Domestic Rightwing Extremist

I guess being pro-life and a gun owner and being opposed to big government, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage, and the financial bailouts - I'm a potential domestic terrorist according to this report put out by DHS secretary, and open-borders stalwart Janet Napolitano, anyone who opposes big government control or who opposes "single issues" such as illegal immigration, abortion, gun control, homosexual marriage, the current financial bailouts, and literally a host of other issues could be considered a domestic rightwing extremist! The report "demonizes" people who hold to traditional and biblical values.

Are pro-lifers domestic rightwing extremist???

"Do pro-lifers hate "particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups"? Of course not, and there is not a shred of evidence in the report that suggests we do. In fact, it is the Abortion Industry that targets minority communities.
How about "antigovernment"? Coursing through the veins of every pro-lifer is an abiding faith in the capacity of government to change. That's why we are active in all 50 state legislatures and in the halls of Congress.
I guess even the dim-witted authors of "Rightwing Extremism" grasped that we fit neither of these categories. So they just lumped us in by employing the all-purpose "may" word. Again, not a word to explain why pro-lifers should be tarred with the extremist brush.
From the earliest days of the Obamamania phenomenon, the "mainstream media" has let us know in unsubtle and unmistakable ways that it is close to un-American to criticize what he proposes or what he stands for. We have never allowed that to stop us from opposing the policies of any man who carries water for the Abortion Establishment with both arms. Nor will we." - National Right to Life

This characterization is not only offensive to millions of Americans who hold constitutionally-protected views opposing abortion - but it also raises serious concerns about the political agenda of an agency with a mandate to protect America.

It's time to target the REAL terrorists - and REMOVE the pro-life community from this warning and to protect your First Amendment rights. Sign the petitions below & then, alert your friends and family to this important nationwide campaign. Here are the three petitions:

• Send a powerful message to the Department of Homeland Security: Add your name now to the ACLJ's DEMAND FOR RETRACTION to Homeland Security,
  

• add your name to Grassfires' petition that will be delivered to congress, http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=18385&RID=19587002,
  

• and sign the American Future Fund Petition to fire Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitan. JOIN US IN CALLING FOR HER FIRING HERE, and they will send this petition straight to the White House.

According to this report, our Founding Fathers would also be considered domestic rightwing extremists! The Founders would have been horrified at the bloated federal bureaucracy we have now and the maze of taxes we have to navigate: income taxes, employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, gas taxes, etc. It was excessive taxation like this that drove the Founders to rebel in the first place.

All of the Founders were opposed to domestic taxes. They regarded high taxes and aggressive tax collectors as tyrannical and always to be guarded against. Patrick Henry warned: "Excisemen may come in multitudes, for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms and search, ransack and measure everything you eat, drink and wear."

Ronald Reagan would also be considered a domestic rightwing extremist. After all he stated: "The choice before us is clear. I strongly feel that the great majority of Americans believe that nothing would better encourage economic growth than leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it. It's time to stop stripping bare the productive citizens of America and funneling their hard-earned income into the Federal bureaucracy. ... Americans have always been prepared to pay their fair share, but today they should make it clear to all elected officials that government has gone beyond its bounds and that the people will not tolerate [an] ever-increasing tax burden."

If you haven't yet read this insane report, do so by clicking below:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18235&CID=112&RID=18677675

BUT, who actually associated with real domestic extremist?????

"Sen. John Kerry belonged to an organization of vets that considered assassinating American politicians. (Kerry denied participating in those meetings.) Barack Obama was friends with, and a colleague of, a domestic terrorist whose organization plotted to murder soldiers and their wives at a social at Fort Dix. A young Hillary Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers, a paramilitary gang of racist murders and cop killers. Bring that up and you're a paranoid nutcase out of 'Dr. Strangelove.' But if you're terrified of a bunch of citizens who throw tea in the water and demand lower taxes and less government spending, well, that's just a sign of political seriousness. Because everyone knows who the real threat to the country is." --National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

.....hmmmm something the mainstream media forgot to report on......

"There is no factual basis, no specific information that so-called 'right-wing terrorists' are currently planning any acts of violence. In fact, the report says that," he acknowledges. "This report is just filled with rhetoric. It has no specific, factual basis for any of the conclusions they arrive at. ... It (the report) is totally un-American. It violates the Constitution of the United States, and it enables law-enforcement agencies to use this report as a pretext to investigate and harass individuals who have these kinds of beliefs -- and that's why it is so insidious." --Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson

Thompson believes Americans ought to be so upset that they demand the report be withdrawn and call for the resignation of Secretary Napolitano. I agree!!

Here is a letter from Michelle Malkin that also states how I feel:

Michelle Malkin » Senators to Napolitano: Show us the data.

April 16, 2009

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
The Department of Homeland Security
310 7th street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20528-0150

VIA FASCMILLE

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write today concerning the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

While we agree that we must fight extremists who are both foreign and domestic we are troubled by some of the statements your department included as fact in the report titled above, without listing any statistical data to back up such claims.

First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups?

Thirdly, the report states that those that believe in issues such as pro-life legislation, limited government, and legal versus illegal immigration are potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliation, male and female, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.

Also, you list those that bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck.

In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. We also ask that you provide us with the data that support the unfair claims listed in the report titled above and to present us with the matrix system used in collecting and analyzing this data?

Finally, we look forward to your prompt reply and we offer our assistance to DHS in our shared effort to fight terrorism both home and abroad by using data that is accurate and independent of political persuasion.

Tea Party Update

I actually live in the Northwest, but we are moving down to Texas (hopefully sooner than later - depending on the market & how fast we can get our house finished.) We bought land in New Braunfels, Texas a couple of years ago & took a trip down to Texas last week to visit & relax. So we weren't able to attend our T.E.A. party in Portland, OR - but we were able to attend the T.E.A. party in Austin, TX at the capital (late afternoon). It was fabulous to renew our spirit and to be with other conservatives who value our freedoms. A peaceful, law-abiding and amazing time was had by all! . 5000+ folks attended. After the speeches (from State Senator Dan Patrick, Congressman Michael McCaul, Republican activist Joe Petronis, and Free Market Foundation's Jonathan Saenz.) and songs, we walked from the Capitol to the Lake. The crowds walked down Congress Avenue to ceremonially dump boxes into Lady Bird Lake, the crowd stretched from Cesar Chavez Street to the steps of the Capitol. In response, police had to block off four lanes of the street during rush hour.While marching, the crowd spanned from the lake up to the hill! Very impressive. Crates of tea were thrown in the lake and picked up by wild Indians in canoes.

CNN had some but protrayed the crowds as “angry”. This was definitely not true, we were concerned, worried, fearful and disgusted by what is happening to our country - but it was definitely not an angry, violent mob of protesters.

In an amazing display of free-market ideals, hundreds of thousands turned out for tea parties across the country! It empowered conservatives to continue to fight the good fight. It was a great success in that the rally awakened the silent majority of our country to become involved and to understand that many others like themselves are interested in furthering the prosperity of this nation through adherence to our constitutional principles. I am so glad we were able to be a part of it.

Here are some photos from the day, my husband took tons of all the signs we saw - but here are a few general photos.












Later that evening we watched CNN (now why did we do such a stupid thing like that after such a great day). At those locations where CNN bothered to cover the events, they often-times avoided reporting on the facts. Watch this CNN coverage of the event. If this doesn’t get you upset, I don’t know what will! However, exercising our rights to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble was on full display, and a vivid reminder that we indeed live in the greatest country on earth.



CNN Correspondent Claims Tea Parties ‘Anti-Government,’ ‘Anti-CNN’

After anchor Anderson Cooper made an obscene sexual joke about attendees, CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen rudely interrupted one of the protestors and slammed the event for being "anti-government," "anti-CNN," and "not really family viewing."

Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, "Why are you here today?" The man started to respond saying, "Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right..."

But Roesgen cut him off him, saying, "But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to "let me finish my point." One crowd member was heard to yell "shut up" to the Roesgen.

When the man finished his statement about people having the "right to the fruits of their own labor" and "government should not take it," Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset.

Roesgen backed away claiming that "you get the general tenor of this," tea party. "Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra," Roesgen concluded.

Phillips followed by calling that assessment "a "prime example of what we're following across the country."

Here are some interesting facts about Susan Roesgen:

"An interesting little detail emerged today about new right wing public enemy #1 CNN reporter Susan Roesgen. She twice applied for a job at Fox News. She applied in January and September 2005 and was turned down. Is Roesgen bitter, or is this just business as usual for cable news?

According to Gawker, “Back in 2005, though, according to a Fox News source, Roesgen really wanted to work for that right-wing conservative network. She sent a tape of her on-air work to Fox's then-programming chief Kevin Magee in January 2005, and followed up with another reel to Magee's successor Bill Shine in September 2005. Needless to say, she didn't get the gig.”

CNN is not an American News Station anymore, they stopped being about journalism long ago. They are the start of a socialist media station that is willing to do the bidding of one American party.

Here are some more facts about Susan Roesgen and her "reporting":

Susan Roesgen:

1. Was offended by protestor calling NObama a facist, however, in January 2006 at a protest, she joked about a protester who wore a George W. Bush mask with a Hitler moustache and devil horns
2. Asks a protester a question, but won’t allow the answer.
3. Pay close attention when she pooh pooh’s the tax burden on the American people by saying “but you get a $400 tax credit” followed up with “but the Land of Lincoln got $50 billion in stimulus”

Here are some more examples of the outrageous coverage from the liberal media: (for more example - click the link from the mediaresearch.org)

• Tea Parties = "Group Therapy" for Crazy Conservatives "All of these tax day parties seemed less about revolution and more about group therapy. At least with the more widely known protest against government spending, people attending the rallies were dressed patriotically and held signs expressing their anger, but offering no solutions."-- New York Times reporter Liz Robbins in an April 15 online article about that day's anti-tax "tea parties." The paragraph was taken out of the version that appeared in the Times' April 16 print edition.
• "Cheered on by Fox News and talk radio, the hundreds of tea parties today were designed to protest the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and President Obama's budget....But critics on the left say this is not a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it's actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests....While the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was about taxation without representation, critics point out that today's protesters did get to vote -- they just lost. What's more, polls show most Americans don't feel overtaxed." -- ABC's Dan Harris on World News, April 15.
• CBS's Dean Reynolds: "They came to vent their outrage in big gatherings and small groups over what they see as runaway government spending, and the tax hikes they suspect are right around the corner....While he [national organizer Eric Odom] insisted these events were non-partisan, a fistful of rightward leaning Web sites and commentators-" -- CBS Evening News, April 15.
• "There's been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so-called 'tea parties' around the company, country, hoping the historical reference will help galvanize Americans against the President's economic ideas. But I tell you, the idea hasn't really caught on. The RNC has jumped in. A few other talk radio hosts have jumped in, but it hasn't galvanized the party the way they would hope."-- NBC's Chuck Todd on Today, April 15, hours before the anti-tax rallies began.

(comics from Patriot Post)

Thank you, President Bush

It doesn't matter what Bush-hating liberals say or even why they hate George Bush, because the reasons they give are just disingenuous hyperbole. The press has been full of hatred for President Bush for eight years in order to market a propaganda of lies.

What's the truth? Historian Andrew Roberts has it right:

"In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterized this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinize travelers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee."

With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac's France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.

History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

Films such as Oliver Stone's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over Aids and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.

When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush Administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was only used on three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operational planning, who divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?

The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush's very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000.

Sneered at for being "simplistic" in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially the right ones.

Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. Today its GDP is 30 per cent higher than under Saddam, and it is free of a brutal dictator and his rapist sons.

The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.

Iraq has been a victory for the US-led coalition, a fact that the Bush-haters will have to deal with when perspective finally – perhaps years from now – lends objectivity to this fine man's record."

and here's one of the best 'Thank You' articles I have read; a beautifully written Tribute to President Bush:

Thank You, President Bush
by Guy Benson

"President Bush will leave office on Tuesday, and a majority of Americans aren't disappointed to see him go. The country is experiencing a painful recession, enduring an unpopular — albeit successful — war, and people are generally eager to allow a new team to assess and tackle the nation's mounting problems. President Bush also appears ready to relinquish the heavy burdens of the presidency and quietly enter private life back in Texas. Liberals have been literally counting down the days to January 20, 2009 since Bush's re-election victory, and grumbling from the Right has grown steadily louder as the Republican President failed to live up to conservative principles on a number of occasions. In short, precious few people will miss President Bush. But I will.

I had the extraordinary opportunity to serve as a White House intern during Bush's second term. During my short time there, I was struck by the profound decency of the President, as well as the professionalism, dedication, patriotism and sacrifice displayed by his staff. When I would pass through security each morning around 7:45, the President and his top advisers had already been on the job for hours. Every single day. Rain or shine. Although the administration had been battered and bruised from all sides, morale remained surprisingly high due, in large measure, to the President's determined optimism and work ethic. Every day he lived out a passion for protecting this country, and doing so honorably. This outlook commanded enormous respect and affection from his staff, the overwhelming majority of whom remain loyal to their boss, despite all the negative attention paid to a disgruntled few.

Perhaps the most frustrating element of Bush hatred is the widely held perception that he is an unintelligent, uncaring, intellectually incurious man. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many people unfairly dismiss his degrees from both Yale and Harvard as the benefits of a famous last name. Even fewer people are aware of his voracious reading habits. And only a small handful of people have ever experienced President Bush unplugged, pouring out his heart in an off-the-record conversation without a microphone in sight. I had the honor of witnessing such an event.

In the fall of 2007, my office helped coordinate a bill-signing on the third floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a stately edifice standing directly west of the White House itself. The invited guests included a small group of young business leaders from around the country. Right before President Bush made his entrance, a pack of reporters and photographers were herded into the back of the room, only to be hustled away shortly after the official event had concluded. Believing that the event was over, I made a move for a side exit to head back to my office. One of my superiors caught my eye as I approached the door, and mouthed the word "stay." Needless to say, I did.

Moments later, an aide requested that everyone put away any cameras or other potential recording devices because the President was about to entertain some off-the-record questions from the remaining guests. The next 40 minutes were breathtaking. In this relatively intimate setting, President Bush answered a wide range of questions — many of which were far from sycophantic — with a degree of confidence, ease, self-deprecation, and intensity that I had never seen from him. He spoke movingly about his relationship with his father. He joked cheekily about his own malapropisms and his critics. He lightly pounded his fist on the podium while mounting a stirring defense of the Iraq war. His deep understanding of a myriad of intricate issues was undeniable, and he utterly captivated the room.

This, sadly, was the President Bush that few Americans ever saw. As a Bush supporter who'd spent many personal conversations defending him, his brilliant Q&A performance was stunning even to me. I commented to a colleague that if only the whole country could see him in his element, his popularity ratings would spike considerably. Alas, it was too often the President's critics, and his mistakes — real or manufactured — that shaped his public image. The anti-Bush media, desperate to preemptively destroy his legacy, is already nattering about whether he could be the worst president ever. This is nonsense. President Bush is right to suggest that the distance of history will be his most impartial judge, free of the poisonous partisanship that characterizes much of our contemporary discourse. Still, some of his accomplishments are readily identifiable today.

Some of the Bush administration's best decisions and finest chapters came on the heels of failure. The attacks of 9/11 caught the government off-guard and revealed dangerous blind spots in our national security strategy. Bush acted decisively, and protecting the country became a daily obsession. Yes, he's been hammered relentlessly on his tactics, but they achieved results: Zero terrorist attacks inside the United States after that horrific fall morning. That's a feat that seemed nearly impossible in the aftermath of the attacks.

The war effort in Iraq was sliding into the abyss midway through Bush's second term, and the Defense Secretary seemed to have outlived his usefulness in the position. With deaths mounting and public opinion fading fast, the President pulled the trigger on an audacious plan to double-down in Iraq with a controversial troop surge. Even many Republicans cautioned against the move, in many cases for political reasons, yet Bush rebuffed their counsel. The new strategy, along with its new commander and fresh leadership at the Pentagon, has paid enormous dividends. The level of stability in Iraq as Bush leaves office is remarkable. So remarkable, in fact, that the anti-Bush media have virtually stopped covering it because it no longer serves its one-time purpose as prime Bush-bash material.

Poor personnel decisions like the Harriet Miers misadventure and Scott McClellan's atrocious tenure also led to vast improvements. The hapless McClellan was finally replaced by the late, great Tony Snow, followed by Dana Perino, which served as a crucial upgrade from a messaging standpoint. Alongside communications advisors Ed Gillespie and Kevin Sullivan, the last two Bush press secretaries restored competent, likeable, public relations to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The ill-advised Miers Supreme Court nomination galvanized conservatives against President Bush's choice, prompting him to right the ship by nominating an impeccable candidate, who will likely serve as justice for decades to come. Conservatives of all stripes — limited government advocates, national security hawks, and social traditionalists — will be thankful for at least this element of the Bush legacy, especially when the next president begins filling the federal bench with a roster of ACLU all-stars.

Beyond the political and policy legacy President Bush will leave behind, I am grateful that for the last eight years, the country has been led by a man with enormous respect for the office he's held, and who made it his primary mission to keep my friends and family safe from those who seek our destruction. He endured countless indignities — from mean-spirited critics to humiliating betrayal — with grace and class, and without resorting to vindictive or petty retaliation. And although quite a few of Bush's decisions have angered and disappointed me through the years, I never once doubted his motives or his character. For those reasons alone, I say: Thank you, President Bush."

I echo that: Thank you, President Bush

Environmental propaganda on children’s network Nickelodeon

more news on indoctrinating our children with Liberal propaganda...

..."It’s not that that Nick has replaced “Sponge Bob” or “Fairly Odd Parents” with adult programming – Nick’s entertainment fare is still fun and silly. It’s that Nick has launched “The Big Green Help,” a multimedia campaign that encourages the network’s young viewers to become junior environmentalists, and major finger-waggers. “Nickelodeon’s Big Green Help is all about helping YOU find simple, positive ways to protect the Earth every day,” explains the home page on Nick’s Web site.

The Big Green Help is filled to the brim with throbbing dance music, bright colors (green most prominent, of course), grinning teen celebrities and feel-good phrases. Nick is indoctrinating kids into the secular cult of environmentalism, and it wants them to indoctrinate you in turn.

Where a Kid can be a Pawn

Nick is a very successful family of kid- and teen-centered channels, part of the MTV Networks owned by media conglomerate Viacom, which claims Nickelodeon is “the most-watched television network by kids in the United States, and basic cable's #1 network overall.”

Nick achieved its success by understanding what kids like and knowing how to convince them to like its wares. Done for profit, this is called marketing and branding. Done for politics, it’s propaganda. The Big Green Help is propaganda. ...

...If kids can be part of the solution, there must be a problem. Obviously, The Big Green Help takes it as a given that a) global warming is real and b) humans are causing it. Nick doesn’t acknowledge on the site or in the ads run continuously on the network the considerable skepticism of and disagreement with these views. That might not sit well with Nick’s partner in the campaign, the radical Natural Resources Defense Council." ....