Free America

Herman Cain

2011-11-16T14:56:00.000-08:00

Herman Cain remains the best candidate the GOP has to challenge President Obama despite the Politico hit job and the foreign policy gaffe.
Let us examine the gaffe first. After a stressful and emotional time in which a happily married man was accused of inappropriate behavior, Herman Cain had the audacity of flubbing on Libya. The media and his competitiors are using this to create the myth that any presidential candidate must have perfect answers to every possible question.
Does anybody remember the George W. Bush foreign policy quiz where he could not name foreign leaders? And Bush turned out to be a forceful American leader in the field of National Defense despite him having campaigned on primarily domestic issues. The truth is that it is not detailed knowledge on all sorts of issues that makes somebody a good president but rather the ability to learn, have good advisors and be decisive. Cain has those qualities, as he has shown throughout his entire career. Obama does not, as he has shown thoughout his presidential term. Cain has made mistakes in his campaign and will continue to do so, but after each mistake he will get up, shake off the dirt and emerge stronger and more determined to do right by this Country. And when elected president, Cain will have a SecState, SecDef, NSA anda plethora of advisors to help him make the best possible decisions for America. And given Cain's love for this country, that allowed him to work his way out poverty into a successful business career. Cain has the true American story, unlike Obama's drug-laced, marxist-backed, terrorist-supported story. Or Romney's political dynasty for that matter.
And while overall the President of the United States SHOULD focus on National Defense, RIGHT NOW we need a president to undo the liberal damage to the economy and steer the country back onto the path of Amercan success via the entrepreneurial spirit and true capitalism. Herman Cain can do all of that. Further, the electorate is sick and tired of political insiders and want a true maverick to shake up the system. Romney comes from a political dynasty, Perry Gingrich, and Paul have held office for so long, they ARE the establishment. Cain is the only good alternative.
Next, Herman Cain was accused of acts that are entirely inconsistent with 46 years of moral behavior. You would think that if he was capable of these things he would continue to do them in every company he was involved with - and that would have come out. Heck, even Bill Clinto could not hide his womanizing/ raping ways and HE has State Troopers and White House officials to help cover it up.
Please consider this: Cain was only ACCUSED of these acts - he was NEVER found to have actually done anything wrong. Even the settlements did not actually involve him, but rather represented shut-up money paid after Cain had already left the Restaurant Association. If his actions were improper - why was he not pursued personally? He HAD money.
It is unfortunate that for every real harassment claim reported, and scores that go unreported, there are some claims made for reasosns of obtaining money or revenge. We already knw that the accusers needed money and at least one has a history of making workplace accusations.
And yet it is Cain that loses support over accusations. How is this even remotely proper?
I do not know if it was Perry, Romney or Obama who leaked the "story" to Politico. I do know that it was Politico that chose to run a "story" based on anonymous innuendo and not journalism. If this hit job causes Cain to not be elected, Politico might have the future of America on its conscience.
Yet I am hopeful that the American electorate is smarter that that (not very hopeful, mind you, this IS the same electorate that actually elected Obama). We still have time before Iowa and South Carolina to get Herman Cain two very important victories. With those he can build momentum and get back to the issues that are important: how to get the government to stop suppressing American Exceptionalism and unleash the strength of the American small business entrepreneurial spirit to finally fix our economy.
Oh, and stop Iran from going nuclear. That's also important.

Statement of Problems

2008-05-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

We got a problem, folks

Senator John McCain, the presidential nominee for the GOP, agreed to address La Raza (yes, that translates to "The Race") an essentially pro-illegal immigration group. This adds to the already existing concern of most Americans that Sen. McCain favors an amnesty approach to the illegal immigration problem.

Senator McCain takes the conservative vote for granted - never a good idea...

In my previous posts I endoresed first SecState Rice, then Sen. Thompson, both for the same reason: we need a president who will protect this nation in ALL areas that need protection.

What if McCain wins? How will this reflect on the GOP?

I have heard of conservatives who will refuse to vote and hope that we can weather 4 years of Obama. They point out - correctly - that 4 years of Carter lead to Reagan. I would like to believe this could be possible here and that perhaps 4 years of Obama could invigorate the GOP and hopefully allow a true conservative leader to emerge.

Or, it could lead to a meltdown in the Middle East, terrorist attacks on American cities, socialized medicine, a socialized economy, perhaps the end of America as we know it.

I do not know if McCain is the lesser evil that might be controllable or if he would destroy the party.

I have to vote, it is who I am.

But who to vote for?

Statement on Politics and Voting

2008-05-05T18:57:00.000-07:00

Greetings and salutations

I hope to be blogging more frequently and I hope the change I made to my comment section elevates the quality of my blog.

I really need to write more often and I apologize.

Up until now my posts have discussed specific political events or the topics were drawn from current headlines. I am going to take a break from this and discuss a matter very important to me.

Politics

In this particular post I am refering to politics in general rather than a specific political ideology. Granted, being a Conservative has been a very important influence in my life, but before I was a Conservative, I was interested in politics period.

Some of you know that prior to 1999 I lived in Germany for 17 years. During that time I was still an American citizen which gave me an interesting perspective very early in my life. Specifically it meant one thing: I could not vote. I knew I could not vote and knew that I would never be able to vote.

INTERMISSION
short of rejecting my citizenship and becoming German. SOOOOOOOOOO not gonna happen
END INTERMISSION

Even when I joined the youth organization of the Christian Democratic Union and later the party itself, I had a VERY limited impact in German political life -and I was one of the interested ones.
When I moved back to the United States I did my research (wrote Tom Daschle and John Thune and asked each of them to justify their party's ideology - Thune won). Later, I was surprised and shocked to discover how low our voter turnout is.

I strongly believe that our Nation is the greatest nation on this planet - but seriously folks, our voter turnout is pathetic.

Most people I ask about this (well, only those who don't vote) plainly state that their vote makes no difference, that politics is boring and doesn't affect them.
The last argument irritates me.

On this temporal plain of existence politics is incredibly important: politics governs your entire life. Think about it and try to come up with an area that politics does not affect...

You want to get married? You need a license and the county will have requirements.
You want to save money? First, look at your pay stub and see how much money goes to taxes. Second, look up the IRS regulations concerning IRAs, finally, if you invest look at capital gains taxes.
You want to buy a house? Make sure to check your home owners association's rules.
You want pets? How many cats does your city allow?
You want to drive? Every State has their own rules (and all of them waaaaay too easy)
You want to drive FAST? Who came up with 70mph speed limits? (I'm still bitter about those two speeding tickets in Minnesota...)

Politics, in some form or another, affects everybody. Even if you want to be a survivalist loner in Montana, you will be taxed. If you want to homeschool your kids, you have state guidelines. If you want to establish a freaky religious center in Waco, chances are the FBI will invade.

If politics affects your entire life, why would you NOT get involved? Most Americans pride themselves on being independent, yet refuse to participate in the system that has the power to affect their independence. This makes no sense.

Now we come to voting. In America, voting occurs approximately every two years. This being America, we vote about EVERYTHING. City officials, county officials, law enforcement officials, judicial officials, state representatives and federal representatives. Further, on most ballots you can vote on issues: specific county ordinances, local taxation, amendments to State constitutions. The list is endless. All one has to do is take an interest, spend SOME time reading up on the issues (and even if not, most issues are explained ON the ballot) and take the time to VOTE. You get involved and your voice will be counted.

And even if not, it is still important to take a stand.

I knew very well that Shane Osborn was going to win state office (even though his actions were stupid and potentially dangerous) but it felt good to vote AGAINST him.

Now lets discuss the coming presidential election.

Let's make this clear (clear? crystal...) I do not like any of the candidates. Or put different, I do not like any candidate's politics (I actually like John McCain personally).
But as I stated in an earlier post, the coming issues are IMPORTANT. For this Nation, at some point, they will affect life and death. I just have to vote.
Accordingly, I will even vote in the primary - just not for McCain - just so that I can sleep better knowing that I tried, I was part of the process in selecting the person who will lead this country.

And in November, I will vote against the Democrats - and yes, FOR McCain. I am too scared what a Clinton/Obama presidency would bring. So please, everybody out there who thinks they should stay home, please go out and vote.

And for all you people who want to vote for a Democrat, remember election day in November FIFTH...

Charles Garman

Statement on Comments

2008-05-05T14:13:00.000-07:00

I have changed two items about comments to my post:

1) I now reserve the right to review them before they post; and

2) you know have to verify that you're a real human being.

This was done to remove spam and porn ads. I find both disturbing. If you reply to my posts with disagreements, I will authorize the comment, even if you are abusive. Granted, i will then proceed to mock you, but still...

Charles

Statement on proper spelling

2008-05-05T13:55:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the many spelling errors in the previous post.

Statement on OMG

2008-01-05T14:25:00.000-08:00

OK, everybody, please note the reply to my most recent (almost a year ago) post.

yeah, so I was wront with vitually all of my predictions. How unusual.

I shall not dwell on my inaccurate predictions but rather discuss the current situation.

Also, for the first time in a while, I will ignore the Democrats (I would like to encourage all of you to do the same come November).

This election is important for three reasons:

1) The future of Western Civiliation

This is kind of a big one.
Radical Islam is on the march. They are very influential in the Middle East (duh) but are gaining in Africa, Pakistan, formerly Soviet states, and Europe. SOME European states are trying to stem the tide but they are only moderately successful. Spain caved (in their defense, they have a history of being conquered by islam).
Once again, America is the shining city on the hill that provids hope for the free world. We need a president who fill FIGHT these people (preferably somewhere else).

INTERMISSION
I've seen videos of Radical Islamics executing women for showing ancle. The ARE that evil.
END INTERMISSION

2) The future of American liberties

This does NOT mean what liberals constantly whine about. Our liberties are not in danger because of Guantanamo or because we liberated Iraq. Approving of or supporting our Nation's military does not lead to a police state.
The true danger lies in forgetting what liberty means and where we - the first Nation built on the idea of liberty - came from.
Read the Constitition. Just read it. Don't analyze it, don't interpret it, just read it. That document, that brilliant piece of writing establishes a nation-state with limited government. The state was was established understanding that people need laws to keep order and allow citizens to live their lives. But, the state was not established to allow the government to dictate HOW the citizens live their lives. That's why we need a federal government with limited power.

None of the Democrats understand this. Few of the Republicans do.

3) The future of American culture.aus

Protect the border, teach American values and history. Promote English, etc etc.

We need a candidate who is a true conservative to protect America from all threats.

Mayor Giuliani is a Republican because he supports a strong defense.
Senator McCain is a Republican for the same reason.
Governors Romney and Huckabee are Republicans because they are social conservatives.
Ron Paul is a Republican because ... not sure ... mainly because the Libertarian Party is not viable, I guess.

Senator Thompson is a Republican because he has read "Conscience of a Conservative." He understands national defense. He understands American culture and history. And he understands limited government.

INTERMISSION
I like Huckabee. He is a good, devout Christian. But, he wants to use the power of the government to further his agenda, he does not want to limit that power.
END INTERMISSION

It pains me to see Sen. Thompson so low in the polls. He is a good man and a great leader, and best of all he is a true Conservative.

I know my endorsement means little, but Sen. Thompson has it.

We continue to need a free America in Novmber.

Charles B. Garman

Statement of Mea Culpa

2006-10-26T11:35:00.000-07:00

Ok, so this title doesn't make perfect sense. Let's just score this one as creative license...

What should I apologize for? well, it appears that my predictions from my last blog were not quite correct. Also, I haven't posted in a year. Sorry 'bout that, too.

By the way, if anybody cares, I'm now a lawyer.

Yeah, I didn't think anybody cared, either...

Let me go ahead and update my predictions for 2008:
Dems:
I really thought that Kerry would stick around. I really did, his ego was sure big enough. If he gives it another try, he won't get the nomination, by 2008 the Dems will have run away from his "record"
Edwards might try, but he is just not active enough in politics. My money is still on Hillary. Pelosi won't run because she a) will have lost the election for Speaker or b) will be Speaker which in itself is a pretty cool gig.
Clark resigned himself to obscurity. If he shows up again, people will probably ask who he is. I have been surprised by people mentioning Barack Obama as possible candidate. What is it with first term senators runing for president? I don't know how well Omaba would do because I don't know Obama. Nobody knows Obama. All we know is that he appears to be smart and black. The first is a good quality in a president, the second should have no bearing on the quality of leadership. My guess is that Obama is left leaning, but I really don't know enough about him to either support or fight him. Maybe that is the Democrat's plan, nomonate somebody new who doesn't have a record to be ashamed of (probably why nobody EVER talks about nominating Teddy Kennedy or Robert Byrd).
Warner said he won't run, which is good for the GOP because Warner actually could have won.
Liebermann obviously won't run and it looks like he won't retire. Unfortunately, he'll continue to caucas with the Democrats because, his feeling of the war aside, he's very liberal.

GOP
uhm .... yeah
Frist and Santorum ... probably not
McCain will make a run for it, as will Giuliani - maybe they'll do it together.
I STILL WANT CONDI

so there

ok, now 2006
If the Democrats get control of Congress, nothing that has to happen will happen.
If they do, it won't be the end of the world. With a GOP president and a slighlty more sane Supreme Court (only slightly) we can hold of the most lunatic liberal proposals.
The less lunatic ones ... oh well, at least America will see why voting Republican is generally a good idea.

*Intermission*
Republicans in Nebraska, PLEASE don't vote for Shane Osborne. I know he won the Republican nomination, I voted against him and I will vote against him in the general election. One should not surrender American property and secrets to the CHICOM and profit at the polls.
*End Intermission*

Will the GOP loose seats? Duh. Is that a proof that America is turning against the GOP? Probably not. Traditionally, the party in power looses seats during the midterm elections. Bush and the GOP just broke that tradition the last times. Is the GOP loosing seats a bad thing? Yes and we should fight hard to prevent it.
But we shouldn't end our great conservative journey.
Well, we can take a detour and maybe take a break and reread Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. It might do us some good to remember what we stand for politically. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with limited government.

Yes, I read that somewhere.

Charles

Statement on Dr. Condi Rice

2005-01-28T21:14:00.000-08:00

Yes, George W. Bush just was elected and just recently was inaugurated. I do understand those who are weary of campaigns and elections and definately do not want to contemplate the 2008 election. While no decisions have to be made for quite a while, there is no harm in considering candidates.

For the Dems:
Kerry will run again, so will Edwards. Dick Gephard has had enough and will finally quit. Lieberman won't run and might even retire from the Senate soon. Clark might try again. Hillary will OF COURSE try and has the best chances on the Dem side.

For the GOP:
Guliani will probably try and would not be a bad choice. Frist and Santorum will both at least form exploratory committees as will McCain. Of the three, Frist and McCain are the most likely to succeed.
Now about Dr. Condi Rice, our SecState.
Dr. Rice has given no indication whatsoever of wanting to run for the Presidency. Also, she is by far the most competent person and best choice not just for the GOP nomination, but for the Presidency itself.
Keep this in mind: this woman is brilliant, she got her college degree with 19, her Masters with 20 and her doctorate before 30. She is a concert pianist, was the provost at Stanford and both an amazing and an unshakeable National Security Advisor.
I hereby endorse Dr. Rice for President and would like to refer everybody to www.americansforrice.com.

Thanks,
Charles

Statement on Reconciliation

2004-11-23T21:11:00.000-08:00

I went to class on November 3rd and remarked to a friend that it was a beautiful day. My friend then asked me if I was gloating - my candidate George Bush having been reelected to the Presidency. And frankly, yes I was gloating..

But there comes a time when one has to move on and offer one's hand in friendship so that the country can heal and Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives can work together in a bipartisan manner for the good of the Nation.

Unfortunately the Liberals didn't get that memo.

What does reconciliation really mean? What does a mandate really mean?

Those who know me understand that I am very passionate in my conservative views. In the manner of reconciliation I have stopped gloating and have started to talk to liberals who spent months personally attacking the leader of my party and calling his cabinet members "Nazis." But liberals cannot bring themselves to let go of their hatred. They instead resort to insulting the majority that voted for the President and finding weird explanations why they lost or why they should have won.

And by the way, what is with calling Republicans Nazis? If you know anything about the Nazis and about the Republican Party you'd know how wrong this comparison is. The Nazis were racist, anti-religious people whose main ideology was not just the superiority of the Aryan blood, but also the notion that the individual serves and should be subordinate to the state. Republicans have not only passed the 13-15 Amendment to the US Constitution (look them up, I won't explain their importance), but continue to believe in a colorblind society in which people are judged on their merits rather than on the color of their skin. Republicans also tend to be religious and most importantly believe that the state serves the individual and that small government is better than large government. The first thing the Nazis did when they assumed power was to extend the power of the state to all aspects of life (Nazi labor unions, Nazi youth groups, Nazi teacher's union, Nazi bar association, etc). Republicans fight every day to keep the government from reaching into people's lives.

So, calling republicans Nazis is not a good step towards reconciliation. Calling the American voters who voted for Bush dumb is not a good step towards reconciliation. Demanding that the President move to the left AFTER HE WON REELECTION WITH A HIGH MARGIN is not a good step towards reconciliation.

Come on liberals, let go of your hatred, stop the name calling and act like Americans.

Charles

Statement on Intellectual Honesty

2004-09-13T07:11:00.000-07:00

Hey,

this post will be rather short as it is merely a reaction to current events. If anyone disagrees with my assessment and interpretation, feel free to point out the flaws in my argumentation. Again, if you are unable to back your views up, I will make fun of you.

Media has in a democracy an absolutely vital role in that the media informs the public and keeps an eye on elected officials. My thesis is that the American media's bias has become so overwhelming that it can no longer fulfill that function. For further reading on this topic I recommend the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.

Because the issue of media bias is so immense, consider that Goldberg has so far written two books on this issue, I will focus on what the media covers and the current Dan Rather controversy.
The various news and media outlets are faced daily by a plethora of news items that need to be covered. A decision then has to be made on what to cover and who to interview. The media's bias here becomes transparent. The Today show on September 13th interviewed in the first hour two authors who wrote anti-Bush books. The second interview was on a woman who claimed that the President snorted cocaine in Camp David, a claim that has been since dismissed as ludicrous with the author's own sources disputing that it ever happened (www.lauraingraham.com is my source on this).

In the last months the Today show gave a lot of airtime to authors criticizing the Bush administration, even ignoring or downplaying evidence disputing those authors' claims. At the same time the Today show not once interviewed Sean Hannity who wrote two New York Times bestellers and Mr. O'Neill who wrote "Unfit for Command" a book that disputes John Kerry's Vietnam claims and which currently is the #1 bestseller on the New York Times. Also, "Vietnam Veterans for Kerry" are frequently mentioned and their activities covered. "Vietnam Veterans for Truth," a group critical of Kerry recently staged a demonstration - which then was ignored by the media. If these people were true journalists, they would look at all sides and report on all strength and flaws regardless of political affiliation. This, the media does not do and in so doing they have let down this country. Today's journalists are not worthy of that name.

The current media crisis has been brought to a point by Dan Rather. Rather broke the story that Bush's commander in the National Guard had suspended Bush because Bush had not obeyed an order to get a physical exam. Rather's evidence were typed memos taken from the commander's file. The problem with this is that the commander's family have now come out to say that the commander a) did not type b) did not keep that kind of records and c) had a high regard for Bush as an officer and pilot. A closer inspection of the memos also revealed that they were written in a font that didn't exist in 1971, when they were supposed to have been written, and that the margins were justified - an ability that government typewriters at that time did not have. In fact, it appears that those memos were written on a PC with Microsoft Word. A good journalist, or at least an intellectually honest one, would have then come out to admit error and investigate the source of those memos. Not Dan Rather. Against all evidence, Rather insists on the authenticity of the documents and appears appalled that anybody would criticize him.

Is this the kind of behavior the modern media wants to condone? Well, they are. I call upon everybody to contact their news outlets (especially CBS and NBC) and complain about media bias. Maybe one day the media will be able to resume their duties as servants to the democracy but until then the media is harming the people by not properly reporting current events.
And Mr. Rather, please just admit for once that you are wrong.

Charles Garman

Statement of Terrorists and Freedom fighters

2004-09-08T09:40:00.000-07:00

Hey,

again, I invite everybody and anybody to disagree with me. I just ask that you back your opinions with sound arguments. If you insist on repeating liberal talking points, I will mock you.

Ever hear the saying "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?" My thesis is that this concept is inherently wrong because a terrorist can never be a freedom fighter and vice versa. A freedom fighter has the freedom of his/her people at heart and fights for their liberation. A terrorist has his/her own special agenda and employs terror to coerce whoever opposes the terrorist to acquiesce to the terrorists' agenda.

What is a freedom fighter? A freedom fighter is a soldier. A freedom fighter organizes or joins an army in order to engage the occupier in combat. Take the American colonies in 1775. A lot - by all means not all - of the colonists perceived themselves to be oppressed and occupied by the British. As a result, even before the colonies declared their independence, those colonists formed the continental army and militias in order to fight the British. On the other side, the British sent their army and colonists loyal to the Crown joined the British army or formed loyalist militias so that they would not be oppressed by the revolutionaries. The American War for Independence was just that, a war in which armies clashed and ended with a treaty.
Take Texas in 1832. The Texas colonists thought themselves oppressed and formed an army with which they engaged Santa annoys army, in the end defeating it and gaining independence. These are examples on how to fight a war for independence. The war might still be bloody and vicious, but a freedom fighter is a soldier who believes in the cause and then proceeds to attack the enemy soldier. Israel has a similar history. Israel might not be fighting a war for independence but rather a war for survival. And yet, the Israeli army engages military targets, only. Any death of civilians is either accidental, or a strategy of Israel's enemies - to have civilians and children intermingled with military targets.

What is a terrorist? A terrorist is not, even if he/she claims to be, a soldier. A soldier abides by the law of war or is court mortality. A terrorist not only does not abide by the law of war, a terrorist deliberately violates those laws. A terrorist is not interested in engaging the enemies' army or attack military targets. A terrorist kills and murders civilians, men, women, and children. Let me make this clear, a terrorist targets the innocent and has no remorse. When you use a civilian plane with civilians in it to fly into buildings, you are a terrorist. When you storm a school and rape and kill children, you are a terrorist. When you drive a bomb truck into a bar mitzva and murder families, you are a terrorist. When you strap a bomb to yourself and walk into a crowded market and detonate yourself, not only are you a terrorist, so is the person who made you do it.
Most terrorist then claim that since they cannot defeat the enemies' army, they must resort to terrorism - that the oppressor's very presence forces the terrorist to use terrorism. Is that true? Is terrorism as method sometimes inevitable?
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the British Army was nearly unbeatable. At the same time, India was interested in independence. Ghandi saw this and was drafted to help. Instead of resorting to acts of terrorism and trying to force the British out that way, Ghandi found the alternative of passive resistance. In 1947 India became independent.
After the American civil war, black Americans were discriminated against and denied their civil rights. There was no way that black Americans could defeat the police, National Guard, or the US Army. And the way the discrimination was structured, they could not even seek relief at the polls. In addition to this, the Ku Klux Klan did engage in acts of terrorism by whipping and hanging black activists. Martin Luther King saw this and started to help. Instead of fighting fire with fire, MLK advocated passive resistance. In 1964 the president signed Civil Rights legislation and since then Congress and the courts have made law to defend everybody's civil rights.
These are examples where the terrorist would use murder and rape to terrorize the opposing party into submission and where the "freedom fighter" (in this case I use that term loosely) actually achieves the goal without using terror.
Imagine a Palestinian passive resistance movement. How long would it take until there was a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?

A terrorist is not a freedom fighter and as such a terrorist does not deserve the respect of the international community. Whether it is terrorism aimed at the United States in New York, at Russia in their schools, or at Spain in the Basque land, terrorism must be fought and defeated because true peace will not be established when conflicts are resolved, but rather when terrorists are eliminated.

Free America from terrorism and free the world from it, too.

Charles B. Garman

Statement of Standards

2004-08-27T07:04:00.000-07:00

Hey,

if you want to insult me or disagree with anything I say, be my guest - just be ready to back your opinion up. If you insist on repeating liberal talkingpoints, I will make fun of you. At this time I would like to encourage everybody to visit www.hannity.com and www.spectator.org
These websites represent some of the true free news sources available in the United States.

I propose the thesis that this November election we must free America - not from tyranny of arms or from foreign occupation, but by the dominance of the left-wing's secularized "blame America first" approach to terrorism.

Honestly, no man or woman desire death or loss of freedom. This is even true of liberals. However, anybody can easily recognize a danger that does not conceal itself. September 11th, 2001 a danger showed itself without disguise and America came together. Since then that very same danger has concealed itself once more and has found aid and comfort from liberals.
What danger is this? Let's call it anti-freedom. Freedom will allow you to make your own choices and decision. Be a Christian or a Muslim. Be Republican or Democrat. Read books or watch TV. Spend your time writing blogs or spend your time blow-drying your hair. Be free to call the leader of your country a visionary leader or call him stupid. This is freedom (in a nutshell). Anti-freedom is the exact opposite. Here, you cannot make choices and decisions. In Iran you can not choose your religion. In China, you cannot choose your party affiliation. Under the former Taliban you could neither read books, nor watch TV and forget about blow-drying your hair. And in Iraq under Saddam you were unable to call your leader names. This is anti-freedom.

The war waged on America is waged by these anti-freedom forces. They want to establish their world view - and we are in the way. America is being attacked not because of what we do, but because of who we are. We were attacked not because we deployed troops to Kuwait to liberate a country, we were attacked because we allow women to fight in our Armed Force and even because we allow women to vote. And frankly, they hate us because we are what the people they oppress want to be. And also, we have Baywatch. The government in Teheran hates Baywatch.

In come the liberals. I say liberals and not Democrats because there are some very honerable and honest Democrats. Unfortunately their party was hijacked by liberals who have taken it onto themselves to dominate America and bring America into the ranks of the anti-freedom forces. Liberals seek to use PC language to curtail freedom of speech. Liberals seek to use the "separation of church and state" doctrine to curtail freedom of religion. Liberals seek to use college campuses to curtail freedom of thought. Liberals blame America first for all the world's woes and insist that in order for peace to be achieved in our time, we must give up freedom.

Think about it. If liberals were pro freedom of speech, why would Kerry try to stop the publication and sale of "Unfit for Command" rather than defeat its contents through argument. If liberals were pro freedom of religion, why would they deny the right of prayer in school to only the Christians? Why do liberals insist on putting Americans in categories such as African-American, Asian-American rather than simply treating everybody with respect regardless of the color of their skin. Keep this in mind. The great Martin Luther King brought justice to this country by organizing the civil rights movement, the greatest political revolution in the last 50 years. However, MLK himself was seeking a society in which one is judged by the content of one's character and not the color of one's skin. Liberals claim to be sensitive to minority's needs, but heir actions are adverse to those needs

Liberals are anti-freedom and they're getting ready to dominate this country. They already dominate the mass media (especially the New York Times and CNN) and are poised to move further. This is why this coming election is vital to our country's very survival. And so I call upon everybody to go and register three friends and tell everbody to vote for pro-freedom candidates. Currently those candidates are Republican but in time the Democrats will be able to free themselves and become a viable party once more.

Free America from the liberals and save your freedom.

Charles Garman