Army’s Message to Democrats

Filed under: War on Terror, Chris Mason, Christianity, Faith

UPDATED: Chimp’s Refuge compares troops to jihadists. Scroll for updates…
UDATED 4/1: Chimp’s Refuge backpeddles on jihadist analogy. Scroll for updates…

Cpl Chris Mason, a soldier who was killed in Iraq in November, 2006, made this video while on duty. His father posted it yesterday.

Chris Mason, 32, was a member of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He once told his brother over the telephone that “he loved being in Iraq and waking up there because it was another day helping those people,” Garland Mason said.

“He talked about it a lot. He loved the people, he loved the children that would come out and hold his hand and walk with him. He loved training the Iraqi army. He had a great relationship with the Iraqis.”

Allah asks:

Where do we find such men?

Democrats need to realize that social classes of elites and peasants do not exist in America and that they actually, gulp, owe their “elite” life to these soldiers.

Baker High School graduate Chris Mason wasn’t afraid of dying in Iraq because of his faith in Jesus Christ and his belief in the importance of helping others…

Yes, Democrat Party, that is known as “living out faith.”

“We want to be here.” That’s hard for Democrats to swallow. Heck all of their “polls” show even Iraqi’s want us out. But if you actually go to Iraq, schools are open, hospitals are running, businesses are starting, money is being made, people are happy. Certainly, they don’t want us there indefinately, but no one wants that. But those darn polls. I mean, c’mon, we can’t have positive news coming from Iraq, and since the surge is working, there are no bombings or troop deaths to report, let’s poll stage-a-poll of Iraqi citizens.

UPDATED: Kevin at the Chimp’s Refuge compares troops to jihadists!!?

I do think this is a tragedy, because it’s a waste. All the foregoing suggests is that Chris Mason was no less deluded than a suicide bomber with visions of eternal paradise, virgins, milk and honey in his head. If I thought that I would, in effect, live forever after my corporeal death, I’d probably be willing give up my life for a hollow cause as well. His family speaks as though their son was in the Middle East primarily on a humanitarian aid effort and not as a soldier.

Honestly, I don’t know how this guys sleeps at night with such evil thoughts like comparing an American soldier to a Radical. Islamic. Jihadist?!! Can you say insane?! Out of touch with reality? At first, I thought he might have been a bit short on oxygen after a long run, but then realized that he actually believes what he just wrote. What’s in the mountain air in N. Carolina where he is anyway?

But really, I must thank Mr. Beck. For he has just said what many in the Democratic Democrat Party actually believe. We’ll never truly know what Hillary and other liberal leaders believe. They supported the war when it was popular and now say they opposed it . . . because it’s popular. But for most liberals, American solider = Radical Islamic Jihadist.

Thank God we are ALL, including you Mr. Beck whether you like or not, blessed to have a President and a military that doesn’t make decisions based on popularity.

To amend Allah’s question from above, I can tell you where NOT to look for these men: Hairless runners in Blue Ridge, NC.

UDATED 4/1: Chimp’s Refuge back peddles on jihadist analogy:

In response to what I wrote about Kevin’s comparing our troops to jihadists, he is now backpeddling with this offering:

It it superfluous to point out that stating that a member of the U.S. military who “wasn’t afraid of dying in Iraq because of his faith in Jesus Christ” and an Islamofascist who isn’t afraid of dying in violent service to Allah are laboring under near-identical delusions. That Islam presents a special, vile problem thanks to the unrivaled commitment to the cause of its proponents is unquestioned. And yes, when you get right down to it, even were U.S. Christianity equally insane in its manifestations as well as its ethos, I’d obviously still pull for the Western brand of lunacy since I happen to be a target of Islamofascism by default.

I’m sure you would, Mr. Beck. Nevermind that our troops are willing to die for you, but you would root for them because you are targeted by their opponent? How SELf-CENTERED can one man be? I didn’t think he could get any worse, but Mr. Beck has wowed us all again.

Realizing how hard it is to look past Mr. Beck’s enflated head to see his argument, I will do so for you so you don’t have to. Mr. Beck’s now two-fold comparison of Islam to Christianity displays his lack of knowledge about the most basic tenets of each: The former a religion cult, the latter a relationship.

Jihadists die for two selfish reasons: 1) martyrdome and 2) the advancement of Islam. This advancement of Islam has one goal that has obviously managed to slip past Mr. Beck’s engorged head: Force the rest of the world to convert to Islam or kill.

On the other hand, Christianity is grounded in servanthood. This is also the basis of our military. It’s a volunteer army. Certainly not every American soldier is a Christian, nor do they all share Mason’s personal beliefs, but a nearly every single American troop believes in fighting, and dying, from a servanthood position, regardless of their religious standing.

Thus, we see that while both use a higher being as their overall motivating force, it does not mean their reasons for sacrifice are equal, Mr. Beck. In fact, they are complete opposites. But expecting an atheist to understand either position is quite a stretch. But thankfully, he will know which side to root for.

How Can the Largest Tax Hike in History . . .

Filed under: Taxes, Congress, Politics, Government spending

. . . Not be a tax hike? Yesterday, the House passed a new budget which the Heritage Foundation refers to as “a study in fiscal irresponsibility.” Though Democrats, not surprisingly, claim the bill does not “raise taxes,” it does allow the President’s wildy popular tax cuts to expire, resulting in a massive $400 billion tax increase for Americans over the next five years. Those with the lowest incomes will shoulder the biggest tax burdens.

Read through this budget from preface to postscript, and you’ll find new taxes and an awful lot of new spending. You’ll find faulty assumptions and misguided premises. You’ll find a house of cards stacked on a bed of worms.

But nowhere will you find honest answers to honest questions about our future. And in instituting the largest tax increase in American history, what you may just find are the instruments of its undoing.

Among those who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats’ plan becomes law:

– 26 million small business owners, by an average of $3,960.

– 48 million married couples, by an average of $2,899.

– 42 million families with children, by an average of $2,181.

– 12 million single women with children, by an average of $1,082.

– 17 million senior citizens, by an average of $2,270.

Where is the Democrats’ claim that they advocate for the poor, the middle class, the working American, the little guy?

Guess what, Democrats? You can make until the cows come home, but numbers don’t lie. And numbers didn’t lie when you claimed Bush’s tax cuts benefited “only the rich.” As we can see from those limited five catergories above, of which a significantly low percentage is “rich,” Bush’s tax cuts benefited the middle class and the little guy far more than the rich.

Republicans went 2 for 3 right before losing majorities in Congress by reducing taxes and growing the economy, but failed to reduce total government spending. Of course, factored into that spending is one forgotten-by-liberals domestic terror attack and one war on terror, but no excuses, GOP.

It was these failures that put Democrat majorities in Congress, not the War on Terror, since by now the country knows that Democrats had no “new direction” for the war. Only cut ‘n run. And what did we get with a new, idea-less Democrat majority? How about 0 for 3? Correct!

The new Democrat plan will raise taxes, the economy will follow by slowing down, and government spending will increase even more than under Republican leadership. The Democrats want to grow the government by 2.4% each year, which means adding $100 billion more in spending each year.

Captain Ed:

Democrats and taxes, together again after twelve years in the wilderness. It sounds like a movie romance — and we’re footing the bill for the production.

A more appropriate, all-inclusive title might be “Brokeback Taxes.”

Congratulations Democrats . . . you just lost your self-awarded title of “Party for the Middle Class.”

Is Congress Commander-in-Chief Now

Filed under: Politics, War on Terror, Senate, Retreat

The Senate passes the Retreat Deadline bill.

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman.

Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., did not vote.

Where’s my veto pen? Thank you, Joe. Shame on you, Chuck and Gordon.

N.Z. Bear at Victory Caucus notes that Congress is in such a hurry to bring our troops home, they are going on Spring Break before sending it to Bush:

So what happens now? Well, President Bush has made crystal clear that he will veto the bill. But he won’t even get a chance for several weeks. The Democratic leadership have decided to stick to the normal (read: non-emergency) calendar, and so Congress is now heading home for Spring Break. Once they return, the Senate bill still needs to be reconciled with the House version, and so the final bill won’t make it to President Bush’s desk until at least mid-April.

Meanwhile, our troops are waiting. So it turns out that according to the Democratic leadership, funding for the Tree Assistance Program, sugar beets , and the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program are all “emergencies”. But there’s nothing urgent at all about actually getting funds to our soldiers on the battlefield.

Michelle Malkin:

Party on.

Hot Air:

Mild surprise in the final tally.

If Dingy Harry and friends truly did not want to “waste another drop of American blood,” why pass a measure that starts bringing them home in 18 months? Will any Democrat come out and say what they believe? Many of them, Hillary included, spoke out in favor of the war when it was feel-good time, but now that it would be political suicide for her, she flip-flop’s on the war speaking out against it, and in so doing, makes John Kerry look like a Boy Scout.

And while we’re talking about going to war, who changed the Constitution to make Congress a Commander-in-Chief? Congress has two roles in war: Vote to approve a President’s declaration of war and vote for funding. There is no mention of passing measures that determine troop levels, deployment dates, or military tactic control, but they are trying to do all these things.

I may be wrong, but this resolution is number 16 by the Democrat Party. That’s 16 attempts to undermine the troops, embolden our enemy, and make a clear-cut path for the enemy to follow us home. Not to mention the pork for Capitol tours, Christmas trees, and other perks for Democrats laced inside this most recent Cut ‘n Run measure.

Democrats must understand that their new-found majority was not given them by the American people so they can retreat and allow Iran an easy base for launching a war against the U.S.. I attribute their victory to a need for freshness in Congress and it just so happened that many conservatives ran as Democrats, but it certainly was not due to a desire to undercut our own troops.

New York’s Ban on Relgious Groups

Filed under: Church and State, Politics, First Amendment

Posting on the road again today…found this article of interest that needs sharing. Good to see ADF working on this case that exposes a city in New York for renting facilities equally to any group, except churches.

“The state of New York, over the last 20 years, has been the worst place for equal access,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on the case on behalf of Relevant Church. “Even though there have been five major Supreme Court decisions from 1981 that you cannot treat religious users with religious speech worse than everyone else, nonetheless these policies persist,” he told WND.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction ordering the state to allow the church to rent a facility – otherwise available to anyone – for its Easter Sunday service. Lorence called the policy “wildly out of step” with court affirmations of church rights.

In this specific case, the church, whose congregation has outgrown its own building, usually rents another nearby building for its Sunday services. However, there were scheduling conflicts on Easter and another approaching Sunday, so officials asked to rent the Dulles State Office Building. Those facilities specifically are available to “nearly all groups in the community for any ‘educational, cultural, or civic’ purpose.” But the state policy specifically prohibits religious “activities” or “services,” a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent, the ADF said.

“Government officials do not have the right to discrimination against Christian groups,” Lorence said. “When the state opens up a building for community groups to rent, it must be fair and permit equal access. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this, but here we are again.” He said courts recently have ruled in favor of two other New York churches represented by ADF attorneys regarding equal access, including a decision that resulted in a permanent injunction in a case involving the New York City Board of Education.

But in Watertown, state officials have allowed the rock band Tough Luck, a video game event, a meeting of Toastmasters, a presentation of “The Nutcracker,” a presentation by a “mural painter and social activist,” a meeting of Citizens Against Illegal Drugs, a performance of “Come Meet Clifford the Big Red Dog,” and “Bubble Mania.” But they won’t rent to Relevant Church, whose pastor, Robert Miskowski, was told that the so-called “separation of church and state” prohibited the church from renting.

“It’s astonishing that state officials would not view faith as serving any ‘education, cultural, or civic’ purpose, but regardless, government officials are required to be fair,” Lorence said. “We hope that the state will obey the law and allow this church to rent public facilities just as other groups are permitted to do.” Lorence said the church simply is asking to rent the facility on the same terms and conditions as other users. And he said court rulings have made clear simply allowing a religious group to rent a facility on those same conditions does not create a government “endorsement” of religious statements. He said the emergency request was pending before a federal judge, but the ADF was preparing to appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court if needed to ensure the church had a place to meeting on Easter Sunday, April 8.

This is one more example of what happens when something that is not in the Constitution is suddenly “found” by activist judges. That is, others blow it way out of proportion and are unable to make a clear and accurate discernment of what the true intent of the First Amendment truly is.

Using Tax Dollars to Fund Immoral Actions

Filed under: Liberalism, Politics, Morality, Christianity, Abortion, War

Ever since last November’s elections, which resulted in a pro-abortion leadership in both the
U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, national abortion groups have boldly pushed an agenda of death – forcing taxpayers to pay for it! In 2005 Planned Parenthood got $272 million in our taxes, twice the money it made from its 255,000 abortions that year.

Abortion is murder and immoral. Since it was made legal and uses tax dollars to fund it, translates into government-funded murder. Not only is Planned Parenthood being reimbursed for child-killing, they are making huge profits, 100%, off these innocent children’s deaths.

When conservatives argue that taxpayer money should not be used to fund immoral actions, such as abortion, they counter that because they disagree with the War on Terror, their taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund that. This argument could not be more inaccurate. It’s comparing apples to pimples.

Reason: Abortion is a moral issue turned political by liberals. The War on Terror is a political issue turned moral by liberals. This is not a new trick by the Democratic Democrat party. They did it to pass Roe v. Wade, they use it to push for homosexual marriage, and child-murder laws today are no exception. It is their trademark move. A must for today’s far-Left, out of touch with mainstream America.

But not even Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, or flip-flopping Hillary can argue that conservatives have doubled their money on the War on Terror. The War in Iraq could reach costs in excess of $1 trillion, though keep in mind this figure is from the liberal PMSNBC. But since the War on Terror is actually a political issue, tax dollars should be spent for our nation’s safety without complaint. Abortion, on the other hand, is a true moral issue and tax dollars used to fund such immoral actions deserve protest.

But hey, since you can’t put a price on a baby’s life, you can’t divide the total cost of the War on Terror by each American soldier who died either. Let’s remember to compare apples to apples here. Lives to lives. Dollar to dollar, which I’ve done and, admittedly, the War is far more expensive than abortion.

So let’s look at lives by war compared to lives aborted now, shall we? Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973, but I like playing from the underdog position so, let’s give the liberals a head start and begin counting war deaths in 1775. Wow, that’s awfully generous. That’s nearly a 200-year head start. Yeah, they’re going to need it.

- Revolutionary War – 4,435 deaths.
- Civil War (both sides) – 498,332 deaths.
- World War I – 116,708 deaths.
- World War II – 407,316 deaths.
- Korea – 25,604 deaths.
- Vietnam – 58,168 deaths.
TOTAL – 1,110,563

But we can’t forget both wars in Iraq. Let’s bump our total up by another 20,000 for those and to silence any whimpering over death count discrepencies.

That puts us at 1,130,563 for ALL of our nation’s wars.

Our total aborted number:

- 35,000,000

Get a good picture of what this looks like here.

That’s correct, friends. 35 million compared to 1 million (and some change). I’m not discounting any American soldier’s sacrifice. I am merely pointing out the hypocricy of the left that utilizes its advantages in the liberal media, the far left Hollywood that isn’t used to having to think for themselves because they always use a script (who is writing theirs now???), and their flip-flopping politicians to protest and whine about our “poor soldiers” having to “fight in a war they don’t agree with” (all two of them) all the while, more babies were murdered in 5 months in 2005 than have been killed since we began the War in Iraq.

I guess calling a spade a spade has never been the strong suit for Democrats, no pun intended. Their “card tricks” will only last so long and they’ll have to find more creative ways to lie to the American people or they’ll sacrifice their power.

This is what Flip-Flopping will do for a Presidential Candidate

Filed under: Hillary, NYTimes, Politics, Liberalism

Michelle Malkin says that Hillary can surround herself with troops and attempt to “cultivate” the military, but this image remains indelible in the minds of countless rank-and-file soldiers and their families who vote. Hillary has a p.r. problem with the military that no amount of NYTimes puffery can fix.

Others: Hot Air

Atheism is a Theocracy

Filed under: Atheism, Theocracy, Humanism, Christianity

Working on the road again today. Found this great article that covers a book by Joel McDurom.

Former fundamentalist preacher Dan Barker and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor, turned atheists and co-presidents of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, believe America is becoming a theocracy saying that religion is the source of the greatest violence in the world. “More people have been killed in the world for religion over any other reason.”

Actually, atheism has been responsible for more than 100 million deaths during the twentieth century. As Joel McDurom writes in The Return of the Village Atheist,

In an early private notebook Marx wrote, “Communism begins at the outset with atheism.”

What has been the result?

At the end of the Darwinian atheists’ first great experiment in civil government, 1917–1991, at least 85 million residents of Communism’s officially atheistic social laboratories had been either executed or starved to death by their rulers. The more likely figure is a hundred million, according to The Black Book of Communism. The total may have been higher. Mao’s strategy of systematic extermination may have resulted in tens of millions of executions not recorded or else not yet made available to researchers. What went on in Castro’s Cuba has been recorded in horrifying detail. What has gone on in North Korea has not been equally well recorded. The death toll from starvation is in the millions. This is the survival of the fittest, Darwinist-style.

So, what do Barker and Gaylor propose as a solution? They say “reason” and “kindness” can replace “superstition and ideologies.” Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot thought they were being quite reasonable as they implemented their purges. Barker and Gaylor need to read the literature of their fellow atheists.

The French revolutionaries of the eighteenth century elevated reason to high art, turning it into a goddess and confirming its legitimacy by the blood of the guillotine. Kindness is a great thing, but atheists cannot account for it given atheistic assumptions. Try telling a lion to be kind to a gazelle or a serial killer to be kind to his victims.

What Barker and Gaylor do not understand is that atheism is theocratic with the human animal as the final arbiter of truth. If atheists get their way, they will be running the world in terms of some ultimate principle. At the moment, atheists have the benefit of a vibrant Christian worldview where they can borrow moral plugs like compassion and kindness to keep their hole-filled materialist boat afloat. Given time, future generations of atheists will logically throw off these moral precepts that at one time had been mined from “ancient literature.” Consistency will lead these newly empowered atheists to conclude that “kindness” is a superstitious remnant of an ancient book-led religion that once proposed that immaterial entities exist. Science will show that there is no way to account for these religion-defined virtues given naturalistic assumptions. It’s the apostle Paul who defines love as being “patient” and “kind” (1 Cor. 13:4). When atheists no longer have Christianity to borrow from, from what bank will they draw their moral capital?

Don’t be fooled by the charge that a new theocratic form of government is threatening America; it’s already here. For example, there is a new secular Third Commandment that says, “Thou shalt not take the name of a homosexual in vain.”

Atheist Arthur C. Clarke demonstrates the religious nature of materialism and what it will mean for those who disagree with its tenets: “Though I am the last person to advocate laws against blasphemy, surely nothing could be more antireligious than to deny the evidence so clearly written in the rocks for all who have eyes to see!” Atheists are living, breathing theocrats!

Atheists love to demand that Christians defend their positions without using the Bible because they don’t recognize its authority. This expectation is as absurd as a Christian expecting an atheist to back his position using only the Bible. Atheists hijack moral ideas, like kindness, but without a standard to measure it against, like Jesus Christ, “kindness” becomes relative and suddenly, it’s easy to see why Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot thought they were being reasonable as they implemented their purges.

Gore and His Chicken Little Syndrome

Filed under: Al Gore, Environment, Chicken Little

I have purposely avoided blogging too much about Algore and his now infamous “CLS” (Chicken Little Syndrome), but after this week’s activities, I couldn’t resist. Gore’s efforts are pathetic. And that’s being awful generous.

Let’s look at how these few minor events shaped up to be just another obvious slow-pitch for the Left.

After a six-year absence, Al Gore was greeted more like a liberal folk hero on Capitol Hill than a former vice president. His newfound fame, provided in part by two Oscar awards, helped persuade Senate Environment and Public Works chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to relax the rules on his global warming testimony. Unlike others called to testify, Gore was not required to submit his planned testimony 48 hours in advance. Instead Boxer waived the rule, giving Gore preferential treatment and allowing committee members only a few hours to prepare for the hearing.

During the session, Gore’s “Chicken Little” scenarios were met with skepticism, particularly from Senate Republicans like Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who said he, like many scientists, believed the dire global warming projections were a “hoax.”

On the House side, the former vice president was called a prophet by some Democratic members but his revelations were challenged by others. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) cited 600,000-year-old scientific evidence that Gore’s carbon dioxide claims are false.

When Gore introduced a 10-point plan to make the environment a U.S. priority, conservatives argued that taking the steps he proposed would stifle the economy and harm the family.

Mr. Gore is not the first prophet of doom. Not unlike 19th century political economist Thomas Malthus, who urged drastic steps to limit population growth because of the scarcity of resources, the proposed cure is more intrusive government. In time Malthus was proved wrong, but his heirs love on. Source: FRC

Bill Saunders points to a new group that formed the make sure evangelicals have solid information:

In spite of the hype, it is not obvious that greenhouse emissions are the cause of global warming. For this reason, another group of evangelicals–researchers, professors, pastors, leaders–has banded together in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA). The ISA seeks to find an effective and sensible response to the possibility of climate change, using established norms of science and economics.

The simple fact, as ISA notes in its statement, “Dominion, Stewardship, Conservation,” is that among the scientific community, the opinion is varied as to how much the global climate is changing and what effect mankind has had on that change. As ISA points out, the jury is out as to how much is truly understood about global climate change. Although Gore’s movie paints a black-and-white picture, this issue plays out in living color.

While some studies demonstrate anthropogenic climate shifts, others attribute the changes to varied solar output, or “precipitation microphysics.” One study in the journal Chemical Innovation called into question the very causal relationship between CO2 output and global warming, arguing that the data show elevated CO2 levels follow warming and do not cause it.

Gore needs to back it down a few notches. If he wants us all to ride bikes and use candles then he can lead the way and cut off the power to his mansion and sell his private jet(s). Those carbon offsets aren’t really offsets if you partially own the company that buys them, Al.

Barry Lynn Confused Again

Filed under: Church and State, First Amendment, Northwest Marriage Institute

While the country awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of public funding of faith-based social services, the secularist group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, tried, unsuccessfully, to strip funds from a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant recipient because of its religious roots.

A Federal court dismissed a lawsuit yesterday afternoon against the Northwest Marriage Institute, a faith-based social service provider, and Institute for Youth Development, a nonprofit agency that partnered with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide federal grant funding to Northwest Marriage.

The lawsuit was brought by thirteen Washington taxpayers who argued Northwest Marriage’s religious nature excluded it from participation in government programs under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

For years, the Northwest Marriage Institute has provided marriage workshops and other resources in an effort to strengthen husbands’ and wives’ relationships and eliminate poverty. Impressed by the organization’s strong track record, the Administration for Children & Families awarded the group three grants so that low-income couples could take the secular seminars for free. None of the funds were used for the biblical workshops, yet Barry Lynn’s (a former ACLU chief himself) liberal organization argued that Northwest’s religious affiliation should exclude it from participating in government programs.

Fortunately, Federal District Judge Franklin Burgess disagreed, ruling, “It has never been held that religious institutions are disabled by the First Amendment from participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs.”

“Faith-based organizations committed to serving the public should receive the same opportunities to advance their mission as secular social service providers,” continued Aden. “Organizations like Northwest Marriage provide fundamental resources essential to maintaining a stable and moral society.”

Thank you, Judge Burgess for interpreting the Constitution and not creating new laws.

House Democrats "Plan" for Iraq

Filed under: War in Iraq, War on Terror, Liberalism, Cut n Run

Democrats miraculously won a majority in Congress without a single mention of a better plan for Iraq. This is largely due to dissent among their own ranks. Some wanted an immediate retreat. Others wanted a retreat in 6-12 months. Still others thought maybe we should maintain a presence but “re-deploy” the majority of our troops.

Then came the “Slow Bleed” plan which was shot down. Their moves are becoming more and more predictable and this video from Congressman Eric Cantor plays out a scenario thatcould occur if the House Democrats supplemental funding bill is passed. Another plan sabatoge attempt from desparate Democrats too scared to come out and say what they truly believe. That is, they don’t really support the troops because they don’t support the war.

Also, Mr. Cantor has launched a petition to tell House Democrats not tomicro-manage the war. Stop by and sign it.