A few years ago I started my blog Crosshairs and sent my writings out to my two Marine groups, family and e-mail friends. As most of us do, over the years I have surrounded myself with people who have common interests, share the same values and mostly think along the same lines as I. Thus I was often told that in my writings I was preaching to the choir and I fully understood. But now that I have branched out and am able to post my blogs in newspapers and on other websites I have found, not surprisingly, that the choir is not always in tune. In fact I have found that in stating my opinions others can become down right hostile. Of course this was to be expected but I did have some hope that those who responded in a negative light would be a little more illuminating in their disagreements with me than simply calling me an 'idiot' or comparing my intellect to that of a fence post. But then as any fourth grader will tell you if you should call one of them an idiot, "It takes one to know one." And that is unfortunately also the level to which some of these replies have transgressed, 'Dude.'

I want to thank all of you who have taken the time to respond in an affirmative manner as it is appreciated. As for those who want to rant and rave about my opinions or call me names, after this blog I see little use in responding further. Life is too short and while you have a right to your opinions so do I, and it is my blog. As the blog in question was political I will state this next promise in the manner of a politician. Time allowing, however, if you ever want to open up some type of meaningful dialogue and discuss what I have said without the name calling and are willing to bring some facts to the table, I will still be open to that, you know, like your new President is willing to talk to Ahmadinejad.

Of course the key words here are 'time allowing' so in other words, like Obama's national heath care, don't count on it.

Someone once said that if you ask a conservative a question they will respond with 'I think…' but if you ask a liberal the same question they will respond with 'I feel…" That has been, dare I say, liberally the case here in these responses towards my criticisms of their Obama and those of you who voted for him. While my blog rant was with some passion, I hope, I did not feel the hatred towards the liberal voters who made him our next president that was returned by them. Instead of hatred, what I felt was more a bewilderment that Americans could be so hoodwinked by the biased media and so unresponsive to the obvious misjudgments of Obama's character, inexperience and misguided unpatriotic relationships. I came to hold these stated opinions through many hours of research on liberal, conservative and supposedly neutral sources. Now one would think that these liberals who responded so venomously would be in a little better mood since their anointed one just won the election. After reading their present responses we can only imagine how upset they are going to be after four years of Obama in office while other Americans voice our dissenting views. I honestly do hope the Obamaites don't blow a gasket in the next four years.

Here was where I was going to copy and paste a number of the replies from the left-wing-nuts and I actually started doing so with the following:

From the Arizona Republic:

Vosotros5 has an animated picture of a man standing in the middle of a room frantically throwing his arms wildly about in a manic rage. His comments in italics, are followed by my reply:

"I'll do whatever I like."

By golly! Yes you can, at least until you get arrested.

"You don't make the rules."

Well yes I do, in fact at one time or another everybody makes rules, and as you can plainly read, I did make these rules.

"Neither can you predict the future."

By researching your soon to be President's history, his past and present associations, his past voting record and his positions on the issues, I can pretty much tell how he is going to act in the future. You should try doing the same before you vote in the next election. Just don't ask me to pick next Saturday's lotto numbers.

From The Green Bay Gazette:

1ramk1 wrote:

"HO HUM...SAME OLD CRAP...YOU THINK SARA WAS TREATED WORSE THAN HILLARY?

SHE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN WHAT HILLARY DID…"

First of all it is Sarah not Sara. Second, by the omission of your denial you have agreed that Palin was treated badly and third, you apparently take great pride in your liberal party and media in that they treated your own party's female candidate even worse. Charming.

"PLEASE BOW YOUR HEAD IN PRAYER...BOW IT SO LOW THAT IT REINSERTS INTO YOUR RECTUM WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE AT HOME..."

I know well how to pray, but as everyone knows what you are describing here is the conversion to Liberalism. By the way, how's that Global Warming thing coming along up there in Green Bay?

But after adding a couple more of these comments with even more to be discussed it just became too tedious to continue to copy, strip, paste and reply to such ravings. Which of course is the same description, 'ravings' that many of them used to describe my opinions. So, Touché!

Instead of reposting all of these negative replies I will just comment on a few others and then be done with it.

A guy who fancies himself as, FancyDancer and actually often uses the term "dude" started out one of his comments with; "Jerk wad, jarhead, stereotypical White-supremacist jargon attempting to shift the blame for the many-faceted Republican abuses of the past!"

Wow, did you type that all by yourself, Dude? Well anyway, first of all I would suggest that if you really want anyone to take you even remotely serious not to begin with 'jerk wad.' You see by doing so you automatically become just that yourself. Second, Jarhead is a name, which you may think of as slanderous but there are The Few who have earned that name and you are not one of us. So if you feel froggy some Saturday night I suggest you walk into your local VFW at, oh say, about 7:00 PM and strike up a conversation just like you did here. Sounds like fun to me.

Then there was BassStomper. He cut off his first post with:

"I'm not going to continue to punch holes in your shaky logic because you will surely censor this post and I would be wasting my time but know this Mtank50, lies and half-truths are not sustainable. You need to do some soul-searching and accept that people like you ruined this country and Obama will have the large task of fixing it. Now get out of the way..."

Now I do not censor comments as long as they do not contain profanity. But if I had known that BassStomper was going to jump in again to continue his mindless rant I might have followed his suggestion! As you can see:

"Hey, thanks for not censoring my post. I shall continue..."

Well sure enough he did, and did again and again. Like this when I made the rule on how 'they' could no longer say that they support our troops.

BassStomper wrote: "How can you call us the "finest military the world has ever seen" when we can't even beat a bunch of goatherders that are fighting each other? You righties put us in this precarious situation and Obama will have get us out. I know we can't blame the troops but we have to blame the leadership."

I would bet that at more then one point in the past seven years BassStomper here has said, "Now I support our troops, but…" You can't slam the troops and then say you sympathize with them or support them. That's not supporting the troops, which was exactly the point of that rule.

BassStomper continues: "You neocons make me sick worrying about the "poor fetus" when there are living people dieing because of the rightwing failures."

Good Lord man, what is a fetus if not living? Have you never touched an expectant mother's stomach and felt the infant kick? What do you think causes that, hydraulics, indigestion?

BassStomper later commented on the rule against sex education to Kindergarteners with:

"I just read the SB 99 bill from the Illinois general assembly website and the language you claim to be there is not there. I know you are merely a blogger but it is very irresponsible to lie. This is an example of what the Republican party has come to and why I maintain that McCain's campaign strategy is the worst example of dirty politics I have ever seen. It was based on lies that Mtank50 is perpetuating to this day. Please anyone read the actual language and not a sinister synopsis such as is on this crosshairs website and others. MTank, you should be ashamed of yourself, get it together."

Here BassStomper does not explain or give even one example of what language that I used that was not in this document. I don't know what he was looking at but here is the link and know that everything in this rule on my blog that is in quotation marks was copied and pasted directly off of that document or quoted by Obama.

Full Text of SB0099
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Finally I give you an Arizona Republic blogger who calls himself Ford.

In New Rules: Part One, Rule Two, I stated:
 
2) You can no longer bemoan the loss of the Freedom of Speech or any other violations of your privacy. Like the hatchet job on Gov. Palin you all sat quietly by and accepted without question or concern Obama's personal media's crucifixion of an average Joe. Joe the Plumber is you and me, guys and gals. If they can do what they did to him for asking a simple question of a candidate, they will also do it to any of us who dares to speak up. Hypocritically you condoned this wanton invasion of Joe's personal life after raising such a big fuss about the Bush administration's screening of international cell phone calls from suspected terrorists after 9-11! Nope it just doesn't work that way. If you decry one then you must condemn the other. You can't pick and choose who gets to do whatever with our Freedoms, so until you understand that you don't get to complain about them anymore. Deal with it.

Wherein Ford responded:

2. "Yes, we can.  (!)  First off, "Joe the Plumber" deserves no sympathy.  He could have asserted his right to privacy after his brief encounter with Obama, but instead he allowed himself to be used as a poster child by McCain.  Second, Palin is fair game as a candidate (see above).  Finally, you apparently don't grasp the difference between press looking into people's background and government tapping your phone.  We're rightfully angry about the Bush administration's assertion that government has an absolute right to snoop on you whenever they want, and you don't have a right to know about such snooping.  When the government searches your library habits, that's an invasion of privacy.  When a journalist looks into the background of someone running for office, that's freedom of the press."

"Infringing on the freedom of media to investigate candidates is what police states do, and you apparently approve."

Ford, I honestly don't know where you are coming from? I am talking about the NSA phone taps that were authorized by Bush with a Presidential Executive Order and then passed by your Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 for use against the war on terrorism. (See Below*) This is the same wiretapping that liberals have been crying about for years, even though the Federal Government doesn't have the time or could give a rat's pa-toot if you're talking to your Aunt Bessie that you have watching your "ocean-front property" down in Yuma.

But now tell me what journalist has a right to research someone's background just because they want to? Have you never heard of invasion of privacy? In your world do journalists carry some kind of dime store detective's badge and decoder ring that allows them to come into a private citizens home and rummage around in our private papers and garbage? Joe the plumber asked a simple question, it did not matter if he was actually going to buy a company or if he even could.

"When a journalist looks into the background of someone running for office, that's freedom of the press."

That's right, but what office was Joe the Plumber running for?

"Infringing on the freedom of media to investigate candidates is what police states do, and you apparently approve."

Again I ask, what office was Joe the Plumber running for?

What most of us want to know is precisely what you say is right, and we agree. A journalist has a right to investigate a candidate. So why didn't the press lawfully and thoroughly investigate Obama who was running for President like they thoroughly but unlawfully investigated Joe the plumber?

When the State or Federal government LEGALLY wiretaps a phone to prevent crimes or acts of terrorism then that is LEGALLY gathering intelligence. When a private citizen who is NOT a candidate for any public office is thoroughly investigated by the press because he asked a simple question of a candidate who is running for public office than that is invasion of privacy. Get it? McCain simply pointed out that Joe had asked Obama a question; McCain didn't pick Joe as his running mate.

With BassStomper running a close second, Ford wrote more in responses than anyone else on any blog or newspaper and it was all much the same as above. He even wrote a response to another responder who agreed with my blog and then Ford decided to add a list of his own rules. I should also tell you Ford that simply putting a % and a # between an F and a K is still just a vulgarity and has no place in what is supposed to be a simple common discourse of ideas. All I can add Ford is if you want to write as much as you did then get your own blog.

The conservative right and the liberal left are growing even farther apart in their views and ideologies. This is not necessarily the fault of the conservatives, as they have not drifted much farther to the right. Rather it is the liberal left who have gradually drifted more and more to the left that they have now embraced and elected a socialist President. The Democratic Party is a far cry from the one that JFK and Bobby knew. Now I know that as all conservatives are not the same this also goes for liberals. With that in mind here are a couple of things that I have learned about some liberals from these responses.

The most hated people in America by liberals are President Bush, Gov. Sarah Palin and Joe The Plumber. They don't even hate McCain like they hate Joe! Just the mere mention of their names brings forth a surge of hatred, which is only surpassed when you actually try to defend one of the three in a liberal's presence. (I always try to use 'surge' whenever possible, liberals hate the word 'surge.')

Liberals will cheer, chuckle and applaud with unabated approval any and all abuse, no matter how false or foul, which is heaped upon any of their opponents. But on the other hand they absolutely will not tolerate even the slightest criticism of their chosen ones. Even if it is just a simple question asked by a fellow citizen.

Likewise, in reply to your own opinions, some liberals insult you at the very beginning, a few times in the middle and always in their closings thus leaving little room for logic or reason in their arguments. They take things way to seriously and seem to be stuck in a constant highly agitated demeanor.

Others often infer that conservatives desire the 'Big Brother' government of Orwell's '1984'. When ironically it is the liberal Democrats who these liberals vote for that are the very ones who want a bigger Federal government to infringe even further upon the private lives of the citizens, i.e. nationalized health care, government mandated social and work programs and dare we say it, "spreading the wealth around."

Some of them like to use words like 'neocon' to describe all conservatives when in fact by definition a neocon is a former liberal who has been driven by their own intellect or conscience to become a conservative.

More than a few liberals hate our military often referring to the young men and women who do serve as being too stupid to get into college or to find a real job. To many liberals these Heroes are the "low lying fruit" of our society yet they will say in the same breathe that they "Support Our Troops." The extreme liberals will feast like dogs on the mistakes of a few who commit the anomalies of Abu Ghraib or My Lai and will condemn the whole for these few. All the while they completely ignore the tens of thousands of innocent civilians who were slaughtered by the NVA and VC during the Tet Offensive in 1968 or of those who met this same fate at the hands of Saddam Hussein while their sacred United Nations sat silently by pocketing rancid funds from the corrupt Food For Oil program.

I could go on with even more examples but really all you need to know about liberals who embrace the left you can learn from Code Pink's misadventures last summer in Berkeley, California. At that time the Berkeley City Council banned Marine Recruiters from the city limits so Code Pink rushed in to uphold this ban. These particular liberals feel that the end justify the means. They believe that they are right while everyone else who does not agree with them are wrong, therefore whatever they have to do is justified. So it is all right for them to block a doorway to a recruiter's office and to lay their hands upon another citizen in the use of force if that citizen wants to enter that recruiting office. In their world these liberals of Code Pink are the only ones who have rights. The video linked below shows exactly the arrogance and stupidity of liberals in the ink of Code Pink.

Code Pink Berkeley

In this video, when one Code Pinker is asked a question about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor she answers, "You know what the hell were we doing in Hawaii anyway?"

So there you have it, an obviously Caucasian woman of European descent standing in a California street thousands of miles away from her ancestral origins. She feels perfectly entitled to not only be where she is but to also protest against the very military as 'war criminals' that gives her the freedoms to live in a California and to protest. But, "what the hell" gave anybody else the right to travel a few thousand more miles farther west than she is and be in Hawaii?

And that "My Friends" is the essence of the true Liberal Left.

Now blog away, Dudes… convince me I'm wrong.

God Bless America

Semper Fi,
Mike

(*The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic. Shortly before Congress passed a new law in August of 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance, the Protect America Act of 2007, critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,[2].

"Copyright 2008.  Michael E. Tank   All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied, faxed, electronically transmitted, or in any other manner duplicated without express written permission of the author."