People amaze me these days.
     You say “liberal,” people can’t get it out of their heads that you’re slamming Democrats.  You link to Michelle Malkin because you met her and her husband a couple of times, and supported her in her fight against YouTube for removing her video for no good reason, then, oh, you must be a RepubliCon!

     Here’s another video, dedicated to our troops in Iraq, but has been lambasted with votes on YouTube that the content is Objectionable and Obscene.

     The word “liberal” shouldn’t piss anyone off, but I think people search for it these days so they can show their disdain, and become ever pedantic about things that were commonly broadcast this week.  It amuses me how the word itself refers to an ideal of “free of intolerance and prejudice” when it seems that those who themselves Liberals politically are so not that.

     If I say “liberal groups,” most people have an idea what I mean.  They are groups who adamantly seek reformation in laws regarding their cause, play watchdog to private sector businesses and individuals, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     If I say “conservative groups,” most people have an idea what I mean, as well.  They are groups who protest change, organize protests, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     It is for the latter problem in set of groups why I choose not to align myself with any “group.”

     The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” with regards to political parties came in their interpretations of our Constitution.  Liberals believe that the Constitution is dynamic, and that it should be updated.  Conservatives believe that the document should be preserved, and that it says what it says.

     These terms have little or nothing to do with “Democrat” or “Republican.”  Either can be Liberal or Conservative, and even liberal or conversative.  There can be conservative Democrats who are Conservatives.  There can be liberal Republicans who are Liberals.  And any mixture in between.

     It’s all twisted.  Considering the twists on both sides, polarizing everything just makes it worse.

     Back in the 1980’s, various liberal organizations began trying to ban people from owning “dangerous dogs.”  Pit bulls were quickly lofted to the first position as the most cantankerous canine.
     But when a six-week-old pit bull puppy chews four toes off of a one-month-old baby, liberal organizations all over the country call for volunteers to adopt the puppy.
     At least, that’s what I hear…

     “The puppy is too young to know what it’s doing!”
     “It’s so young, it may have been trying to nurse!”
     “Killing puppies is cruel!  No animal deserves to die!”

     So, umm… What did these same organizations want to do with all the pit bulls they tried to have banned?
     Hmmm?

     The story is simple, really.
     Two parents went to sleep on the floor their home.  Their one-month-old child stayed in her car seat on the floor beside them.  An impromptu “fence” was constructed to keep the dog from waking them up.
     Somehow, the parents didn’t wake up to the screams of their own child, screams which I’m certain would have been indicative that something was wrong.  Instead, they slept two feet away as the puppy ate four of her toes.
     Because, you know — it’s the parent’s fault, not the puppy’s.
     *cough*
     Riiiiiiiiiiiight…

     Clearly both were at fault.

     So let’s sit back and think for a minute…
     What if the baby had been killed?  Would the dog be saved, or would it be put down as a “dangerous dog?”
     And if the puppy had been a opossum instead?  There would certainly be no saving it.

     The site, Little Democrats, has been spammed continually for the last week from Democratic organizations, Google AdSense and miscellaneous “do-gooders” who think that this Democrat-centric children’s book is a good idea.
     Unfortunately, it’s a load of crap.

     Just take a look at the sample pages … I mean, apparently, Republicans are a group of people who don’t share their toys, run over children and charge money to go to school.

     Regardless, from what I remember, the Government isn’t supposed to be a Parent to its citizens. It’s supposed to exist to represent them.

     So, of course, I couldn’t resist spoofing it…

     The town of Pahrump, Nevada recently passed legislation to disallow the flying of foreign flags.  The Reuters article points out the reasons:

Supporters said they passed the measure to hit back at Hispanic demonstrators who carried Mexican flags when they marched in U.S. cities earlier this year to press for rights for 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the shadows.

“All of the illegal alien protesters are waving Mexican flags, and we just got tired of it,” town board clerk Paul Willis told Reuters in a telephone interview.

“This is the United States, and the Stars and Stripes should fly supreme,” he added.

     I’m with Emperor Misha from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler … The Art of Shunning has been lost in our Politically Correct Society:

I have no use for yet another group of entitlement-addicted, divisive assclowns who have no understanding of the words E Pluribus, Unum.

“Unum” does NOT mean “a collection of cliques, gangs and identity groups fighting over special privileges and handouts.”

Nobody is saying, at least I’m not, that you shouldn’t be proud of your cultural heritage. What I am saying is that if you want to be one of us, if you want to be part of the family, if you want for yourself and your family the privileges, rights and duties of being an American, then you have to be an American. You have to accept, welcome and internalize the fact that you’re an American first, and everything else second.

     Couldn’t’ve said it better myself.  

     But then again, maybe I already have said it better, given that I’m a bit closer to the situation.
     I brought my ex-wife to the U.S. from a foreign country.

     Legally.

     So… If they’re going to grant amnesty to illegals, waive all police clearances and language requirements, and give them all the rights of citizens, then I’ll agree with it, if and when my demands are met.

     I want back all the money that it cost me to get her here legally.  All of it!  Including the plane ticket!
     I want paid for the time involved in jumping through the immigration hoops that we had to jump through.  I had to take off work very often before the visa was granted, and then again after it was granted — to remove the Conditional Permanent Resident status.
     I also want a per-diem based on the fact that I was forced to stay longer in a foreign country than necessary while preparing for it all.  Ever try to get into a foreign consulate just after 9/11?  That was a pain in the rear even when I had an appointment.
     And … they can go ahead and grant her citizenship, just to show that they really mean it.  I mean, hey, we both jumped through all of those hoops.  It just seems like the right thing to do.

     Legal Immigration attempts to make sure that people are of decent moral character by checking their background with law enforcement agencies and making sure they’re not murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, rapists, slave traders, kidnappers and/or child molesters.
     We have enough of our own to deal with! 

     Legal Immigration also attempts to ensure that anyone coming to this country can speak our national language — English!
     I am an American.  I don’t want to press 1 for English!

     The whole issue really is this simple: You can’t go into your neighbor’s house and start rearranging the furniture because you don’t like it.

     How can anyone in their right mind argue with that?

     Throughout 1918, civil unrest in Germany was at critical point.  Following the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, German workers began a wave of strikes and protest across the country.  On September 29th, the Allies had broken through the Hindenburg Line, and defeat during World War I seemed imminent.

     After suffering numerous defeats, General Eric Ludendorff urged his leaders to sign an armistice with Allied forces.  This did not sit will with newly appointed German Chancellor, Prince Maximillian of Baden, nor with other military leaders.  
     This move temporarily transferred power back to the German Monarchy, however, it was short-lived.

     In the wake of Ludendorff’s resignation, some forty thousand Marines and Sailors defied their orders to attack the British Royal Navy.  After admission by their own officers that it was a suicide mission, they overtook the port at Kiel between October 29th and November 3rd.
     The siege at Kiel added fuel to revolutionaries across Germany, and over the next few days, workers and soldiers began seizing control of major cities, transportation and manufacturing facilities.  Seeing this, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated his position as Emperor of the German Empire.  Hours later, Prince Maximillian of Baden abdicated and left Friedrich Ebert of the Social Democratic Party in charge.
     Ebert, well known for being a pro-worker politician, quickly assembled an interim civilian government, and began the arduous task of restoring order in the wake of widespread insurrection.

     At 5:12AM Paris time, November 11th, 1918, in a train carriage in the Compiegne Forest in northern France, a German representative, Matthias Erzberger, signed the Armistice Agreement at the request of Ebert.  Erzberger had been told by telegram to sign the Agreement regardless of Allied demands.
     Telegrams were dispatched, and all hostilities of World War I were to end at on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918.  It took some six months of negotiations, however, for Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles on June 28th, 1919.

     On November 11th, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson commemorated Armistice Day, declaring it a legal holiday:

To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…

     Several Congressional resolutions were passed through the years, and finally by 1938, Armistice Day was finally declared a National Holiday.
     In 1953, Kansas Congressman Ed Rees learned about a “Veteran’s Day” celebration on Armistice Day in his town of Emporia, Kansas.  He was so impressed with the idea that he immediately campaigned to other Congressmen, introduced a bill and the Veteran’s Day Act was signed into Law on June 1st, 1954.
     Throughout the years, other laws like the Uniform Holiday Act of 1968, changed the day of observance from November 11th to promote three day weekends.  However, in 1975, President Gerald Ford signed off on Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned Veteran’s Day to November 11th in 1978.  This preserved the original date set forth for Armistice Day, and gives it a historical tie to help us remember why we celebrate the day.

     The reason that we celebrate this day is to honor those who served — or are serving — this country, in war and peace, and to remember the lives lost.  It’s a day to celebrate all that we’ve gained, all that we’ve earned and be vigilant for those who are serving and those that we’ve lost.

     What amazes me is that in this time of anti-War protesters and cut-and-run Politicians, many schools around the country had day-long celebrations commemorating this day, remembered our troops, and even prayed for them.
     Our newly elected Congress and Senate would do well to keep that fact in mind.

* Photo Credit Susan Shelley, Wicked Wench Photography