Tag Archives: Richard Nixon

All The Anger Today Could Be Eliminated By Leaving Us Alone

Bookmark and Share   As much of the media runs with headlines about angry mobs popping up at town hall meetings and dangerous radicals organizing Tea Parties, one must step back. Despite the White House’s attempts to feed such RiotsTodayimpressions and their policing the internet for dissenting opinions, collecting enemies lists and placing conservatives on terrorist lists, what seems to be a level of political discourse that is at a breaking point is actually nowhere near such a point.

You see, while the President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have you fear today’s protestors, they apparently ignore the fact that today’s protestors are driven by their own fears of them. And if you really believe that town hall questioners and Tea Party members are protesting mobs to be frightened of, let us look back at what was another time when political discourse did reach a breaking point. Let’s go back to the 1960’s and 70’s.

In between war protests and racial tensions those two decades probably epitomize what can be considered the most truly strained levels of political discourse in recent history.

Those two decades were marred by racial, political and socio-economic strife that were triggered by the slightest sparks and unleashed true mob rule, violence and even death.

Homosexual anger led to such events as the Stonewall Riots which set off a gay rights revolution after police raided the Stonewall gay bar in New York’s Greenwhich Village. Then there were also the White Night Riots which were triggered by an announcement of the lenient sentencing of Dan White, for the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and one of the first openly gay elected politicians of the time, Harvey Milk.

Racial tensions were responsible for most of the violent up rises our nation endured during this time. We saw the Watts Riots of 1965 which lasted 6 days in Los Angeles, California, in August of 1965 and claimed 34 lives, injured 1,032, and caused the arrest of 3,952.

Slightly less dramatic but equally profound race riots took place allover the US.

There were such riots in Rochester, New York where after police arrested a black man for public intoxication, rumors of brutality led to three days of rioting that only ended after Governor Nelson Rockefeller called in the National Guard.

Such scenarios of historic racial disharmony took place in every region of the nation, with riots in New York City, Buffalo, New Jersey’s cities of Plainfield, Camden, Jersey City and Newark, and throughout other states and cities from Pennsylvania’s Philadelphia to Maryland’s Cambridbge, and from Alabama to Michigan and Washington state and everywhere in between.

Then of course there were the riots prompted by the feelings over years of war in Asia.

On May 3rd, of 1971 one of the most disruptive war protests took place in Washington, D.C. over the Viet Nam War. Thousands of activists shut down the Federal government and what became known as the May Day Protests prompted President Richard Nixon to have D.C. inundated by thousands of Federal and National Guard troops and local police who, when it finally ended days later, arrested 10,000 people in the largest mass arrest in our nation’s history.

Then there was Kent State.

This event became known as the May 4th massacre.

After students of Ohio’s Kent State University organized an anti-war protest on campus, the tension of confrontation triggered National Guardsmen to suddenly fire 67 shots during what amounted to only a few seconds. The result was the death of four students and the wounding of 9 others.

That event eventually led to the Hard Hat Riot which took place in New York City on May 8, 1970 at one of the most important intersections in the world, Wall and Broad Streets.

The riot started at lunchtime in the City after 200 construction workers organized by the New York State AFL-CIO attacked about 1,000 high school and college students and others protesting the Kent State shootings, the American invasion of Cambodia and the Vietnam War.

Two hours after it began more than 70 people were arrested.

These are but just a few highlights of real political strife and violent discourse. Both of those decades were marred with far more though. There was the 1977 New York City blackout which triggered looting and riots, there were a number of infamous prison riots including Attica and scores of more examples of social uprisings.

This should help put the much talked about angry protestations that we see today in such things as town hall meetings and Tea Parties into perspective. For those who think that they have never seen us so divided and believe that we are on the brink of a total breakdown of society, think again and let history ease your concern.

Yes these voices are angry and yes they are serious but they are far removed from the “mob rule” mentality that existed in the 60’s or 70’s and that the left tries to pin on these modern dissenters.

The makeup of the demonstrations that we see today are not compromised primarily of hippy-like, free-love, ganja induced, Woodstockers. They are not dominated by the disaffected underprivileged youth driven by despair, inequality and poverty.

The men and women we see at local town hall meetings and organizing Tea Party protests online and in the streets from coast to coast and border to border are mothers and fathers, grandparents, businessmen and women, doctors, electricians, plumbers and housewives and husbands.

But beyond everything from the average backgrounds, social statuses and ages being different from the protestors of today and the rioters of yesterday is the important distinction between the political objections being aired.

In the 60’s and 70’s, with the exception of the issue of war, most of the strife was prompted by those who were calling for more government action and more federal intervention to close socioeconomic gaps and racial inequities.

In the case of war, oddly enough, today the left has dropped their long held protestations and sit silent as President Obama finds himself continuing the efforts that he once denounced President Bush for.

But in the case of social engineering and government programs, it is the right that has picked up placards and the cause of protest. As we close out the first decade of the new millennium the tables have turned. The cries from the streets are not from the liberal elements of society, they are from the conservative elements.

And just as the participants of left leaning demonstrations of yesterday were not all Democrats, not all the participants of the right leaning rallies of today are all Republicans.

But they are conservative. Not in the demeaning, mischaracterized, Archie Bunker, stereotypical sense but in the sense of having a deep rooted respect and understanding for the constitutional framework that governs the actions of our government.

Whereas the cry of the sixties was for peace and love, in the new millennium the new cry is for protection and freedom. Those on the right have learned that peace cannot be wished for, it must be preserved and they have come to realize that our government born out of the desire for freedom is taking freedom away from us.

One can elucidate on the technicalities that account for those opinions. We can get into the minutia of what the Tea Party protestors and angry town hall questioners want. We can get into the details of the practices and policies they object to and those that they want. But that is not necessary.

The sentiment these contemporary rebel rousers have and what they want is explained quite simply by stating that conservatives largely want nothing more than to be left alone.

They want to care for their families, mix and mingle with friends, go to work and earn their own wages and have government meddle in their business as little as possible. The fact that the government will not leave them alone has disturbed them deeply and as the new administration reloads its ideological guns and takes aim at their pockets, their food, their cars, their homes, neighborhoods, values, health and even the air that they breathe, they have become more than disturbed. They have become furious. Their patience has been more than tried and they have been pushed to the point of realizing that the only way for the government to leave them alone is to get involved as activists who fight against the government encroachment that they so despise.

While the 60’s and 70’s saw a majority of protests prompted to call for government intervention in society, the closing years of the recent decade see the majority of protests prompted by calls for less intervention in our personal lives. Thus proving that while some things may never change other things do. In this case the desire for people to protest authority remains the same but what they are protesting for has changed and so too has the makeup of those who are doing the protesting.

In some cases the very same hippy radicals of the sixties have changed. Now grown up and having had to live life in the real world, many have put away their mood rings, love beads, dashikis, lava lamps and bongs, shaved their beards and replaced their sandals and moccasins with wingtips and loafers. And some of them still find themselves protesting but for different treasons. This time they are protesting for the right to keep more of their hard earned dollars and to send their children to the school of their choice.

In other cases those who have never sought to rock the boat have been forced to do so now because they are sick of the disruptive waves that government is causing in their own lives.

In the seventies Richard Nixon claimed to be the leader of those who did not wish to draw attention to themselves through public demonstrations. He called them the “silent majority”. Forty years later some question if that majority is still indeed the majority but there exists no questioning of the fact that regardless of their numbers, they are no longer silent.

But while some things have changed and other things haven’t, there is no doubt that the tables have turned.

Yesterday a vast amount of public protests turned violent. Today they are predominantly peaceful. Yesterday it was a vast majority of those thirty and younger who took to the streets. Today it is a vast majority of those thirty and older taking to the streets and auditoriums of America. Yesterday there were fears that people were abusing their freedom and that civil disobedience was causing society to breakdown. Today there are fears that government disobedience is abusing people and tearing freedom away from society.

Through it all though it can easily be understood that the makeup and conduct of today’s protests do not warrant the fear mongering of the left who call the modern day dissenters of this administration “unpatriotic mobs” or dangerous radicals or evil Republican operatives. These moms and dads, these grandmothers and grandfathers, small business owners and professionals are not looting our streets, turning over cars, setting fires and throwing Molotov cocktails at National Guardsmen.

They are simply asking to be free and they simply want to be left alone.

That is what lies at the center of the peaceful yet angry political discourse we see today. That is what is at the core of today’s conservative movement and it begs to question if our government is so utterly stupid that they can’t understand what Vice President Biden would describe as four simple words………..leave me alone!?

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under politics

THE ALARM BELLS ARE RINGING YET IMMIGRATION REFORM IS STILL ON THE BACK BURNER

Digg!Last year, In Iraq,  5,908 civilians and Iraqi soldiers and police were killed between January 1, 2008 and December 29, 2008.

Members of the police carry a coffin of one of their own. Seven police employees were killed in the same incident that took this fallen officers life

Members of the police carry a coffin of one of their own. Seven police employees were killed in the same incident that took this fallen officers life

In Mexico, 5,376 Mexican federal agents, police and civilians who were killed  by drug traders during the same time period.

So it can be safely said that nearly as many Mexicans died as a result of drug terrorists as did Iraqi’s from the terrorism in their war torn nation.

All of us are aware of the threats posed by terrorism. 9/11 brought that fact home and since the events of September 11, 2001, America has been on guard and on the offense in that War On Terror. Since that dreadful day and our somewhat official declaration of War on Terror, not a single attack has again taken place on American soil.

That is quite a contrast from the record that we accumulated in the decades since we declared the War On Drugs.

The term “war on drugs’ was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971. At the time it was a play on the well known “War On Poverty” penned by the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the mid 60’s. The technical aspects of the War On Drugs have varied over time but it’s basic strategy has remained the same……. employ the cooperation of other nations to eliminate the illegal drug trade and eliminate the selling and use of illegal drugs through an aggressive zero tolerance, law enforcement agenda and a persistent and wide spread anti-drug education program and campaign.

To some degree, it has helped but the amount of time and money spent on the effort has produced results that are less than stellar. The rate of success in the War On Drugs certainly would not be considered acceptable in the War On Terror and yet as far apart as the results of the two are from each other, they are about to become one in the same.

Iraq is 6,005 miles away from the shores of the Unites States off of New York. That is a long distance yet we know that distance, although it may not make things easier, it still does not prevent terrorist attacks from taking place here. Mexico isn’t even inches away though. So terrorism through Mexico is even easier. They are connected to us, and not just physically. They are connected to us by direct and immediate contact through trade health, agriculture and citizens, legal and illegal. But perhaps the greatest connection between the United States and Mexico is drugs.

It is a deadly connection. One that dulls the minds of millions, endangers the lives of hundreds of thousands and kills tens of thousands each year.

A soldier stands guard in front of the Camino Real Hotel in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

A soldier stands guard in front of the Camino Real Hotel in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Drugs are probably the most prolific and profitable commodity exchanged across the U.S.-Mexican border, yet, despite the negative effects, it’s illegality and the “war” on them, drugs flow form South to North with the ease of the Shenandoah River in the Virginias.

The incredibly violent rate of drug deaths in Mexico during 2008 is a loud warning bell. It rings with more dire warning than the bellowing horns of the Titanic as it went down after the iceberg tore a lethal hole into it’s hull.

The incredible number of deaths occurred as a result of the increased boldness of drug cartels and gangs. They have taken a stand and made it clear that they are defiant and will not allow any government to infringe on their livelihoods.

In 2008, an increasing amount of drug lords have made incursions in the United States. One of the most recent well publicized events brought about an Amber Alert after the grandson of a man with shady loan debts to drug dealers kidnapped his grandson. The boy turned up in Las Vegas, but the drug dealer’s message was clear.

However, I must ask, what will it take for the drug issue to be truly taken seriously in the United States? Would  it have made a difference if that little California boy was found with his throat slashed? How many more incidents will it take before we realize that terrorism is about to get a partner. A partner that, like Palestinians in Gaza firing missiles into Israel, will be lobbing more violence into America.

America must wake up.

While there are those so far on the left and so far to the right that they meet together in the ideological circle and both try to legalize illegal drug use, an explosion of death and violence that we have not seen before is about to unleash itself.

I am well aware that drug violence is nothing new, but the extent to which it is escalating is new and yet we sit idly by as though things are not different. We almost accept it as commonplace.

Do you know how ingrained the dug culture has become in our southern neighbor?

Ever hear narcocorrido?

antnarcoscorridosNarcocorrido is a form of music based on a type of Mexican folk music called corrido. It sounds like a Latin polka and goes way back in time. It was used to celebrate revolutionary figures and heroes like Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. The new version is called narcocorrido and it sings the praises of drug traffickers and drug related bandits. One older narcocorrido sings about Camelia the Texan, and her boyfriend who go to Los Angeles with a load of marijuana in their car’s tires. They sell it and Camelia’s boyfriend dumps her, saying, “Here’s your half, now I’m going up to San Francisco to my true love.” The song goes on to sing about how Camelia pulls out a gun and pumps him full of lead.

It concludes with the line……… “All the police found was the fired pistol; of the money and Camelia, nothing more was ever known.”

Sweet tune, isn’t it?

Not that the little ditty is astonishing. Here in America, with the likes of P. Diddy, 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, and others, the lyrics of that narcocorrido could be considered tame by American standards. Then again, standards are the problem. Just as narcocorrido is easing into mainstream Mexico, acceptance of drugs and drug violence has been easing into American culture.

That is not to say that we think violence or drug violence is good, but our tolerance of it has increased as our Photobucketintolerance of drugs has leveled off.

For example, I can recall a recall a comments board for a local newspaper in New Jersey called the Asbury Park Press. In it was a story about underage teens arrested for drinking and serving alcohol at a party that they held in their home while their parents were away. More than 60 percent of the comments were of the “let them be” impression. Some said “kids will be kids” and others said “the police should be doing more important things than enforcing underage drinking laws”.

I am not suggesting to bring back prohibition of alcohol but I am merely pointing out the permissiveness that is increasing in society. People are actually suggesting that kids should be let off the hook for breaking laws.

My point is,  just as it took 9/11 to finally deal with terrorism effectively, what will it take for us to deal with drugs and the drug trade effectively?

I for one feel that some of the intentions of the “War On Drugs” must be dealt with by using the same sense of conviction that 9/11 created, especially when it comes to the drug wars goal of employing the cooperation of other nations to eliminate the illegal drug trade.

But more than that, I believe it would be encouraging if we at least secured our border with Mexico. In fact I believe that is, first and foremost our nations top priority.

YES!, our most important priority. More so than even the economy.Secure Border Avavatar

Without a secure border there will be no economy to handle.

At a later date, I will detail a proposal of my own that I have previously released. It is called Open Arms-Secure Borders. It is a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that welcomes legal immigration but defends the sovereignty of our nation and respects and secures our borders.

For now though, Americans must at least acknowledge the fact that the iceberg is in sight and that the U.S.S. Freedom & Prosperity better start steering in another direction or like the Titanic, we will tear apart our hull of security.

Digg!

Photobucket

punchline-politics21 

antlettucePOLITICAL IRONYanttitaniccomic

 During what can, at the very least, only be considered tough economic times, Congress is looked at for acting responsibly and demonstrating some fiscal responsibility.

Yet despite these facts, Congress goes ahead and accepts an automatic pay raise. 

Doing so is reminiscent of the captain of the Titanic demanding that iceberg lettuce be served with dinner the night the great vessel went down.

Digg!

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

Be Sure To Sign The Petition To

REPEAL THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY HIKE

Sign the Online Petition – Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers

http://www.gopetition.com/online/24301.html

Digg!

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

1 Comment

Filed under politics

YOU CAN TURN RIGHT ON RED BUT DON’T TURN LEFT TO GET ELECTED

antjohnashbrook1972boxWith the holidays upon us, family, friends, faith and other personal aspects in life come to the forefront, as they should. Although the world does not stop rotating, priorities do shift, at least for a few brief hours. Among one of the first fields of endeavor to experience a temporary cessation in hostilities is politics.

Considering the amount of headlines pointing out the treachery and lack of sincerity often associated with politics, a stop, even a brief stop, in the business of politics is warranted during this more spiritually sincere time of the year.

With the winding down of its activity, one becomes very reflective about politics. It makes you stop and think……what is it all for?

Is all the posturing, deal cutting, eloquent speeches and snappy catch phrases done for the betterment of the people? Or is it done for the personal advantage of the deal cutters, eloquent speakers and snappy phrase makers? Is it all done to achieve personal power or acclaim? Is all the demonstrated frustration and anger involved in the process caused because of the failure to pass a particular piece of legislation that benefit’s the people or is it arrived at more because of personal failure to be credited with passing a piece of legislation?

Politics, can be a wonderful arena of ideas for maintaining a prosperous and civilized civilization or it can be a cesspool of humanities worst motivations.

It is that way because politics is comprised of politicians and politicians are only human. Some are good while others are just inappropriate or downright bad. So it is only natural that as human beings, their policies are also a mix of good and bad.

Being human, politicians bring to the table all the human frailties that we as humans possess.antnoleftturnshtma2

The hope is that the best ideas and directions win the day due to there being a preponderance of humanities best people involved in the process. Unfortunately, I am afraid that many of today’s elected officials in the game are not humanities best, most sincere and altruistic people. I believe many of them simply want the power and perceived admiration of the masses. Many are in it simply for themselves. Take Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich for instance.

So this leads us to wonder how we tell the difference between someone who wants to win for the sake of winning or to make a true change for the betterment of al the people.

The coming year will give New Jerseyans the chance to answer that question.

As the state gears up for a gubernatorial election, Republicans have to choose a nominee to run against liberal Jon Corzine.

Popular thinking would lead one to believe that, given the polls in New Jersey, a liberal approach would be the more expedient path to victory for Republicans in Jersey.

If  any Republican running for governor takes that approach, than I will know one thing about them.  I will know that they are not sincere.

The Republican who runs to the left in this election is the Republican who wants power for their own benefit and to win for the sake of winning, not for the sake of improving the lives of others.

The Republican who tries to avoid offending illegal immigrants by not demanding a strict enforcement of laws regarding their illegal presence and who avoids taking control away from unions like the National Education Association and giving more power to parents is the candidate afraid of standing up to the influence that those who impede progress may wield in the election.

Any candidate who allows the fear of losing an election to take precedence over doing what is right, is not running for governor for the right reasons. They would be demonstrating that they are running for themselves, not for the people.

The Republican nominee for Governor must be willing to stand up to the power brokers who have held the state hostage through secretive union negotiations and outrageous pension plans.

The Republican nominee for Governor must be willing to address the fact that municipalities in New Jersey must begin to consolidate. Our nominee needs to demonstrate that fewer governments throughout the state means less burden on the taxpayer and less of an affordability problem for residents.

Of course no local municipal king wants to give up their kingdom, but the people must hear about the advantages of reducing the costly proliferation of governments. They must be made aware of the fact that government has become the problem and that fewer governments in the state will lead to less of those things we don’t need. Like less government corruption, fewer operating costs, fewer bureaucrats and bureaucratic entanglements .

We need a nominee who will challenge that which hinders progress, not a candidate who goes along to get along.

Some might say that that is no way to win an election. They would argue that by offending the hands that organize volunteers and pours the mothers milk of any political campaign, money, into an election, is a road map to defeat.

Conservative Ohio Congressman Joh Ashbrook

Conservative Ohio Congressman Joh Ashbrook

If that is true, than I suggest we go down in defeat.

I would rather see Republicans lose by standing up for what we believe in than win by offering the same policies that liberals have provided us with.

I believe, like former Congressman John Ashbrook, who when asked why he often stood against the popular tide, explained that by representing what he believes to be right, the only thing he could lose was his seat in Congress.

For Congressman Ashbrook ideals meant more than power or winning an election.

His strong, uncompromising defense of conservative ideals did not always make him a popular figure.

Elected to Congress from Ohio in 1960, he came to Washington just as liberalism and big government was about to sweep out from Washington and through the rest of the nation. Yet he consistently stood against the tide of the time and articulated a hard line against communism, big government, social engineering and discrimination.

By 1970 a poll considered Ashbrook one of the 5 most influential conservative leaders in the nation.

In Congress he consistently added amendments to legislation important to liberals and successfully blocked their most detrimental effects.

In 1972 Congressman Ashbrook found himself fed up with the leadership of his own party.

Richard Nixon was President and despite his campaigning as a conservative, Ashbrook saw Nixon governing more to the left than the right. So in typical fashion, John Ashbrook opposed accepted popular thinking of the time. He ran against Richard Nixon for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Many Republicans were outraged that he would dare challenge “our” sitting Republican President but Asbrook wanted Republicans to be true to our principles and he believed that along with neglecting to fulfill campaign promises, Nixon was weakening our already lagging military.

As we know, Nixon was re-nominated but John Ashbrook was content with his poor showing in the primaries. Of it he said “I spread my message. So I guess you don’t have to be on the winning side to be victorious.”

From then on, not only did John Ashbrook continue to win the favor of the voters in his congressional district, he also continued to be the voice of the conservative cause.

By 1980 many in America realized that mediocrity was not what we needed in our leaders and along with John Ashbrook, people turned to Ronald Reagan for leadership.

For almost two decades John Ashbrook swam against the tide. He never gave up or took the path of political expediency. Ashbrook stayed in the game for the long haul and helped to turn the conservative movement into a mainstream movement without compromising conservative principles.

In 1981 the Congressman decided to take his conservative leadership to the United States Senate. He began to campaign against then popular incumbent Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum. For Ashbrook the race was to be an historic battle pitting conservatism against liberalism. Unfortunately the hoped for clash of ideas never came to be. Congressman Ashbrook died in April of 1982.

With his passing, we lost a man less concerned with himself and motivated more by doing what was right than what was popular. We lost the type of leader that Republicans need today. Leaders who campaign on the issues that differentiate us from the liberal agendas of Democrats.

Yet despite the loss of Congressman Ashbrook’s physical presence, we are still blessed by his spirit of unwavering commitment and the lessons he taught us.

Bumper Sticker From Ashbrook's 1972 Presidential Campaign

Bumper Sticker From Ashbrook's 1972 Presidential Campaign

He taught us that no one and no political party should establish or compromise their beliefs based on popular perceptions of the time

Ashbrook’s leadership proved that when one is right, others will eventually come to that realization. But if one fears to give the right answer because everyone else is thinking differently and offering the wrong answer, than no one will ever know what the right answer is.

Unfortunately, Republicans have been unwillingly to be honest about the answers we need to hear. Instead they run campaigns that duplicate the answers being offered by liberals and it obviously isn’t working.

Republicans are losing and rightfully so. Many candidates are not embracing the conservative principles that have led to our past successes. They have been more concerned with personal success at the voting booth than they have been with making life better for the voters.

During this holiday, when the spirit of giving and goodwill dominates the season’s atmosphere, I can only hope that Republicans in New Jersey can find a candidate who is willing to carry that sense of sincere goodwill and giving into the political atmosphere. I hope we can nominate a person who is willing to provide us with solutions to our problems rather than rhetoric that they think will deliver them a shallow victory at the polls.

John Asbrook campaigned for President on the slogan “no left turns”. At the time,  Americans were comfortable with the status quo. A few short years later, Americans were running away from the status quo that they once wanted. Instead they turned to the conservative principles that brought us out of the problems that the left and left leaning decisions created.

With the perceived popularity of President-elect Barack Obama some in New Jersey may feel that campaigning to the left is the politically expedient way to win an election but is political expediency good public policy?

In the words of Congressman Ashbrook the difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative worries about the future while the liberal worries about the next election.

That being said, I want a Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey who worries about tomorrow, not the next election. I want a nominee who is more concerned with doing what is right for the people not what the left wants to hear.

If Republicans want to achieve a victory in November that means something, they need to make sure that they take “no left turns.”.

punchline-politics21

Coast Guard Christmas
Twas the night before Christmas and all through each state,
Coast Guard families were starting to celebrate.
Just then from the white House came an urgent call,
A crisis had arisen that would affect one and all.

In fact the U.S. State Department was frantic,
For Santa Claus had just landed in the Atlantic!
It Was foggy as ever; Rudolph had made a blunder.
Santa, sleigh, and eight reindeer were going under.

Though the stockings were hung by the chimneys with care.
Poor Santa gurgled, “I’ll never get there.”
When what to his wondering eye should appear;
But some coast guard cutters with their rescue gear!

The officers and crew were so lively and quick;
Sure was a lucky break for good ole Saint Nick.
With a nod from the captain. they went right to work.
Rudolph was embarrassed, he felt like a jerk.

Poor Santa was soggy, but as anyone could see,
He was very grateful to the U.S.C.G!
And we heard him exclaim as they towed him from sight,
“If it weren’t for age and weight, I’d enlist Tonight!”

Photobucket

Leave a comment

Filed under politics