Tyrants and Terrorists Cheer Democrat Win

You would think that, as a national political party, the Democrats would find that having killers, despots and mass murders cheer their ascension to power just a little embarrassing. The truth is, the liberals like the idea. Remember the three prong attack on America by the media, terrorists and Democrats I mentioned in a passed post?

Inter Jimmy Carter - he loves communists like Castro and Hugo Chavez. He makes on bones about it every time he makes a speech or writes a book. Ted Kennedy sought out Russian leaders in the seventies to help defeat Ronald Reagan. Who but a Marxist socialist would say the things that Murtha, Reed and schumer said about our troops while we are fighting a war for survival. Bill Clinton giving speeches overseas to Arab audiences castigating our country. And let's not forget Al Gore and now Colin Powell as they turn the knife in America's back.

One thing for sure, we don't have to go looking for our enemies in this country, they were elected to our government in November and cheered by our enemies overseas.

European reaction to Dem win
Stefania Lapenna

The mainstream media is enthusiastic to let us know that "the world welcomes the outcome of the U.S. mid-term elections". In addition to the cheers from the world's worst tyrants and terrorist groups the Democrats should not be proud of, European leaders are for the most part hoping that their dream of becoming an "active counter-weight to America" in the international arena now can come true.

With very few exceptions - notably pro-American countries like Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic - everyone in Europe is celebrating what they see as "the Americans' rejection of Bush's hegemonic wars". In Italy, a weakened leftist government (whom almost all polls show as growing unpopular even with its own voters) is calling to "build bridges" with the newly-elected Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.

The chief of the Chamber of Deputies, a communist, went further by affirming that the Republican losses are due to "Bush's war-mongering policies and they show evidence of how fed up the Americans are with their President's agenda".

The center-right opposition slammed these statements coming from an institutional authority whose role is not supposed to be one of rebuking other countries' leaders. The Italian press,both written and televised, described unanimously this as "the punishment the American voters inflicted to Bush".

Overall, there's a total misunderstanding of the American politics on the part of the Europeans, mainly due to their failure to understand how the U.S. system of governance works, forgetting - to mention just one of a few examples - that the scenario came out of these elections is not at all new in the long history of democracy in the United States.

The media and the political class in the Old Continent ignore the fact that the party that wins the mid-term elections is not automatically the one that will win the presidential ones.
Chances are high that the Democratic Party-controlled houses will contribute much to pave the way for a Republican win in 2008.

It's high time for the Europeans to quit dreaming of balancing the U.S. "hegemony" in world affairs while, at the very same time, insisting in pursuing a morally-bankrupted foreign policy which has proven to be harmful to the war on terror and stability in the turmoiled regions of the world.

The sooner the cheering folks come to grips with reality on the ground, the better it will be for themselves - and for everyone.Stefania Lapenna

The Liberal Media Hates America and Free Speech

If you ever wondered what the American media is all about, and I can't imagine why you would after all this time, just read this story on Durfur and the slaughter of non-Arabs and Christians. It speaks volumes about the American media's true purpose.

The media wants to control our lives and to that extent, they have to destroy free speech and Democracy as we know it. They, the drive by media, have to be the soul source of information, and to do that, it is imperative that all other sources of information be eliminated.

So far it hasn't worked, but they still think they can succeed through manipulation of events and outright misinformation to intentionally change events to match their agenda. The truth, of course, is not on their agenda.


How the Media and the Left Have Doomed Darfur
James P. Whetzel

It is ironic that the very people who claim to have the most concern for the plight of the innocent men, women, and children being massacred in the Darfur region of the Republic of Sudan are complicit in this humanitarian crisis.

On many levels this conflict represents a failure of the media and liberal ideology with its distain for decisive military action. The government of Sudan is backing the Arab Janjaweed rebels as they slaughter and displace thousands of non-Arab inhabitants of the Darfur region. This conflict represents a government annihilating its own population and an utter failure on the part of the United Nations to intervene. This is a military conflict that necessitates a militarily-imposed solution.

The problem with the solution is that it requires a significant investment of time and troops on the part of any nation or coalition to truly affect change. The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country. It can pass resolution after resolution but it lacks the will to put any teeth behind its mandates. In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies.

The US has a track record of attempting to deal with humanitarian crisis like the one in Darfur and in many cases does so quite successfully. The problem arises when the media become involved. (my emphasis) In all armed conflicts there will be casualties, which, the media then seize upon and begin to mold perceptions that we are failing as a country. In no time the calls ring out for our capitulation and retreat from an otherwise successful engagement.

People concerned for Darfur in this country chide the US government to help put an end to the genocide but are unwilling to support military involvement. Our leaders have been burned too many times to commit troops into an unstable region against a government-sponsored rebel force. American support is present at the onset of such a campaign but as soon as the first soldier is killed the media start pointing fingers and wringing their hands in panic.

One needs only to look at the Tet offensive in Viet-Nam or the situation in Somalia. The Tet offensive was a stunning military victory for the US and was portrayed as a massive defeat. The media served to break the will of the American people to continue to fight, something the Vietcong could never have done on their own. In Somalia, our forces were wining on the ground and making a difference in ending the human suffering until the

"Black Hawk Down" incident when we lost 18 brave Americans. The mission was successful, however, the media portrayal led to a shift in public support for the effort with a subsequent withdrawal of forces. Our withdraw then had the unfortunate effect of emboldening a certain Al-Qaeda leader and we all know what the result of that was.

Why should Darfur be any different? The liberals in this country send out cries of "Help the people in Darfur" and they hold rallies, sign petitions, and involve international courts and organizations to condemn and bring charges against the perpetrators, all the while the body count is racking up and there is no real hope insight. They call on our President to get involved and stop the genocide, but the only way to do that is to go in and take out the

Janjaweed rebels and the government that is providing support and build a nation based on freedom and liberty.
Sound familiar? It should as it is the exact mission we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and it is all too evident how it is being portrayed in the media. Darfur is doomed because the very people calling for the United States to save the people of that region are the same ones willing to leave the people of Iraq to wither and die on the vine.

What will happen if we do commit to stopping the atrocity in Darfur and something goes wrong? Or the whole process takes longer than one season of the hottest new fall TV show, whose head will the media call for? Will we get reports of an unbeatable rebel insurgency? How long until the natives get restless and call for an exit strategy in Darfur?

It is an absolute travesty that a region that truly needs our assistance, as we are the only nation on the face of the planet that can be of true assistance, will have to suffer through half measures and ineffective humanitarian solutions because the US media has so inaccurately portrayed successful events in American military history as losses that no politician will be willing to electively choose to engage in a conflict of that scope.

The conflict in Darfur is abhorrent and tragic; however, that tragedy is compounded by the fact that the United States has lost the will to act in the face of tyrants, dictators, and thugs, not because we are soft as a people, but because the media has so distorted the truth and sided with our enemies it has become almost impossible to win, even if we do.

Democrats - Liberals - Terrorists

This is a very powerful article that lays out just what the Democrats have in mind for America.

It is something that I have been saying for years about the connection between the liberals and the forces in this world that want to destroy America, but Kohlmayer says it so much better than I.

This is a must read. It's a little long but right on the mark!!


Published 30 Nov 06

Democrats, terrorists and 'brotherly way'

By Vasko KohlmayerSpecial to World Defense Review

In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.
Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
They have impugned and demeaned our military
They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?

By effectively becoming a political arm of our sworn enemy, the Democratic Party has staked out a position that is unparalleled in our country's history. They have gone so far that now even the terrorists toss about the term 'brotherly' when celebrating their electoral success. This is truly something to marvel at, since democrats are infidels too and as such should be anathema in Islamists' eyes. How many times have they told us that in their world the Allah-less must either convert or die? So helpful have the democrats been, however, that even these virulent fanatics are willing – for the time being at least – to overlook their faithlessness and instead speak of them in the most endearing of terms.

The suspicion that many democrats are not on our side has been grating on the American psyche for some time now. But since most people can't fathom why some Americans would want us to lose, the suspicion has not coalesced into a firm conviction. To put it differently, there is a reluctance to conclude the obvious, because we don't want to believe that such treachery could possibly reside in American hearts.

The inability to grasp their motive, however, should not preclude us from making the correct inference based on the evidence of their actions. And the mass of that evidence points overwhelmingly toward this conclusion: America's liberal elites want us to lose this war and they are using the Democratic Party to accomplish their objective.

It would not be the first time they have tried to do this. Some three decades ago, they did all they could to bring about our disgrace in Vietnam. In the end they succeeded and the United States suffered the most humiliating and ignominious defeat in its history.

It is as revealing as it is worrisome that almost all of the current democratic leadership was actively involved in that effort. Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi were all in one way or another personally engaged in the anti-war movement. And when at last it bore its disastrous fruit, they gloated and danced in the streets. Exhilarated and jubilant, they deemed America's disgrace their finest hour. In their skewed world, America's defeat came to represent their personal triumph.

Today these very people hold the reins of the Democratic Party and are trying to achieve in Iraq what they did in Vietnam. Should they succeed, we will face consequences too terrible to contemplate. While the Vietnamese communists were content with humiliating us on their own soil, the Islamists will come after us with a vengeance which is something they have pledged over and over again. This time the toll will not be confined to our military casualties, but will translate into death and mayhem in our midst.

The terrorists' exhilaration at the election results show just how certain they are where the democrats' allegiance lies. Even though they live behind the ocean, they understand something we have tried so hard to overlook: The Democratic establishment will give them its support and assistance all the while stripping America of the tools and abilities to carry on the fight.

It is time that the American people finally realized what the terrorists know all too well: America's liberals are not on our side and will do all they possibly can to bring about our defeat. The fact that most of us cannot relate to their dark desire does not mean it's not real. An honest look at their behavior reveals just how powerful it really is and to what lengths they are willing to go to see it fulfilled.

Wise men and prophets throughout the ages have warned against the darkness that lurks in the human heart. That this darkness takes many forms is attested by the ignominy and perfidy that comprise much of mankind's history. In our time and place, hatred of one's country is one of its most insidious manifestations. Sadly, the Democratic Party has become a willing receptacle for those who under its spell.

Not all democrats dislike their own country, but some clearly do. Most importantly, this dislike is endemic among the liberal leadership of the Democratic establishment. So embittered are they that they are willing to do virtually anything to demean America, even to have her beaten by our enemies. Thirty years ago they brought about our humiliation at the hands of the Vietnamese communists and today they seek a repeat with Islamic terrorists.

It is unsettling that even after the agonizing lessons of Vietnam these people are once again succeeding in duping many well-meaning citizens into supporting policies that cannot but result in a defeat that will be even more painful and dire.

The terrorists have grasped the truth about the Democratic Party some time ago. Let's hope that the American public will do so before it's too late.

How the Democrats will Govern or Not

I think Dick Morris has some good insight here but he is too optimistic on how bad the liberals will perform - they have a lot of troops waiting in the wings, and they are ruthless in their quest for control.

As I have stated previously, this election cycle victories can have a decidedly bad effect on the liberal agenda as they will have to come out of the shadows to get their socialist programs passed. Promise more of everything for everyone at someone eles's expense. Take from the productive and give to the unproductive.

Here is just one case in point - over 40% of the population in 2006 pays not tax. Get the idea? Make that 60% or higher and you have a Marxist retreat.

Will they be like a deer in the heads lights - maybe, but I think they have waited too long for this opportunity to hit back to fold now. They feed on power, and to think they would give it up at any point time is nonsense.

Remember, they have the press on their side to run interference and the terrorists around the world more than willing to cooperate anyway they can. Never forget who these people are.

Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that now that it is upon us it can do little or nothing but harass the administration. There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels. In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies. Story continues below...

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60. In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority 218 to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army disciplined, unified and determined the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus hat in hand to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the
Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses.

Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage. This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dej vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the
Democrats in the House. Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle.

By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself." Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation. Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.

Colin Powell Joins liberal Gang

Is Powell that much out of the loop that he would say things like this in an Arab country know? I guess his tenure as Secretary of State was a mistake on his part and President Bush's. For four years Powell was invested in the defeat of our military.

The question I have now is he part of the conspiracy within our government to bring down the President? Was he, and is he now, working to help lose the war in Iraq by giving national security secrets to the New York Times? His second in command, Armitage, has confessed to leaking Plame's name and one other secret to the press.

How many others?

Colin Powell: Reach Out to Arabs and Muslims

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday President George W. Bush could fight terrorism better by reaching out to Arabs and Muslims.

"We are conveying a bad message, that America does not welcome you particularly - Arabs and Muslims," Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates.

"The greatest weapon against terrorism for America is to open up for the rest of the world."

Arabs and Muslims have criticised U.S. policies as biased towards Israel. Tensions escalated after the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a backlash against Muslims and Arabs in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The 19 al Qaeda hijackers who attacked U.S. cities in 2001 were Arab Muslims, mainly from Saudi Arabia.
"I hope President Bush and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice would double the effort to bring stability to this part of the world (Middle East)," he added.

Powell said the number of Arabs and Muslims who visit the U.S. has dropped since the attacks and reflected negatively on educational institutions and leisure destinations.

Arabs and Muslims complain of heavy security searches in U.S. airports and denial of access to the country. Many Arab students, mainly from Gulf Arab states, left the United States after the attacks on fears of discrimination.

"This is bad, not good for America," said Powell.

"When students come to America for a couple of years they will understand Americans more. This is a great weapon against terrorism... not the use of the military."

(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

The New York Times - A Terrorist Organization

It is clear to me the terrorist network in the world today is a three prong assault on America and the world.

The three members of the network are the Islamofascists, the main stream media, world wide, and the liberal Democrats in this country.

As the this article shows, the New York Times will go covet in it's mission to crush Democracy and freedom. They are the enemy among us.

New York Times loses
Clarice Feldman

The New York Times has lost another major case regarding journalists' right to protect the confidentiality of its sources.


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe.
The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon.

The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation

Theoretically, this should make it easier for the government to pursue its investigations against the paper for its serial leaks of classified information.

Unfortunately, as we noted sometime ago, the paper foresaw this eventuality and in future such cases, its reporters will certainly utilize communication methods which make examination of reporters' phone records less fruitful source material for investigators.

Its reporters will be keeping no records, using disposable phones and generally leaving no trace of their contacts.

Target Denies salvation Army, Again

Last year, Target refused to allow the Salvation Army's traditional bell ringers access to the front of their stores. They claimed if they allowed the Salvation Army they would have to allow everyone else.

This caused a big back lash in the blogesphere and talk radio. The major media outlets, the "drive by media", had little to say on the matter as they hate Christians to begin with, so to say nothing, they gave Target a pass.

This year, as the following article indicates, Target is trying to placate the Christians by giving money up-front and thereby have a legitimate reason to deny the Salvation Army access to their stores.

You be the judge -

Target bans Salvation Army again

by James Estrada

Once again this year, Target Stores has banned the Salvation Army bell-ringers from their stores. Instead the company is donating one million dollars to the charity, and other changes on offer by the company promise to make up much of the none million dollars the charity used to raise each year in front of its stores, according to Salvation Army spokeswoman Melissa Temme.

Local supermarkets, Wal-Mart and other retailers don’t seem to have a problem with the Christian organization founded by William Booth to help the downtrodden, so why does Target? Does the Salvation Army seem too downscale for Tar-zhay? Only the company knows. But at least it is making up some or most of the funds the bell ringers won’t be collecting.A little history:

William Booth found himself one day at the edge of the River. The world is a better place for Booth taking the plunge into that River.At the age of seventeen, Booth made a commitment to Christ and to humanity. While he served for some time as a Methodist minister, he made the greatest impact on the poor of his native England by forming a movement in 1865 he called “The Christian Mission.” He preached on the streets and in old warehouses.

Sometimes he faced ridicule, name-calling and stone-throwing; at other times, his hardships were rewarded with converts to the faith. In 1878, he changed the name of The Christian Mission to The Salvation Army.Between

Thanksgiving and Christmas, a trip to most stores will provide an opportunity to help families and individuals in need by dropping a few coins into a red kettle.

The bell ringing signals to our hearts that there is more to this season than buying the latest electronic gadget and gathering the most charming tree ornaments. It is a time to aid in the salvation of lost and helpless souls, to help feed and cloth the needy among us. A working man between jobs may benefit by having his family’s electric bill paid, or, a mother needing food for her children will find a box of canned goods, pasta and cereal waiting for her.

Liberals On Display

The Democrats are on display for all to see - they really don't have enough power to change much of anything, all they can do is cause pain and destruction. They are who they are and now will all will see what the really stand for.

The following is an article that understands the liberal mind-set. They told us what they wanted to do before the election and now they are following through on their rhetoric -

Who vetoed for them? The majority! But Why?


A Defeatist Strategy
By Bob Weir

The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.

While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy."

The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.

First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.

Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack.

With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long?

America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Rezoning Nightmare

In about one hour, my wife and I will be off to the City-County building in Madison, Wi. to appear at a public hearing before the county board of supervisors. We have to explain why we want to rezone from Exclusive agriculture (A1) to Exclusive agriculture (A2). This sounds simple enough, right? Not!

We want to expand our business of training dogs, and to do that, we have to construct a new building that we can use year round. Under A1, we can not construct a building for training dogs or any other animal other than a farm animal. Under A2, we can apply for a conditional use permit that will allow us to train dogs.

Next week we then have to appear before the township planning board to present our case which then they will send the results of that meeting to the county board for review.

Then on December 12th, we will appear again before a working session of the county board to answer questions that may arise from the township meeting.

On December 19th, we will appear again at a public hearing for any further discussion that may come up during the time between meetings.

Then on February 6th, we have to appear again when the county executive signs the conditional use permits and answer any questions that she might have.

Does this sound like a mess to you as much as it does to us? We applied for a building permit the second week in August. We should have the permit sometime in February.

Dog Gone Good

Some dogs just get use to having the better things in life - he didn't think that this was outlandish or unusual, just something that a
good dog should have.