book, Going  Rogue,  that I pre-ordered weeks ago on Amazon–can’t wait to read it.)

Thank You Veterans

generations of valor picThank you to all of our Veterans!

Because of you, we have remained free and others are free around the world.

We owe a debt to you that can never be repaid.

Thank you …thank you…thank you!

A poem I found today…..

Two Simple Words

Have you thanked a soldier lately
For everything they’ve done?
For all their work and sacrifice;
For battles lost or won?
Have you ever passed a moment in quiet solitude?
Thinking of a way to show support and gratitude?
What about two simple words?

Thank You

Remember those that came before us,
and those that stand with us today,
And to those whose time is not yet here,
I have two words to say –

Thank You

You have the Heart to stand and fight.
The Soul to stand for what is right.
You stand for Freedom, day and night.
For all this and more –

Thank You

Two simple words you may not hear enough
When the good is hard to see, or the battle is getting rough.
Although your heart may break, yet and still you remain tough.
For all that and more –

Thank You

And though I might not know your name,
We’re Red, White and Blue… family the same.
You serve our country willingly, protect freedom without fail.
Compared your brave actions, these words may seem a little pale.
But still… for everything you are, and everything you do
I’d like to say two simple words –

Thank You