About Me

Name:CPT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Environment Shell game politics

Our collectivist rulers only use their "concerns" about the environment to extend the collectivization of our society.  Daniel Henninger aptly shows the "wonderland" of such politics in the Wall Street Journal.

The "progressive" message is distinctly anti-progress.  Rather than solve energy concerns by increasing supply concurrent with researching alternatives, the Donkeys want you to step backward.  Return to pre-automobile times by riding bicycles.  Surrender your freedom to travel through the inconvenience of "mass transit".

Rascal Flatts aptly titled "Fast Cars and Freedom" captures the essence of reality necessary.  The socialist collectivists talk about "addiction to oil" and "transforming our economy".  This, of course means reducing or eliminating YOUR freedom of choice as well as transforming the U.S. into a collectivist utopia where we are told what is best for us by the sheople herders.

Consider the transformative impact of mobility on economic and social freedom.  Ernest Istook has.

So you my friends are left with a choice.  "Progress" represented by collectivists telling you what you shouldn't and can't have.  An anti-progress message if I've ever seen one.  Then you have the mean old conservatives and libertarians who want to expand supply, find alternatives and ultimately, maximize YOUR choices while benefiting the general economy.

You choose which makes sense.

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

Politics versus Reality

Let us take a look at the view a thinking person should take regarding the politics and economics of energy supply.

We have the basic, 10th grade economics of supply and demand.  Shown and proven over centuries to be a true dynamic.
We have collectivists repeating the mantra "We can't drill our way out of this problem".  Figuring, in Goebbel-esque fashion, that if they repeat it enough people will believe it.
We have Nancy Pelosi exhibiting her grandiose intent to "save" the planet, her children and anyone else from the "dangers" (non-existant) of increasing supplies of energy.
We have Demoncats proposing to tax "big oil" without explaining exactly how that would increase supply.

This is the problem with the collectivists.  They believe they "know better" than over 70% of the citizenry whom they are alleged to "represent".  You don't conquer high prices by government restrictions and taxes increasing the costs of any supply.  High prices only come down when the supply of an item is increased to a balance with demand for that same item.  It is really elementary.

Figuring out whether republicrats or demopublicans are more goofy on this issue isn't as hard as with others.  Most of the elephants understand that the U.S. could be energy independent, STILL aggressively pursue energy alternatives (the market not the government) and have enormous economic benefit to the citizenry if only a politician was actually interested in representing their constituency rather than cowering before the media and big-money, small membership interest groups.

We must remember though that collectivism is the primary goal of those who label themselves "progressive".  Leftist socialists is what they are.

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

Who perpetuates racism?

Reading Ashley Herzog here on Townhall today begs a larger question.  Who actually perpetuates racism?  Who benefits from propagation of a perception of ongoing racism in American society?

It isn't your average American that I can see.  Rather it is the statist collectivists in our governments, "special interest" (read THEIR OWN interests) groups, public education and major media.  Focusing on suppression of free speech by outlawing "offensive" (but physically harmless) words and ideas.  Thinking people understand that racism is based in willful ignorance.

The socialist left will go so far as to claim that only one race can be racist.  They lampoon "crackers" and "rednecks" as the source of ongoing racism.  They claim that racism is "institutionalized".  They fail to show any large mainstream groupings of "crackers and rednecks" displaying any racist behaviors.  They can not demonstrate, factually, how any racism is institutionalized.  They won't discuss the ONE actual example.  Affirmative action.

Having Americans believe that racism is systemic and ongoing benefits the collectivists.  It justifies their assault on your liberties.  Americans with black, brown or other dark skin who are successful DUE TO American Freedom (this excludes "government", "media" or race "activists" who are generally socialist collectivists) don't seem oppressed and they speak out about it.  Read Walter Williams, La Shawn Barber, Thomas Sowell, Ken Blackwell, Larry Elder, Armstrong Williams or Ellis Washington (and many many others).  You won't find them whining about oppression or racism.  You'll find them SUCCEEDING.

People of this sort, Americans who believe in and live the American dream are denigrated, castigated and discounted by the collectivists elites.  Their example is written off as "selling out" and being "uncle tom" (isn't that racist?).  Why?  Because they don't subscribe to government power, socialism or collectivist ideologies.  They believe in FREEDOM, anathema to collectivists.

Let us know how you perceive racism in your life and community.  I love America and Americans who value liberty.  I don't need to classify them by the color of their skin.  Nor do the conservatives, libertarians and constitutional originalists I know.

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

Just the facts? Naw, but check 'em

Both are important to compelling social or political commentary and discussion. Unfortunately, in the "blogosphere", too many provide plenty of passion but very little credible fact.

That's why we ask our contributors to be sure to provide appropriate attribution and to check their facts. Also to keep their passion focused on the viewpoints and not the correspondent.

Our two favorite and most used (and most used by our readers to let us know of mistakes) fact checking sites are FactCheck.org (political fact checking) and Snopes.com (Urban Legend validation). We highly recommend both. Also, our resource page provides other valuable fact sources.

We love your passion but need your credibility as well.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Framework of Freedom

If it is obeyed, adhered to and not subjected to arbitrary twisting and "interpretation of it's clear language.  The United States Constitution is the best Constitution existing.  All others are mere pale imitators (rarely) or statist/collectivist visions of Governmental power.  Foreign countries deem "rights" that impose obligations (financial, property, liberty) or constraints on their fellows.  The old saying is; "rights don't cost other people their money, safety or freedom".

So enshrining redistribution of property and income in a Constitution doesn't make it a "right".  Rights are integral to the individual and unalienable.  Any "right" that would dry up if its funding source disappeared is not a right.

As an example, compare the Constitutions of  South Africa (1996) at 112 pages and the United States of America (1789) at 19 pages including amendments.

The South African one is replete with collectivist obligation of others' property and filled with subjective and unmeasurable vagaries and platitudes.  A lawyers dream to be sure.  A recent contributor to our main site expressed his opinion of the superiority of the South African Constitution.  It reads like a giant social (collectivist/socialist) welfare bill.

The U.S. Framework is a brief, clear concise delineation of the powers and purviews of the Federal government, the several States and the citizenry.  There are no "takings" or other property/liberty obligations associated with rights delineated. 

It is unfortunate that many people in the world have no concept of real individual liberty inured as they are to being dominated by authoritarian or collectivist States.  In thousands of years only two truly effective and free republics have existed on any large scale.  One descended through corruption of culture and politics into an Imperial structure.  One exists today.  Will it follow the same road.

For the fans of the South African constitution I ask, do people flock to the Cape of Good Hope seeking the shining city on a hill or do they flock to North America?

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

Does the Constitution mean anything?

One has to wonder.

From the recent Supreme Court rulings to Media Blatherers blaming people for economic realities. Even in getting a case "right" the black robed, life-tenured, unconstitutional legislators got much wrong as we've shown.

Do the majority of Americans care about liberty and freedom anymore?  About their inherent (and we believe God given) rights?  Do they know or care (or both?!?) about Constitutional Government?  Do many citizens know what the founders intended to be the scope of the Federal behemoth?

Let us know.

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

Are they lies or fantasies?

The consistency of Donkecrats is certainly unarguable.  The question we struggle with is are they cognizant that most if not all of their positions and worldviews are false?

Do they lie or simply live in some ignorant fantasy land?

John Hawkins here on townhall points out that which never gets "mainstream" coverage.  He quite simply points out 5 "myths" propagated by leftist/collectivist political activists and commentators.  He's followed that up with 5 more "myths" the socialist left continue to bleat.

These fallacies are joined by the collectivist proposals the left promotes to socialize America.  Despite the clear and undeniable repeated failures of socialist/collectivists governments throughout the 20th century.

So are the leftists lying or are they just wallowing in fantastical ignorance?  Both I think.  Collectivist politicians rely on "useful idiots" to acquire and maintain power.  Because they know better than you and I what is good for us.  Those who support and repeat their lies and vote for them are people driven by emotions, artificial guilt and magical thinking rather than reality and facts.

Which are YOU?

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

Obama and the big WHY?

It is quite the phenomenon, the Barack Hussein Obama craze and support.  The thing no one seems to be able to express is exactly WHY?
Why is his support so seemingly strong and widespread?  Of course we can't be sure that much of it isn't typical media misrepresentation.  The only answers people tend to give to questions about "Why Obama" are "hope" and "change".  What change one is led to ask?  His positions seem to uniformly advocate expanded Federal Government as the only "change" he is proposing.

Lest his minions forget; socialism has been a consistent and documented failure.  Couched as communism or any other collectivist socialist model, it fails as an economic and governmental methodology.

So the "why Obama" larger question leads to smaller ones.  Can someone help me with specifics as to what is so attractive about Obama to them?  Here are the smaller questions:
Why do people the Federal government is the solution to problems?
Why do people think that there are "rights" that cost other people their property (money) and liberty?
Why do people think the most prosperous and free country in the history of the world requires radical change?
Why does government instill "hope" in anyone?
Why aren't Obama's tired socialist/collectivist government solutions held up as the repetition of liberal politics that they are?
Why, why Obama?

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

Why Ivy?

Enjoying dinner with friends, I was privy to a conversation they had with their daughter.  She was discussing the comparative merits of "AP" (Advanced Placement) versus "IB" (International Baccalaureate) curricula as she begins High School.  A significant factor in the discussion was the wish/hope/aspiration of both the child and the parents for her to get into an "Ivy League School".

I was left wondering why.  The costs are enormous and the outcomes are highly debatable as far as the intellectual prowess of graduates.  Thomas Sowell has good information on this ephemeral "prestige" consideration here on Townhall.   Certainly the media presentation and public perception of an Ivy League degree is constantly emphasized.  Who is studying the actual quality of those educations and the quality of the graduates.  Why do employers (and voters) seem to discriminate in favor of solely a "name"?  There are alternatives (equally expensive perhaps) that don't have the artificial approbation where kids may be getting better educations.  Albion College and Biola University  are two good examples.  Even in the public sphere, why is Harvard considered superior to the University of North Dakota?  Why Yale over Kent State?

No one I've talked to has a good answer.  The supposed "elite" schools are bastions of socialism, political correctness and "pop" courses. Yet parents and students compete intensely and go hugely in to debt to get this real yet unquantified "advantage".  Highly educated lemmings?


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

In honor of Dad

This message is dedicated to Fathers who fulfill that role diligently, with love and competently.  Not for the sexual vagabonds who shirk and responsibility for the young people they are responsible for helping propagate.

Honor your Father on this day.  You may not appreciate him, you may not recognize contributions a good father makes in a person's life.  All to soon, you won't have him to honor.

My Dad instilled in me the appreciation for people based on their character and behavior, not some external "look" or cultural background.  He taught me fairness, honor, justice and much more.  The most important lesson I learned (not realizing it until mid adulthood) was the importance of putting the welfare of your loved ones ahead of yourself.  A caring and love not stated, but demonstrated.  When you catalog "great men" in the history of our country and the world many "Fathers" should make your list for being just that.  Not just a physical genetic father but a true leader, teacher, spiritual and moral shepherd and example.

It is a "hallmark holiday" but it is an opportunity to reciprocate the love, leadership, example and deeds of a committed and diligent father fulfilling his role and growing our next generations.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Letter of Education and Wisdom

Will our leftist sheople think the content below is "hate" or some other emotion based unprovable aspersion?  What do YOU think.  Join us to speak your mind

The following essay is attributed to be a portion of a personal letter written by a retired attorney to his sons in May, '04.
 
 I sincerely hope you see the writing on the wall that I see.   
 
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

 To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
 First, let's examine a few basics:

 1) When did the threat to us start?
 Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
 * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
 * Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
 * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
 * Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
 * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
 * Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
 * Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
 * Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
 * Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
 * New York World Trade Center 2001;
 * Pentagon 2001.

 (Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001
 there were 7,581terrorist attacks worldwide.)

 2) Why were we attacked?

 Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford. 
 
3) Who were the attackers?
 In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
 4) What is the Muslim population of the World? 
25%.

 5) Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

 Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler, that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
 (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

 Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us 'infidels.' I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

 6) So who are we at war with?

 There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

 So with that background, now to the two major
 questions:
 1) Can we lose this war?
 2) What does losing really mean?
 these two pivotal questions:

We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we are all dead.

 We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

 The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. Without our support, Great Britain will go, also.
 
Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
 
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
 Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it will take that 100% effort to win.

 So, how can we lose the war?

 Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by 'imploding.' That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win. Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

 President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

 No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of this political correctness during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

 Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.
 
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

 Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the 'humiliating' of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but 'humiliating' them. Can they be for real?

 The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

 To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say,  this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

 These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office.
 
 Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe
that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!

 If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
 And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

 This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the  self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

 If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.

 The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.

 What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the 'peaceful Muslims?'
 I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country.
 
It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for our country, but for the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the  free world.
 
 Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our 'leaders' in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens. Best we support them.

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

How do you like your statism?

Wrapped in psuedo-messianic general formless platitudes?  Vote for Obama.
Big unconstitutional government interventionist policies dressed in elephant skin? Vote for McCain
Can't win because of our big unconstitutional government forms and general ignorance of much of the electorate?  Vote for a Green, Libertarian or Constitution party candidate.

Many make the pragmatist argument.  "We have to have the judges" or  "The other person would be worse".  The question is, after 5 straight "lesser of two evils" elections, when do the *pragmatists* realize that fundamental, quantified, constitutional change and restoration is what is required?  Will the ignorant ever care?  They BELIEVE that the Federal behemoth actually is empowered to do the things they do.  Give money to people and States.  Control social policy nationwide.  Much much more of course.  Very little of this is enumerated as Federal power or purview in the Constitution.  McCain and Obama are obviously either ignorant (scary) of this fact or purposefully ignoring (scarier) this fact.

For whom will you vote?

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

End of Hiatus

We look forward to a much more active blogging season.  We are adding authors here and have launched the new, permanent American Freedom Network Blog.

Everything that "average", "regular" or "normal" Americans (those who are exceptional and make this country great) have opinions on.  Culture, politics, news, sports, music and much much more have the definitive venue.

We hope to continue to advance a sensible restoration of American political principles by our work here.  It will be supplemented and supported by our entire network of contributors.  You can always participate by commenting here or visiting the main site or the annex we maintain.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Read All About It

Because Truth is "HATE" to those who hate the TRUTH.

Posted Weekly (or so) in full on The American Freedom Net Web Log and mirrored at The Amfree Net Blog Annex and the Amfree Townhall Blog

 

Catch up here: Weekly Reads for 0428-08
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Sheople Required

Yes you can
 
Catch up on all the Blog Action

We want YOU to contribute. Join us in making sense to American Citizens. Truth is HATE to those who hate the TRUTH!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789101112Next »