I'm sure by now most of you have seen the latest outrage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

I don't recall anytime in the past 30+ years (won't say exactly how much longer as I would be dating myself) when US school students did any kind of "chant" for any president. I do recall, however, that this kind of behavior was rather encouraged at certain points in time in other countries under other leaders (Hitler's Germany, for example). I know, I know - "It could never happen here." And, yes, I'm sure the "progressives" will simply say that I'm being racist, bitter, and clingy again.  But, seriously, folks. What would the (liberal) media have said if a similar chant had happened during George Bush's presidency (either George)? Or Ronald Regan's presidency? Even in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, children were not chanting in support of the president. Yes; they likely pledged allegiance to the flag or sang the Star Spangled Banner, but those support our nation not a specific president.

Just for a break from work, I did a little research. It's very interesting to look at the historical record of how Adolf Hitler came to power. Here's just one example: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/runs.htm. This page was posted in 1996, so it isn't something that's been recently put out there to "scare monger." Not everything is a parallel to recent events in the US, but there are enough parallels to consider. The Great Depression vs "the worst economy since the Great Depression." "...Goebbels also used new technology..." could be similar to the ways in which the Obama campaign used the Internet and other "new technology." And so on. Like I said, they aren't 100% parallel, but then again, Hitler did not win in his first attempt.

Does it seem as though I'm rambling? Well, maybe, but if you continue to follow the history of Hitler's Germany, you will run into the Hitler Youth and the girls' equivalent organization. Is the children's chant in the YouTube video only the first step toward similar indoctrination? Could it happen here? One hopes not.

Do your own research. Look at the historical record. The US is not the Germany of 1932. Neither is the US the Russia of 1917 (the October Revolution). However, we really need to watch what is going on in this country. It all begins with what many people believe is a good-hearted effort to solve a problem (health care?) and ends with ... well, again, look at the history.

Eight years ago today, we were attacked. "We" is more than just the United States. "We" includes people of every nationality and every age. But, it seems to me as though September 11th is starting to fade from our conscious. Maybe global economic issues have overtaken our concerns about terrorism. Maybe we're just tired of hearing about the "War on Terror." Have Americans become complacent? Have we forgotten how almost 3000 people from 90 countries were killed on that day? Are we still willing to do what we need to do to remain the truly free nation that we have been?

I obviously have not forgotten the events of September 11, 2001. I cannot, and I will not. Even if I did not personally know people who were directly affected by the events of September 11, 2001, I do not believe that I will ever forget what happened. As I get older, I notice that my memory has gotten worse. But, the events of that day remain as clear in my mind as if it had happened yesterday.

I remember my reaction when the phone range early that morning, and my husband said "Turn on the TV right now." As I watched the first burning tower, I had no idea what was to come. As I saw the second plane hit the other tower, tears ran down my face. When that second plane flew into the tower,  I knew, as any military spouse did, that the events of that day would change our lives forever. As the skies overhead became eerily silent when all plane flights were stopped, it became clear that everyone's lives would be changed by these events. My husband, and his compatriots, exist because of events such as those of September 11, 2001. Keeping us safe is why they do what they do every day -- whether in the desert, on the seas, in the missile silos of the northern tier, at the Pentagon, or in any other place around the world.

How, then, do we prevent another attack? It is worth noting that no additional attacks have occurred on US soil (I pray that continues to be true today). This results from the efforts of many thousands of people. Our active-duty (including those from the Reserves who have been called to active duty) service personnel are willing to give up their lives to prevent another such attack. They guard our freedoms at home and abroad, often giving up any semblence of a normal life to do so. There are many people who work behind the scenes as well, in homeland defense, intelligence gathering, and other supporting roles to make sure that we have the most current data possible on our enemies. (No, it isn't "torture;" Listening to elevator music for hours on end might be torture, though -- small humor). All those people (and many more who are too numerous to mention) work together every day to prevent further attacks.

But, I have to ask the questions: Does the current administration really understand what it means to do this job? Are they willing to spend the money that it takes to support our efforts at home and abroad? Are they willing to set aside "partisan politics" to keep terrorists in jail where they belong? Are they so focused on their own agenda (such as health care reform) that they're willing to let our Service personnel continue to try to do this job without the right equipment? I could go on, but I won't.

Whether specifically related to the group that claimed responsibility for the September 11th attacks or not, terrorism is a daily fact of life in many parts of the world. The "war on terror" has been going on for many years, but we really only joined it in 2001. Whether you agree with sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, the fact of life is that we are involved in a global war on terror. That war will not end soon, nor will it be easy. However, it is necessary, as we are the defenders of freedom.

Has anyone noticed lately how any difference of fact with the currently reigning party in this country is discounted by the administration and the main stream media? How they use derogatory terms to refer to anyone who disagrees with them? How those of us who worked our way up from blue collar "grass roots" are derided as "redneck," "racist," "ignorant," "stupid," and any number of other labels that they use for us?

There are any number of incidents that I could cite over the past year, but the latest (and most egregious) form of this is the Democrat response to citizens who are participating in town halls:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/08/democrats_derid.html

And they call us "intolerant?" Okay, guys, put your money where your mouths are. Since when do we not tolerate any discussion in this country? The liberals absolutely insist that we must pass a sweeping restructuring of the US health care system, without allowing any time for our Congress critters to "read the bill" or have any reasonable discussion about whether the sweeping changes are needed. Have you noticed how it is taken as fact that our health care system is broken? Um, excuse me, but by the proper rules of debate, you have to have evidence for a statement, not just a "glittering generality" or maybe in this case "water is wet." Multiple logical fallacies aside, the liberals use such terms as "unwilling to move forward" when anyone in Congress raises any question about this bill, again implying that the loyal opposition are backward and ignorant. Is our current system perfect? No. But, is it as broken as the liberals claim it is? Perhaps it might be useful to consider tort reform, for example. Or, perhaps we need to make some changes to the "pre-existing conditions" rules.

As a brief aside, also notice how the administration seems to have every right to create new "czars" to implement their socialist agenda without any Constitutional vetting by the Congress. Hmmm.... That's a topic for another blog later.

WAKE UP AMERICA. The Bill of Rights is being destroyed very quickly.  If I can find the time to do it (hard to find that time since I work for a living), I think it would be very interesting to look at the bills the Democrats have passed over the past eight months to see if they have left any of our fundamental rights untouched. I suspect the answer will not make me (or you) happy.

The Republicans in Congress need to stand up for our Constitution and for what made our country great. Instead of voting with the Democrats because "well, he's the President and we should support his policies," listen to the not-so-silent majority and stand up for our rights. Do what we elected you to do and represent the people of this country. Don't represent the administration. Don't represent the trial liars (oops - "lawyers"). Listen to the people asking the questions at the town halls. Tell us why you think it's okay to pass a bill that you haven't read, maybe even a bill that hasn't yet been written. Tell us what's wrong with the current system such that it requires a complete replacement with a government-run system. Prove to us that the government will be able to do any better with this project than it has done with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and so on. Go re-read the Constitution. Look again at the responsibilities of the federal government, and vote against any bill that goes beyond those powers.

End rant for now.

This morning, I am "bitter" and "clingy." Okay, not really. I am, however, very disappointed in the US citizens for the choice they made. I continue to wonder why the result is what it is.

According to several polls, many people voted for President-elect Obama even though they felt that Senator McCain had the right experience to be President. What does that say about the US voters? A co-worker of mine, not originally from the US, said this yesterday "One of the problems with a democracy is that even the uneducated get to vote." I wouldn't go that far, but yesterday's results do make one wonder why people chose to vote an inexperienced person into the highest office in our country. Did they do it just because they "blame" the Republicans for the current economic crisis, ignoring the fact that the Democrats are the ones who insisted that loans be made available to everyone, regardless of income level? Did they do it because they saw a charismatic, well-spoken, and nice-looking person who made them "feel good" (regardless of what he actually believes)? Did they do it because they wanted to be part of history by electing the first African-American President? I don't know.

I'm sure that a lot of pundits who will provide their thoughts about what happened, and why. But, just as a regular person, I think it will be a very long time before I will understand. Choosing personality over substance does not make sense to me. And the substance of President-elect Obama, based on his own words over the years, has me worried about the "changes" to come to our great nation. Yes, there will be "change". But, will the "change" be for the better?

Last week, Senator Obama said that 95% of people who make less than $250,000 a year would get a "tax cut" under his plan. I went out to his web site, put in our numbers (and no, we don't come near that number) and did not get back an answer that I would get a tax cut. Now, in Senator Obama's "infomercial" tonight, he said "$200,000." And, Senator Biden earlier this week, referred to a number of $150,000.

Hmmm... I wonder if the number will continue to drop until it reaches 0, and in fact, becomes a tax increase instead. It seems likely, just based on the changes in the past week.

Senator Obama talks a lot about change. And, yes, I suspect that an Obama presidency would definitely bring change. But, is it the kind of change that we want? Or, when he is done with us, would "change" (as in small denominations of money) be all that we have left?

To clarify what Senator Biden said recently, Barack Obama says "...a period of transition in a new administration is always one in which we have to be vigilant..." and "...We have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy that others don't take advantage of it..." [statements made in Richmond, VA, before a panel of foreign policy and military experts]

If I were a conspiracy monger, I might think Senator Obama implies that any democratic transition is a bad thing. And, at the risk of further "fear mongering," one could further conclude that these statements are a premise to setting up an Obama for life Presidency. I'm sure that sounds absurd, but with a Democrat "super majority," could the 22nd amendment be repealed, allowing Obama to serve as President for more than eight years (think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, or the late Saddam Hussein)? Just something to think about as we also vote for Senators and Representatives in less than two weeks.

Over the weekend, Senator Joe Biden said that he, as a student of history, is certain that there will be a "generated crisis" during the first six months of a Barack Obama presidency that will "test" his (Obama's) leadership. Furthermore, he said that said administration would make some decisions that people would not like and we should all be ready to "support" them - no matter what. These are the words of Senator Obama's vice-presidential choice? Perhaps Senator Obama's VP choice should make us question his decision-making abilities even more so than his previous associations with people such as Reverend Wright and William Ayers? But, I digress from my original thoughts.

The point that I wanted to get to is this: If we should expect any new President to have to deal with a manufactured crisis to "test" him in the first six months, wouldn't it be better to have a President that has experience to prove that he can handle a crisis? Senator McCain has proven he can handle a crisis. Whether or not you agree with him in all instances, Senator McCain has a history that shows he "can take it." We have no data about how Senator Obama would respond to a crisis, because he has no experience. There has been much talk from the mainstream media about how ill-prepared Governor Palin is to be "one heart-beat away from the Presidency," but she appears to have more executive experience than does Senator Obama who would be the President. To the Obama campaign, I ask: What experience does Senator Obama have as something other than a community organizer and one-term U.S. Senator that indicates he is ready to be President of the greatest nation on earth? Maybe if I could see it, I might feel better about a President Obama, be less bitter, and stop clinging to my guns and my Bible.

As one of the "silent majority," I can be silent no more. The reasons are many, but the proverbial straw that broke this particular camel's back is the latest fiasco with the Presidential election of 2008. I'm tired of the liberal lies. I'm tired of hearing regular, hard-working United States citizens referred to as "bitter" and "racist." I'm tired of the liberal record that is being hidden and distorted. And, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we will lose this election, that we have no chance.

Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. That is not a racist comment; it is a fact. And, at present, both houses of Congress are led by Democrats. So, imagine what could happen with no "checks-and-balances." I know the liberal press would accuse me of "fear mongering," but I see it as a reality check.