About Me

Name: ilja
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Choose Your Own Super Power!

Posted by ilja on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:58:16 PM
I just watched "Heroes" tonight where different people from all over the world each have special powers. It got me to thinking. What kind of Super Power would you want if you were given a choice?

The first thing I thought about was flying. Wouldn't that be cool to be able to fly in the sky and see the things that only a bird can see on a regular bases? Shoot, I even have a fear of heights but flying sounds like such a rush.

Of course, the fact that I am fascinated by planes probably has something to do with it. But then again, it may be my fear of heights and really my fear of falling that makes flying sound so attractive to me. At least that way if I were to ever really fall, I could fly my way out of it.

But then I thought some more because flying seems almost tame when you think of Super Powers and I thought about being able to hear what people are thinking. Yes, yes I know I probably wouldn't like that power 24/7 as I'm sure my feelings would get hurt on occasion but just think about it for a minute.

If there is one thing that I love to do, that is to figure out what makes people tick. What better way to learn people's wants and desires and what motivates them than to hear what they are thinking?

It just hit me that this power sounds a little voyeuristic. blush.gif

I could take that Asian guy's advice from "Heroes" and use it for something good. Yeah that's the ticket. I would use my super powers of mind reading to do Intelligence work and help stop the Terrorists.

Yeah, that sounds good. I will be Super MR (Mind Reader) Woman!  Super Mister Woman. Giggles.gif

What about you? What Super Power would you choose? What would be your Super Name?

Elusively yours,
ilja aka Super MR Woman!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

D.I.V.O.R.C.E. Let's Get Real

Posted by ilja on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:08:16 PM
Normally whenever Conservatives talk about Divorce, they wax lofty about how horrible it is and that there are only a few valid reasons to actually get one. This is especially true for Conservative Christians since we all know that God doesn't like divorce. It seems the only valid reasons are if someone is unfaithful, if they beat you or if they are the one that leaves.

Before I get your hopes up for a really juicy debate, let me go ahead and say up front I am not here to argue those points. What I want to know is are there any other reasons besides the above that any of you have ever gotten a divorce?

I realize that there are a lot of Conservatives that post here who have never been divorced and are married for life as far as they are concerned. Yet with a divorce rate that is greater than 50% and with the knowledge that some on here are divorced, I was wondering if anyone would be brave enough to actually say why they got a divorce for a reason that is not generally approved by Conservatives?

I guess because one of my recent Blogs was so revealing that I'm suddenly feeling free enough to open up a little more. That and the fact that someone asked my why I did get a divorce in that Blog and I didn't want to admit the reason why because I was ashamed.

Yes, I wasn't walking with God when I got my divorce but I did still considered myself a Christian at the time. And no, I am not going to go into details because there are just some things that I prefer still to keep to myself. Yet, I will talk in generalities.

I am twice divorce. There I said it. I've mentioned it a couple of times but mostly I keep that little bit of personal information to myself. The reason I do is because I am ashamed of that fact. Most people can understand making one stupid mistake, but two?

Okay, I will get it started and see if anyone is willing to follow.

My first divorce was a rather easy decision. He was a drug addict, he never worked five days in one week nearly the whole time we were together, he wrote bad checks, he stole from me, and he punched me knocking me across the room when he caught me trying to leave him. I found out after I finally did get away that he was cheating on me.

Like I said, that was a pretty simple and obvious decision even though I had always wanted to stay married forever, there was no way with that man.

The 2nd one was a much harder decision and one I don't like to talk about much. We were married for eleven years and I still loved him when I finally left. Yet it boiled down to I didn't think he loved me, at least not in the way a husband should love a wife. Yet I probably would have stayed with him had it not been for watching my mother die with regrets. I decided then and there that I didn't want to die with regrets.

Did I make the right decision? According to the Word of God, I did not since I don't believe he went out on me. Plus, it has been quite difficult raising my son by myself. I thought I had tried everything to make it work but learned later that there was one thing I didn't try. I didn't try putting God first. At the time, I didn't know that was what I was suppose to do but I think I suspected. I think I was expecting my husband to fill that part of me that only God could fill.

Don't get me wrong. I am much happier since I left but that doesn't mean that I don't still have a lot to learn or that things could have been different if I had listened to God.

What about you? Have you or would you ever divorce a spouse for some reason other than them cheating, beating or leaving you?

Anyone?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Geneva Conventions No Longer Applicable!

Posted by ilja on Saturday, September 23, 2006 9:17:51 PM
I just heard a report on Fox News about a videotape on an Islamic website showing al Quada dragging the burned bodies of two of our soldiers through the streets and that only enforces what I have been thinking of late. The Geneva Conventions are no longer necessary and in particular are hindering us in our War against Islamic Fascists!

Why exactly are we so concerned with the Geneva Conventions when we don't even hold our own Constitution in high esteem anymore? Isn't it obvious to even those with a speck of reason left that the Geneva Conventions are simply hamstringing us and are going to lead to the death of no telling how many more innocents because of a few camera-hogs who are more concerned about retaining their media-darling image than they are about doing whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and protect the Homeland?

As for our Courts, in the recent HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD ruling, it appears that the killing of innocents is of no concern to them:
Even assuming that Hamden is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment. P. 72.
As far as I'm concerned they got it wrong. Just listen to the words of Justice Scalia himself in his dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court did not even have jurisdiction to hear the case:
On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the DetaineeTreatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.
I
A

The DTA provides: “[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742 (internal division omitted). This provision “t[ook] effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,” §1005(h)(1), id., at 2743, which was December 30, 2005. As of that date, then, no court had jurisdiction to “hear or consider” the merits of petitioner’s habeas application. This repeal of jurisdiction is simply not ambiguous as between pending and future cases. It prohibits any exercise of jurisdiction, and it became effective as to all cases last December 30. It is also perfectly clear that the phrase “no court, justice, or judge” includes this Court and its Members, and that by exercising our appellate jurisdiction in this case we are “hear[ing] or consider[ing] . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus.”

An ancient and unbroken line of authority attests that statutes ousting jurisdiction unambiguously apply to cases pending at their effective date.
Or as Justice Thomas stated in his dissent, the SCOTUS is taking on the role of Commander in Chief:
For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1–11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner’s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.
I

Our review of petitioner’s claims arises in the context of the President’s wartime exercise of his commander-in-chief authority in conjunction with the complete support of Congress. Accordingly, it is important to take measure of the respective roles the Constitution assigns to the three branches of our Government in the conduct of war.

As I explained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), the structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch—namely, the decisiveness, “‘activity, secrecy, and dispatch’” that flow from the Executive’s “‘unity,’” id., at 581 (dissenting opinion) (quoting The Federalist No. 70, p. 472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton))—led the Founders to conclude that the “President ha[s] primary responsibility—along with the necessary power—to protect the national security and to conduct the Nation’s foreign relations.” 542 U. S., at 580. Consistent with this conclusion, the Constitution vests in the President “[t]he executive Power,” Art. II, §1, provides that he “shall be Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, §2, and places in him the power to recognize foreign governments, §3.

This Court has observed that these provisions confer upon the President broad constitutional authority to protect the Nation’s security in the manner he deems fit. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, 668 (1863) (“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority”); Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850) (acknowledging that the President has the authority to “employ [the Nation’s Armed Forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy”).
As far as Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, read it for yourself:
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b ) taking of hostages;
(c ) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Of course, there is also Article 4:
Art 4.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c ) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
I see nothing in here that even eludes to Terrorists.

Considering that our current conflict is not going to end overnight and that it is unconventional and not at all anything like we were fighting back in 1949 when the Geneva Conventions were signed, I say it is time that we withdrew from them.

As is so often cited these days the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. Isn't it rather ironic that it is the voice of the dissenters that often get it right?

The first person to use the phrase "suicide pact" in this context was Justice Robert Jackson in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago.
This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Everything Happens For A Reason

Posted by ilja on Friday, September 22, 2006 10:58:52 PM
It seems every time I turn around these days I hear someone else say that they believe everything happens for a reason. It doesn't seem to matter what other beliefs they hold or if they believe there is a God or not. I hear this same phrase from people from all walks of life and at different stages in their life.

I wonder where this belief originated. Being a Christian, I've thought about what does it say in God's Word in reference to this particular belief and mainly what comes to mind is where God states that he uses what Satan meant for evil for good. Yet, is that even really related when you stop and think about it?

Is this a belief in destiny or perhaps fatalism? Do you believe that everything that is going to happen to you has already been decided and there is really nothing you can do to change your future? If not, why not if you truly believe that everything happens for a reason?

Think about it for a minute. If everything happens for a reason, then does that also mean that you made a decision in your life even if it was a big mistake so as to lead you to something else later in life that you never would have found had you not made the original mistake?

But if that's true, would it even matter what you do since you can't change things anyway?

Which is worse? Believing everything happens for a reason and you have no control over your destiny or not believing everything happens for a reason and having really horrible things happen to you for no good reason?

What say you? Do you believe everything happens for a reason? Why or why not?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Give Up Melissa, You Aren't Dying

Posted by ilja on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:59:10 PM
I'm sitting here listening to one of the 9/11 audiotapes of a phone call between a 9/11 operater and Melissa who was trapped on the 83rd floor.

She's asking if they are going to be able to get anyone up there. She keeps saying it is very, very hot.

The operator is telling her that it's going to take time for them to get up there. She keeps telling her to stay calm. She says there are five people with her. She says everyone is having trouble breathing, some people are worse.

No fire, she can't see. No smoke? Of course there's smoke. There's smoke, I can't breathe. I think there's fire because it's very hot everywhere on the floor.

I can't see any air anymore. All I can see is smoke.

I'm gonna die aren't I? No, no you aren't going to die. I'm going to die. No, no say your prayers.

I'm gonna die. I know I am. It's so hot, I'm burning up.

Help! Help! Oh my God. Can you find out if there's anyone on the 83rd floor? I thought I heard somebody.

Stay on the line with me please. I feel like I'm dying.

In the beginning I was getting a little irritated with the operator because she sounded like she was being short with the caller. There was some sort of conversation about Melissa's mother. I suspect Melissa asked if she could patch her through to her mother and the operator said it wasn't possible.

She is telling her that she is not dying. She is telling her to calm down.

But then after a while, once the tape started beeping out big portions of the conversation, the operator's voice changed. She kept calling out to Melissa, repeating her name over and over again.

Now she is calling for her again and saying come on baby. You can tell the operator has gotten involved with Melissa. She said nobody is talking. She thinks she hears the fire department in the background.

Then the operator started saying "Oh my God". Melissa must have responded because the operator told her to stay low, I assume to avoid being knocked out by the fumes of the smoke.

Now the operator is talking to Melissa but she isn't answering. She is telling her that she is going to get a chance to talk to her mother and that she is going to be fine. She is telling her everything is going to be fine and she will get a chance to tell her mother herself what a good mom she is. She is telling her to keep praying but no one is answering. She keeps reassuring her that everything is going to be fine and that it takes a while for them to get up the steps.

She is calling out to her again, saying her name and telling her it's going to be fine. The operator pleads with her. Please don't give up Melissa? She must have heard her say something. Maybe not.

Melissa? Melissa? Melissa? Melissa? It's going to be all right. Melissa? Melissa? Keep saying your prayers.

Now I hear the buzzing sound again for quite a while.

The operator calls Melissa again and tells her to keep on breathing. She thinks they are unconscious but is talking just in case. She's telling her to stay with us, she knows she's in a bad situation but everything is fine. Oh my God. That's what she keeps saying.

They mentioned something about everybody snoring.

The operator is talking on the radio to someone else, another rescuer? He suggests they are dead and she insists that they aren't, that they are snoring.

Now it's another 9/11 operator, a man this time and he's talking to someone from the 103rd floor. You can't hear her, only him. Her voice has been buzzed out.

He mentions the windows. He tells her he is trying his best. He says they are trying their best to get them all out. He is reassuring her that they have firemen, emergency workers, everyone there to get them out as soon as they can.

Another call, a woman being advised to break a window if she has to.

I don't care if we torture the Terrorists if it will stop another 9/11 from happening. I wish those who are so concerned about the rights of the Terrorists were forced to listen to these every day.

God help us.

Elusively yours,
ilja
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To the Dishonorable Senators: Et tu, Brute!

Posted by ilja on Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:45:51 AM
To the Dishonorable Senators Warner, McCain, Graham & Collins:

I wish to bring to your attention the following events:
  • World Trade Center Bombing - February 26, 1993
    6 persons were killed, and more than 1,000 injured
  • Khobar Towers Bombing - June 25, 1996
    19 servicemen lost their lives with hundreds of others wounded
  • US Embassy Bombings - August 7, 1998
    The attack on the Tanzanian embassy resulted in 11 deaths and 86 injuries, though none of the victims were Americans. The embassy bombing in Kenya resulted in the deaths of 213 people with over 5,000 injuries. In the Kenyan bombing 12 of the people killed were Americans.
  • USS Cole - October 12, 2000
    Murdered 17 sailors and wounded an additional 39 sailors
  • World Trade Center Attack - September 11, 2001
    Approximately 2,749 men, women and children from nations around the world murdered!
  • Pentagon Attack - September 11, 2001
    184 civilians and military personel lost their lives!
  • Heroes of Flight 93 - September 11, 2001
    40 passengers and crew murdered!
APPROXIMATELY 3,239 DEAD & OVER 6,125 INJURED!!!

Please tell me how many more must die or be injured before you will stop acting like madmen without a lick of common sense or compassion for the victims?

If you could have personally prevented any of these events from occuring by interrogation techniques that are not in line with the Geneva Conventions, would you have done so? Would it make a difference if any of those who died were your loved ones?

We are all Americans. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree about politics. When it comes to the lives of every American, if any are lost because of you putting the rights of Terrorists ahead of the lives of our fellow Americans, their blood will be on your hands.

And before you think, you are going to be left off the hook, I also address this to the Senate Democrats who are also blocking President Bush's plan to establish specific definitions for Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Party shouldn't matter after what we all saw on September 11th, 2001. The Terrorists don't stop to ask who you voted for before decapitating you or before flying airplanes into buildings.

In addition, you say that you support the troops. Who do you think is going to be the first to die because of your personal agendas? Are you with us or against us?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homesick for Heaven

Posted by ilja on Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:19:05 AM
Do you ever get homesick for Heaven? Do you ever have those times when you wish you could go home and be with Jesus today?

I was reading some of the old hymns in the "Favorite Hymns" thread that Highcottonquinn started over at RightNation when I decided to go look for the lyrics of one of my favorites, "Coming Home". I had no idea about the person who wrote the song and was quite touched with what I found at the Christian History Institute webpage about the writer William J. Kirkpatrick.
He wrote both the words and the music to the song "Lord, I'm Coming Home". The story behind it shows him as a soul-winner.

William was song-leader at a camp meeting. The hired soloist had a magnificent voice, able to put tremendous expression into the music he sang. However, William noticed that the young man never stayed to hear the sermon.

Afraid that the soloist was not a Christian, William knelt in his tent and prayed long and earnestly for his soul. The words to "Coming Home" formed in his mind. He wrote them down and set them to a haunting tune.

I've wandered far away from God
Now I'm coming home
The paths of sin too long I've trod
Lord, I'm coming home.
Coming home, coming home never more to roam
Open wide thine arms of love, Lord I'm coming home.
That evening, William handed the newly-written words and tune to the soloist. Visibly moved after he had sung them, the man stayed for the sermon, went to the altar that night and gave his heart to Christ. The song became a popular invitation hymn in evangelical services, winning many others beside the man it was written for.
"Coming Home" is the song that was playing when I first walked down that aisle when I was 16 to ask Jesus into my heart. Now every time I hear it, I have a desire to turn towards Him.

It is times like this when I consider that perhaps we were there before being born since we have such a longing to be with Him again. I believe there is no place like Home rings truth to our ears because we all instinctively know there is a home like no other where we will be welcomed just as we are.

God's love is even greater than the love of a mother which is the kind of love many of us consider to be the greatest. I long for the time when I'll walk down that tunnel and see the light at the end because I know that He is the way, the truth and the light and if His Holy Spirit can fill me with contentment as it does now, I can only imagine how wonderful it will be to be in His presence.

What about you? Do you ever get homesick for Heaven?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nick, I Wish I Knew You

Posted by ilja on Monday, September 11, 2006 11:15:59 AM
A Tribute to the Life of OS2 Nehamon (Pick) Lyons

According to his mother, from the time he was a little boy, he had dreamed of working at the Pentagon. That is what Pick's mother, Mrs. Jewel Lyons of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, told me on the phone today. Pick was the nickname given to her son by his Aunt when he was just a little boy due to his small size and it seemed to stick with him to adulthood, at least with his family.

This is part of the "2,996: Honoring the 9/11 Victims" project where Bloggers from all over the country and possibly the world are writing tributes to the innocent victims of that awful day for the fifth anniversary. Where this is different than most tributes done in the past is that I am going to do my best to celebrate the life of Operations Specialist 2nd Class (OS2) Nehamon Lyons IV and not dwell on the way he was taken from us.

In doing my research, I kept finding tributes for him pertaining to his accomplishments and character as an adult. I wanted to find out what he was like as a child. How did he become the man that so many called friend, a good person, someone they would never forget?

I finally decided that the best way to get the information that I wanted was to contact his mother, Mrs. Lyons. She was a very gracious lady who didn't seem to mind at all answering questions about her son. The first word that she used to describe her son was "lovely". Imagine that. How many mothers are blessed enough to describe their sons as lovely?

She said when he was a boy that he liked to play and have fun but that he also had a serious side about him, particularly when it came to his education. He considered education very important and that was part of why he succeeded in fulfilling his life-long dream of working at the Pentagon. She said that he never gave her any trouble and that he worked really hard to achieve his goals.

Mrs. Lyons also described her son as being very funny and yet a bookworm at the same time. She said he went to "Sanctified Church" and read his Bible a lot.

I asked her if Pick had ever been married or had any children and she said no, he didn't believe in getting married or having children before he had an established carreer. She said that he focused on things of "quality".

Pick's first job was at Kentucky Fried Chicken. I found that rather interesting because that was also my own son's first job. She said that when he was younger that he played in his School Band and received a trophy for his efforts. I guess that trophy was just a prelude to the awards he would receive later in life. He went to Dollarway High School and graduated in 1989.

He grew up in a large family with 4 brothers (Rodney, Corey, Marquise and Christian) and 1 sister (Sonya). Pick was the second to the oldest. He was into body-building as a hobby. I wonder if that was in response to the nickname he had earned at such a young age?

Pick attended the University of South Alabama in Mobile and enlisted in the U.S. Navy on November 14th, 1996 . He was assigned to the USS Gettysburg from May of 1997 through November of 2000. He received the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Good Conduct Medal and 2 Navy "E" Ribbon. In addition, he posthumously was awarded the Purple Heart of Courage and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.

As an adult, he was called Nick by many of his friends. That too is something he has in common with my son. Not the same name but the fact that he is called one name by his family and another by his friends.

Speaking of his friends, they seem to agree on most points in regards to Nick's characteristics. He is described as a good person and a good OS, very friendly and shy, a special friend, a team player, a very happy and extremely nice person. Nick was a special kind of person, one of honor, courage, and committment.

He also had a great sense of humor as his friend David Olsen referenced at TERRORISTattack.com when reminiscing about serving on the Gettysberg with Nick and finding time to laugh at some of the things that happened around them.

Christopher Farrell over at SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 VICTIMS described him as having a funny laugh and a good sense of humor about everything.

His cousin Latrice Racy describes him as being kind of shy, a very giving person, very hard-working and dedicated.

Barbara A Pedraza called him "son" and said that he would always have a special place in her heart. It seems she filled sort of a mentor role for him and he would go to her for advice. They would talk for hours about his life and his career choices. He even went to visit her when he was on leave.

He was also an inspiration to many, including some whom he didn't even know. Lora D. Eury said to Nick "You have shown me so much. There is more to life than a single moment in time". And yet, "So much can happen in a single moment and you have tought me how to live each one of them."

"Bruh, you were the sunshine that lighted our days sometimes. That smile, that laugh." Soup Willliam Chastang, October 18, 2005 .

Nick was a joy to be around, always giving himself to others, truly interested in the people around him. It was nothing for him to go the extra mile. He was a "self-starter who worked tirelessly to achieve his goals."

In the words of his mother, "He was happy all the time," she said. "When you saw him, he was laughing. He could make the saddest moment a happy one."

Nick sounds like the kind of person I would have been honored to know. Part of me feels like I do just a little by what I have learned about him. He is the kind of man that I believe has the character, integrity and honor to make a "real" American Hero.
IPB Image

God Bless You Operations Specialist 2nd Class Nehamon Lyons IV & thank you for your service. salute.gif

Elusively yours,
ilja
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats to GOP: I Know You Are But What Am I?

Posted by ilja on Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:04:38 AM

Once again the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of what they themselves have been doing. Has anyone else noticed the phrase that they have been using over and over again lately? Have you noticed the charge they have been making against the Republicans?

The one thing that the Democrats have not done ever since September 11th, 2001 is to come up with a plan on how to defeat the Islamo-Fascists. They have said they have a Plan, aka John Kerry check his website, they are coming up with a plan, aka Democrat news conferences where they said nothing new, and finally they have even admitted that since they are out of power, they don't need to come up with a plan.

Needless to say, thanks to the new media, this non-planature of the Democrats has not been left to be swept under the rug like in the past. Even some of the elected Republican leaders have dared to mention this when debating the left or in interviews.

As a matter of fact, the charge against the Democrats that they have no plan has even started to gain legs.

So what's a spoiled Democrat to do to fight this charge?

Come up with a Plan you say? But how can they come up with a plan when they are trying to play both sides of the fence? How can they say that they will pull the troops out immediately if they want to get votes by someone other than the Netroots? How can they not say they will pull the troops out of Iraq immediately if they want the Netroot's donations?

So it would seem they are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. Pun intended.

But alas, never misunderestimate the creativity of the Democrats. After all, if there is something that they are good at, it is most definitely not living in reality. Therefore, the sky's the limit when it comes to tactics.

So what is this great tactic they have most recently decided to utilize? Well . . . now that I think about it, it's not really that creative after all. What they have started doing is accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what they have been doing all along. They are accusing the Republicans of "having no plan".

In the meantime, President Bush is having to go to Congress to ask them to pass legislation (that he has described in detail) immediately on how we can conduct Military tribunals that will gain SCOTUS approval.

Do you see the irony?

Elusively Yours,
ilja

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do-nothing Congress: Illegal Immigration Good News

Posted by ilja on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:59:12 PM

The news today is that the GOP has decided to table Immigration Reform.

I consider this good news. I would much rather Congress do nothing than give amnesty to illegals. I believe it is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. I believe the answer to illegal immigration can only be found at the State level. The Federal Government is too big and asking them to solve our illegal immigration problem is like asking them to provide healthcare for all. They can't do it and make it work.

We simply need more local officials who get it or get voted out. Now if only we could wake up our fellow voters to the ineffectual local governments and convince them to throw the bums out.

You would think that the Internet would help us to communicate past the media but unfortunately the politicians that use the Internet communicate in political speak that pretty much is on par with spam. I barely read their emails anymore because I know what they contain without even having to read them. Meaningless, politically correct words have no power to reach people in a way that they can understand what is going on nor how our country is being invaded silently and methodically. Politico-ese does not have the power to inspire and motivate.

The best plan I have heard to date for taking care of our illegal immigration problem comes from a local DJ, Phil Valentine called Demagnetize America.

In order to Demagnetize America we must get serious about penalizing the sources that draw illegal immigration. Part of the plan in 1986 when we passed the Immigration Reform Act was to strictly penalize businesses that employ illegal immigration. Prior to that law going into effect in 1988, each state was responsible for enforcing workplace laws. After 1988, that responsibility was taken over by the federal government which has done very little in the way of enforcing the law. Under our Demagnetize America plan, each state will again be responsible for enforcing its own labor laws as they pertain to illegal immigration.

Below is the Demagnetize America agenda. This is a basic outline for solving the illegal immigration problem. It does not profess to be complete but merely a start in the battle against illegal immigration and the costs - both monetary and human - this country incurs by standing by and doing nothing.

Demagnetize America Agenda

  • A $20,000 fine per illegal alien for businesses that hire illegal aliens.
  • Second offense means you lose your license to do business in the state.
  • A $20,000 fine for any government employee who knowingly provides services for an illegal alien plus immediate termination.
  • A $20,000 fine for any bank that provides a loan or mortgage to any illegal alien.
  • Repeat offences will lead to revocation of their bank license in that state.
  • Any business that is required, in the course of their business, to use a person's social security number will be subject to this $20,000 fine if they knowingly do business with any illegal alien.
  • Property forfeiture laws will apply to any and every illegal alien found to be in business in the state.
  • Illegal aliens who solicit on the street for jobs will be subjected to the same solicitation laws governing prostitutes.

Prior to the Federal Government taking over responsibility for the problem of Illegal Immigration, the number of illegal immigrants was nothing compared to what it is today. We need to take back control over this issue from the do-nothings in Congress. We need to bring it back into our hands where we can stop the madness.

Elusively Yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Rudy & I'm Not Talking About The Movie

Posted by ilja on Monday, September 04, 2006 11:06:10 PM

Lately it seems everytime I turn around I see another story about how former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is leading in the polls for possible Republican candidates for President in 2008.

But who is Rudy Giuliani? How can a man who was elected Mayor of New York, the bluest of the blue States be leading in the Republican polls?

Yes, I know how he was highlighted and well-loved by many following the Terrorists attacks on September 11th. In the interest of full disclosure, I was rather taken aback how people talked about him during that time because it seemed to me that they almost raised him to God status. That being said, I believe that the real reason Rudy is doing so well in the polls is because most Republican voters only know the Rudy from September 11th. If they have heard anything bad about him it's mostly that he is a moderate and that he is divorced, neither of which tells the whole story.

Since I have obviously already formed an opinion of Rudy, I think it's best to let Rudy speak for himself. The following is from "The Quotable Rudolph W. Giuliani" as reported at The Politicker on March 29, 2005.

Mr. Rockefeller represented "a tradition in the Republican Party I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition."
--Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, July 9, 1992

What kind of Republican? Is [Giuliani], for instance, a Reagan Republican? [Giuliani] pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican."
--Village Voice, January 24, 1989 <snip>

"I am writing to convey my support for the current legislation to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, and to urge you to allow the bill onto the floor of the Senate for prompt action."

"...It is my belief that we can penalize discrimination [against gays] without creating any potentially objectionable special privileges or preferential treatment."
--Rudy Giuliani, New York Post, June 5, 1993 <snip>

"I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]."

"I never called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade."
--Rudy Giuliani, New York Newsday, September 1, 1989 <snip>

[Giuliani] says ruling out a tax increase is "political pandering."
--Newsday, August 31, 1989

And before any of you accuse the source of being a Conservative lapdog, here is another excerpt from the same site:

It only occurs to us that the Right wouldn't be going after Rudy so hard if its gatekeepers weren't very afraid. link

Below are a few more Rudyisms:

If we take back the labor unions, the legitimate businesses, eventually they become just another street gang. Spiritually, psychologically, they've always been just a street gang.
--Rudy Giuliani, Brainy Quote:

I think they want real candidates who really tell people what they think, and are actually willing to lose rather than distort their position,
--Rudy Giuliani, Thinkexist.com

I think it's going to be interesting to watch and see if he actually sticks to that one.

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...were talking about all dangerous weapons.
--Rudy Giuliani, Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000 link 

For the third year in a row, the New York City four-year Financial Plan contains more than a $1 billion surplus and reflects the Citys success in reducing taxes by more than $2 billion since 1994 -- more than any administration in the history of the City. Combined with the $2.3 billion in tax cuts already enacted, this plan will bring the total value of the Mayors tax reduction program to $10.4 billion through 2003.
--Source: RudyYes.com, Proven Leadership web site Dec 9, 1999 link

Im pro-choice. Im pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. No, I have not supported that, and I dont see my position on that changing, he responded.
--Source: CNN.com, Inside Politics Dec 2, 1999 link

One of the purposes of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to protect Americans from market manipulations and artificial shortages created by OPEC. The current crisis in the Northeast presents a compelling justification for the release of a portion of the reserves. I urge the President to sell some of the nations Strategic Petroleum Reserves to offset the recent dramatic increase in the price of home heating oil in New York City.
--Source: Address on Heating Oil Crisis Feb 15, 2000, link

I was surprised how hard it was to find Rudy quotes that included a source. I wonder how those who are not political junkies are going to learn about him?

Elusively Yours,
ilja

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Won't Vote For A Pro-Choice GOP Presidential Nominee

Posted by ilja on Monday, September 04, 2006 3:35:14 AM

 If Rudy Giuliano happens to win the Republican nomination for President in 2008, I will not vote for him. If any pro-choice candidate wins the Republican Presidential nomination, I will not vote for him and I don't think I am alone.

Yes I know that most everyone that isn't a leftist loony considers the War on Islamo-Fascists to be the most important issue of our time. Yes I know that we can't trust Hillary to do what needs to be done to defend us against the Terrorists. Yes I know that many of you think that if we don't defeat the Terrorists then nothing else matters. Yes I know that if we get a Democratic President that they will appoint pro-choice Judicial nominees, but how do you know that a pro-choice Republican wouldn't do the same?

In case you haven't noticed the mainstream media has been telling us for months how McCain is leading everyone in the polls. As far as I'm concerned, McCain is a pro-choice candidate though he's wise enough to not talk about it but we all know he can't be trusted. Now, the mainstream media is telling us that Giuliano is leading in the polls and is the only one that can beat Hillary. Why do you think they are so behind the likes of McCain and Giuliano?

Why is it that during election season, no one on here seems to take polls very seriously and are quick to point out how those who conduct them either ask misleading questions or over-sample Democrats? Yet, now whenever it comes up about Giuliano or McCain being in the lead, people seem so quick to take that as gospel?

Anyhow, I'm kind of getting off subject. What I was wanting to explain is why I couldn't bring myself to vote for a pro-choice Presidential nominee. The reason that I couldn't do it besides the obvious is because anytime there is a pro-choice Republican, they don't have near the difficulty with the media as a pro-life Republican. In other words, it is much easier for them to be elected because the media will not go after them like they will someone they perceive is serious about abortion or at least not screening Judicial nominees that they will uphold Roe verses Wade.

In addition, there are plenty of Fiscal Conservative Republican voters who would love to be able to nominate and elect pro-choice Republicans since they are barely able to tolerate the thought of abortion not being available upon demand anywhere and everywhere for their own personal use.

The way that I see it is that if we start nominating pro-choice Republicans for President and if they start winning, then there is no turning back. It's pretty obvious that our elected officials' main concern is their lust for power as we can see by their refusal to enforce our immigration laws. Plus, it is the Fiscal Conservatives that are all for granting amnesty to illegals since their main concern is their pocket-book.

So if pro-choice candidates are able to win the Republican Presidential nomination and the Presidency, then that is going to mean that millions upon millions of more innocent babies are going to die and it will never stop or at the least slow down.

Yes I want to defeat the Terrorists. Yes I do realize the danger. The thing is how can we consider ourselves better than the Terrorists who purposely target innocents to get their way if we are not willing to do everything in our power to save the most helpless and innocent among us?

They are dying by the millions. They need our help. I can hear their cries.

Elusively yours,
ilja

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Overblown Attacks On Allen Beneficial?

Posted by ilja on Sunday, September 03, 2006 2:16:15 PM

Ever since Senator George Allen slipped up and called the fella from the other camp who was following him around in order to catch him making a mistake a "mucaca", the media has been swarmed with stories about this incident. They say he knew what he was doing since his mother is French Tunisian and he speaks fluent French. Never mind the fact that Allen has apologized over and over and over again for this slip of the tongue against someone whose only purpose was to bring him down, the media is not about to let this slide as they do those on the other side of the political aisle.

It's pretty obvious what is motivating the Media wing of the Democratic Party. They see Senator Allen as a real contender for the 2008 Presidential election and they believe he is a "real" Conservative. The combination of these two traits is something that has the media shaking in their boots and they aren't about to pass up an opportunity to slander such a man of character.

Yet, the way I see it, this overblown attack on Senator Allen is going to backfire on those who wish to bring him down.

Consider this: how often does the media attack someone who makes a statement that can be construed as racist even if that wasn't the intent? Of course it's always someone on the right that they attack which I am sure isn't lost on those precious swing voters.

Also consider how it has gotten to be nearly a joke at how quickly politicians issue an apology after such an event which Senator Allen did in droves (much more than I would have liked).

Then there is the fact that most voters who aren't drowning in leftist liberal ideology know that the media likes to inflate any news story to the point where that has also gotten to be a standing joke. Breaking News, Breaking News, the chicken crossed the road. 

The reason I think this is all going to backfire is because I doubt if anyone outside of the Beltway, political junkies and Virginia has ever heard of Senator Allen. Yet thanks to the Media wing of the Democratic Party, name recognition for Senator Allen has probably sky-rocketed. Never mind the fact that it is negative attention because as my grandfather use to say, when it comes to politics it doesn't matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about you.

Plus simply the fact that the media calls someone a racist, (most people with just a smidgen of common sense have learned that doesn't add up to a hill of beans), that does not mean it's the truth. As a matter of fact, if anything that means the person the media is trying to bring down just may be someone worthy of giving a second look since they may not be so tightly wound.

Elusively yours,
ilja

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »