Cynthia McKinney to be Arrested: Pulls Race Card

Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, has been issued an arrest warrant for assaulting a police officer on Capitol Hill. Apparently, according to eyewitnesses and video, McKinney failed to go through a security checkpoint and when stopped by a Capitol police officer doing his job, she became enraged and punched the officer in the chest. It turns out that she also failed to wear the ID badge designating her a member of Congress which led the officer to stop her and ask for ID. Charges could range from assault on a police officer, which is a felony carrying a possible five year prison term, to simple assault, which is a misdeamenor. Cynthia McKinney is best known for her outspoken rhetoric or as I like to call it, her craziness. Here are a few quotes that will better acquaint you with Congresswoman McKinney. “What is disturbing to me is that many of these pro-Israeli lawmakers sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest…The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress.”--- “In the fight against intimidation, we stand together and we must. After all, a regime that would steal an election right before our very eyes will do anything to all of us.” --- “In November 2000, the Republicans stole from America our most precious right of all: the right to free and fair elections” As you can see, she is not exactly that sanest of individuals.

The Congresswoman happens to be African American and a Democrat. So what on earth do you think she brought up after the incident in which she assaulted a police officer? I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t an acknowledgement of her mistake. "Sadly, there are only 14 black women Members of Congress. And surely our faces are distinguishable. But why my face is continually unrecognizable can only be answered by these offending police officers…The US Capitol Police mission statement makes no distinction about selective application of its mission depending upon whether a Member of Congress is black, woman, or has a new hairstyle.” Yes, she pulled the race card after she attacked the police officer for doing his job. What a strategy…Blame President Bush or pull the race card. I guess the charge from republicans that the Democrats don’t have a strategy is wrong. They do have a plan. That plan is to use the Bush-blame-race-card strategy that has been perfected by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Her lawyer has claimed that, she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black." Check Please!

Update, 4:30pm: McKinney Claims Racism- WMV or MP4 Video Via ETL

Democrats Reveal National Security Plan

Democrats have released their National Security plan after five years of constant nay-saying and reckless rhetoric. As you might have guessed it’s not exactly a plan…it’s more of an idealistic outline of an already existent plan that has been implemented by the Bush administration. However, there are some details I would like to mention. Well…actually the plan has no details at all. It basically says we will do better in Iraq, catch Osama Bin-Laden and protect the ports. Well gee wiz Dems; you are going have to do better than that."The highest responsibility of government is to protect the security of every American," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "After five years of Republican incompetence, Americans have had enough. They expect and demand policies that are tough and smart." [He says this while he and his colleagues continue to undermine the war on terror at every turn].

This so-called plan is the poorest attempt to trick voters into believing something that is just not true. I’m sure they can convince some Democrats, because as we all know, they are a very gullible bunch. But what about average Americans who have become accustomed to seeing the Democratic Party fight National Security measures in a non-stop fashion. For example: Democrats opposed a border security bill. The Border Security/Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act passed the House 239-182, with 164 Democrats opposing. Democrats opposed the REAL ID Act. And Democrats opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And who can forget Harry Reid jubilantly proclaiming that the democrats killed the Patriot Act. It passed the House 251-174, with 157 Democrats opposing.

This is what the Democrats have proven they want and would most likely do. Their behavior leads me to believe that they will destroy the Patriot Act, negotiate with Iran (providing them the time to finish their bomb), refuse to use coercive interrogation to save lives and outsource our security to the most corrupt organization on the planet (the UN). They would no longer efficiently track terrorists via the NSA. They would refuse to go on the offensive in this war and simply wait until there is another huge attack on America. They would release all of the captured terrorists housed in Gitmo because they believe that illegal enemy combatants, who fight for no country, deserve Geneva Convention protections (which they don’t). They would refuse to hit Al Qaeda targets if there is a small chance that one innocent terrorist sympathizer might get killed. They would dismantle our entire ability to wage this complex, and at times, morally challenging war. I really do believe that if the Democratic Party were in power, their best idea to combat terrorism would be to make milk and cookies for terrorists and beg them not to continue their jihad.

FISA Judges: NSA Wiretaps Within the Law

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute." [Washington Times]

Well, those Democrats that falsely claim the NSA terrorist surveillance program is illegal better explain to an author of the actual FISA act why it is that he is wrong and you are right. So what do we know about this issue? We know that high-ranking members of both parties were briefed on the program and Harry Reid admitted to that. We know that the Patriot Act gave the President the power to use all legal means to wage the war on terror; and according to the FISA judges, the NSA wiretaps are legal. So, where does that leave those Bush-haters that have tried so hard to prevent the President from doing his job of tracking suspected terrorists? I suppose an apology from them is in order…is it not? Once again, the left has shown its tendency to ignore the truth and reality in order to quench their vampire-like thirst to Bash President Bush. Once again they have been proven wrong and their desperate attempts to cling to some sort of hope for impeachment have been in vain. Isn’t it funny how they claimed that Bush lied us into the war in Iraq, yet the actual bi-partisan commission proved them wrong. Or when they claimed the economy is tanking but the actual numbers and facts proved that to be wrong as well. Or when they claimed Bush is dumb, yet for some reason he out smarts them at every turn and their own candidate (John Kerry) had worse grades then the president. Isn’t that funny? I will be waiting for all of those leftists to modify their hate-filled positions and to admit that the NSA wiretaps are in fact legal.

Most Americans support doing what is necessary to fight the war on terror. Polls have shown that most people are willing to give up some liberties for security. Most Americans want the U.S. Government to track suspected terrorists and if that means doing so without warrants due to an unnecessary hindrance, then so be it. However, the Democratic Party continues to lie and to undermine the war on terror. Their hatred and their willingness to assist our enemies by using partisan politics is outrages. When will the liberals learn?

Alright! Enough is Enough. Secure the Border

Ladies and gentlemen we are seeing our country being overrun by a mob of Mexicans and it has to come to an end. This is serious for the Americans who worry about our country and its future. These people, these ILLEGAL aliens need to be rounded up at their protest sites and sent packing back to their country. I have seen enough of this flood of illegal immigration. The Constitution of the United States of America calls for the legal citizens of this country to act in the defense of the nation in the midst of a foreign invasion! And make no mistake, this is a foreign invasion. It could be said that Americans should gather arms to forcibly remove these people but I think it has not yet come to that. But if things continue to go unchanged and our policy of amnesty continues the American people will, I think have to do what is called for in the Constitution. The Minutemen project was the beginning of the outcry and it was peaceful. It will turn ugly if nothing is changed.

I demand that the National Guard and the President of the United Stated do their duty to protect this country and to enforce the law. The Constitution CALLS for the military to protect the borders of the United States of America but they have failed. Write your congressmen, your senators and the President. Demand that the borders of our country be secured for it is the duty of our leaders to do so. Urge our leaders to pass legislation that calls for the building of a wall and that substantially increases the number of Border Patrol agents. No More! We cannot sit idly by while our country and our leaders pretend there is no problem. The Democrats want the votes, the Republicans want the cheap labor; together they constitute a clear and present danger to the United States of America. What does the constitution suggest “we the people” do when our leaders refuse to do their duty? I suggest that we the people of the United States demand change and demand that our leaders uphold the Constitution. If they don’t…well, some people may have no choice but to do what is necessary.

Torture, 9/11 and the 20th Hijacker

It turns out that Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker admitted to his plan to fly a commercial airliner into the White House. Moussaoui knew, in detail, the plot of 9/11 and if he told the truth to the FBI when he was arrested, it likely would have prevented that massacre. Therefore, my question is this: Knowing that Mosssaoui had detailed information regarding the plan that Al Qaeda implemented on September 11th, 2001, would you have supported the interrogation techniques of coercive interrogation and or torture to extract information from Zacarias Moussaoui? Before your knee jerk reaction keep in mind that if the torture worked and Moussaoui gave us the vital information needed to stop the attacks that took place on that day, it would have saved the lives of 3,000 people. Not only that, but the war in Iraq would not have taken place, which would have saved another 2,000 US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Given that, if torture would have resulted in preventing 9-11, would you support it? It’s not an easy question for some to answer but I can tell you my opinion. In hindsight, I would have been willing to torture this man for information myself.

Blair: Anti-Americanism is Madness

Tony Blair gave a speech in Australia in which he called the Anti-Americanism in Europe madness. "But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European and world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in…The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged...The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them...Our task is to ensure that with them we do not limit the agenda to security. If our security lies in our values, and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America." [The Guardian]

I agree 100% with Tony Blair’s assessment of Europe and their anti-Americanism. I think the genesis of this “madness” is rooted in the European Media. I watch BBC World, I read European newspapers, and there is one thing nearly all of them have in common. That commonality happens to be a deep seeded resentment of our culture and our stance in the world. You can tell, by their reporting and the lapses of restraint when it comes to bashing America or skewing news reports, that they dislike the United States. It is quite evident, at least to me, that the agenda of the European media, in general, is to try to bring America figuratively to its knees. It is almost as if it they are saying, “Yeah, you’re America but we're Europe and we have a long storied history, so there”. I hesitate to use the word jealousy to describe their attitude but it could very well be the reason.

I also feel that because there is no real superpower besides the United States, Europe has no one to hate. The Nazis were defeated, the Soviet Union collapsed and so the only way they can release their frustration is to use America as the scapegoat. Have you noticed that? For some odd reason, we are to blame for the world’s trouble. We are the reason terrorist are killing innocent people in Iraq, not the actual perpetrators. Al Qaeda is only killing people in Iraq because they wish to free the Middle East from the clutches of America. It is not because they are grasping for control of the Middle East and wish to spread the caliphate. They claim we are the bad guy when countries like France and Russia were in the back pocket of Saddam Hussein. Global Warming is America’s fault because we refused to sign the ridiculous Kyoto agreement. It's all our fault...we did it.

Are We Supposed to take Liberals Seriously?

On many occasions, people on the political left, disregard reality simply because someone on some fringe website says something that is definitely crazy but is anti-Republican. Most of us have come to realize that people like that are so filled with hate and intolerance that they are unable to recognize when their sanity has left them and their hatred takes a hold. When that occurs we get these three main arguments.
-Bush "lied" us into war: OK, but according to the official bi-partisan investigations and reports, Bush did not “lie” us into war. So that argument is no longer relevant and is false.[
Silberman-Robb Report]
-Bush is stupid: But anyone that uses public speaking as the measure for intelligence is in fact the stupid one. And if Ivy League grades are your measure for intelligence then the candidate you [Democrats] voted for, had worse grades than President Bush did at Yale. [
Kerry's Grades vs Bush's Grades]
-The Economy is horrible: That is also false. We have a high national debt, that's true. However, the economy as a whole is doing quite well and continues to grow. [
Economy Report]

Those are the three main arguments we hear from the left. They don’t make sense according to reality but in their world of hysteria and delusions, they do make sense. No matter how many times they claim these things to be true the fact is they are not true. The reason liberals continue to use these arguments, despite their falsity, is because they are so frantic for a moral relevancy that they will disregard the truth as long as the substitute for truth allows them to feel secure in their hatred for President Bush. That’s what this is all about for them. Analyze their behavior and ask, why is it that many liberals support the outing of CIA secrets (CIA plane routes and prison locations) which endangers many people yet condemn the outing of one “agent” Valerie Plame that endangers no one. The answer is simple. One of those had the potential to hurt the Administration and the other definitely had the potential to hurt the CIA and the Military. With that in mind the choice for these people became quite simple. They basically said, “forget about hurting the CIA and the military and focus on the one that could hurt President Bush.” This type of behavior is seen with many issues and their pattern is always the same. Another example is the teacher that was caught red-handed indoctrinating his students. The left was more upset at the 10th grade student for recording his teacher than then they were at the teacher who was indoctrinating his students with leftist propaganda.

And Yesterday the
Daily Kos clown had this to say in an interview on CNN. “We [the left] don’t have a partisan liberal media they [the right] have a very partisan conservative media...The right wing has this vast right-wing conspiracy.” When asked, "Do you believe the MSM are too easy in the coverage of President Bush", this was his response: “Oh, absolutely, there’s no doubt about it.” So, the media is conservative and way too easy on Bush. I guess in his mind that is all true. [WMV or MP4 Video of Interview via ETL]

Clash Between Middle-Ages and the 21st Century

She is my definition of a Muslim Freedom-Fighter: Syrian born doctor gives an unprecedented and brave interview on AL Jazeera. You have to watch this, it is amazing. She is the voice of many who cannot speak. Even while she is labeled a heretic by an Islamo-fascist she continues, unafraid to plead her case to the Muslim world. View video here: MEMRI or here at LGF

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

Democrat Pleads Guilty in Steele Case

While Democrats whine about President Bush using the NSA to track terrorists without warrants, their own political operatives are illegally obtaining personal information on Republican candidates. Lauren B. Weiner, a democrat that worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, pled guilty to computer fraud on Friday. She illegally used Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele’s social security number to access personal financial records including credit reports. Mr. Steele is currently running for the US senate. According to the plea agreement, Weiner will avoid jail time but be required to complete 150 hours of community service. Michael Steele, according to his attorney, might file a civil lawsuit to learn more about what actually happened.

So, our friends in the Democratic Party use operatives to illegally obtain personal information without warrants. Hmm, that seems to be contradictory to their stance on the NSA tracking terrorists, which by the way is a tad more vital to American security than snooping on political opponents. As you may know Chuck Schumer is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and has been caught, on other occasions, using questionable tactics to raise money. You might remember I reported on how Chuck Schumer attempted to exploit the death and destruction of Hurricane Katrina by using it to raise money for him and the DSCC. Given that, I doubt that Mr. Schumer really has the credibility to make moral judgments in terms of the NSA or civil rights.

To me it seems, given that we have thousands of cameras monitoring thousands of streets across thousands of U.S. cities, the only time Democrats care about “big brother” is when it can be used to score political points. They certainly do not care about privacy when that privacy is preventing them from getting personal financial records of people they wish to smear. How much do you want to bet that nearly every major Democratic politician has someone on their staff that is employed to drag out private information that can be used against their opponents. I’m not saying that only Democrats and not Republicans employ operatives because I’m sure that the Republicans do. However, they are not the party making self-righteous claims about how un-American tracking terrorists without a warrant is. The Democrat Party are the ones that use scare tactics in terms of the “big brother” notion. How many times have we heard them claim that this technology is being used to track little old ladies or some average Joe from down the street? Chances are if that average Joe happens to be a republican candidate, the Democrats already have his personal information. Maybe now they will stop pretending they are for Civil Rights and stop undermining our efforts to fight terrorism.

Russia Provided Intel to Saddam Hussein

WASHINGTON -- The Russian government provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on U.S. military movements and plans during the opening days of the war in 2003, according to a Pentagon report released Friday.

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing an Iraqi document that says the battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad… Based on a captured Iraqi document - a memo to Saddam from his Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated April 2 - Russian intelligence reported through its ambassador that the American forces were moving to cut off Baghdad from the south, east and north, with the heaviest concentration of troops in the Karbala area. It said the Americans had 12,000 troops in the area, along with 1,000 vehicles.
Russia Betrayed the U.S.]

The world claims America is the bad guy over Iraq yet Russia actively assisted the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein by providing them with military Intel on the United States prior to the invasion. French officials were bribed and actively aided Saddam Hussein with assurances that they would veto any UN resolution that directly called for war. Imagine if France and Russia did their duty by backing the US in a resolution for war and or used their alliance with Saddam to convince him to allow unfettered access to his suspected WMD facilities. Imagine if they, France and Russia, did not assure Saddam Hussein that the United States would not send troops to Iraq without the express consent of the Security Council. If the world came together and demanded that Saddam Hussein adhere to resolution 1441 there would have been no war in Iraq. The left’s favorite dictator, other than Castro, would still be in power committing genocide. So who is the bad guy in this situation? The United States who demanded Hussein fulfill his obligations that was demanded of him by the “world community” or France and Russia who were essentially allies of Saddam Hussein; helping him steal money from Oil for Food, providing him Intelligence against the United States, and taking bribes from Hussein to lift sanctions and solidify his regime’s power? In the common sense world based on right and wrong, France and Russia would be condemned for their betrayal and labeled the bad guy. But in the leftist anti-American world, the country that removes a brutal tyrant in an attempt to reform the Middle-East is condemned. Remember, if France and Russia did their duty and used their alliance to convince Hussein to fulfill his obligation laid out in UN resolution 1441 instead of promising him a veto on a war resolution, the War in Iraq would have never taken place.

Activist Group Condemns Coalition after Rescue

In reference to the peace activist group, the Christian Peacemakers Team, whose members were held hostage in Iraq and were rescued by Coalition forces: This thankless group, whose friends were rescued by the Coalition after being kidnapped by the enemies of freedom, had the gall to call those same forces illegal occupiers. Not only that, they forgave the same terrorists who kill innocent women and children for political statements. They actually had the nerve to say those things after they were saved form death by American and British forces!

The following is part of the statement put out by the Christian Peacemakers Team in response to the rescue operation that led to the freedom of their friends, if you can believe it. "We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end." [Where was this activist group when Saddam was committing genocide?]. The invasion of Iraq was legal and justified given Hussein’s failure to adhere to the surrender agreement he signed at the end of the Gulf War. Not to mention his illegal activities including supporting terrorism, housing terrorist training facilities and numerous war crimes including genocide.

“Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families.” These people, who I hope go to Iraq so they can be kidnapped again, actually condemn the Coalition forces that rescued them while forgiving the terrorists that kidnapped and killed their friend! This is almost as bad as the anti-war group that heckles the family members of fallen soldiers at their funerals; you thankless, heartless sorry excuses for human beings. Do us all a favor and Jump off a bridge, please. We live in a backwards world where this type of thing happens all of the time. I’m hoping evolution weeds out these nutcases…society needs it. [CPT's Full Statment]

Explosive New Iraqi Documents Revealed

It seems that according to newly released Iraqi Documents, not only did Saddam Hussein wish to establish a relationship with Osama Bin Laden but Hussein wished to bribe French officials.

ABC News
This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called "Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed." (ABC Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation."

Now, according to my post
Incompetence on Iraq: Fire Rumsfeld, all they have to do is Fire Rumsfeld and they will be on track. These documents, including those released today, will help vindicate my views on Iraq and the President’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein. Not only that, it helps prove what I believe was a double-cross by France and Russia. I think French officials were bribed by Saddam Hussein to push for the lifting of sanctions and for the veto vote of any UN war resolution. They aided Saddam's regime while self-righteously condemning the United States for removing Saddam Hussein. More on Documents

Holy corrupted-media Batman! The News is Biased

As most of us know the New York Times represents the worst of the worst when it comes to reporting unfair and inaccurate stories. We know how they revel in endangering our military and our country by reporting illegally disclosed information on CIA prisons and plane routes. We have seen how they constantly beat the drum of America is wrong and America is evil. Any newspaper that refuses to print the “cartoon Muhammad” pictures because they wish not to incite hatred, yet constantly print the over-hyped Abu Ghraib photos for ideological reasons, is a newspaper not after the truth. That leads me to the latest report the NY Times has used to attack President Bush. They used a moving and horrific account of a hurricane Katrina victim, who was upset at the Government, to make a point about the Federal response to the disaster. Well, it turns out that the woman the Times used in the story was not even a victim of Hurricane Katrina but a con-artist trying to swindle the government. Woops!

NEW YORK- For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor.

I guess in their excitement to post an article that could damage the Administration they forgot to actually check to see if this woman was telling the truth. The lack of accuracy in the media seems to be more and more prevalent these days. CBS knowingly used phony National Guard documents in an attempt to help John Kerry win the ’04 election. CBS often uses manipulated opinion polls to assist the Democratic Party and to hurt the President. CNN anchors nearly cried when Bush won Florida in ’04 and they implied that Bush coordinates with Osama Bin Laden to put out tapes that threaten America. The CNN staff puts subliminal messages in their reporting as seen with the huge black X’s they flashed during a Dick Cheney speech. The New York Times prints a bogus story about Geraldo Rivera claiming that he pushed a Katrina rescue worker out of the way so he can get videoed helping an old lady to safety. And even when Fox News repeatedly aired the video disproving the newspaper’s slanderous attempt to attack Geraldo and Fox News, they refused to apologize. It took a week for them to actually correct the story. I have started to point out that these news outlets have become more like political activist groups then reporters of truth. We have to hope that one day newspapers like the New York Times will allow accuracy to trump their ideological quests to manipulate their audience. I doubt it though.
Hat Tip: RightWingRightMinded

The Daily Show gets a Wake Up Call

The Daily Show was hit with a dose of reality last night when they booked General Sada for a seven minute segment. General Sada, as you might know, was a general in the Iraqi Air Force that has written a book which shows how Saddam Hussein transported his WMD to Syria right before the U.S. led Invasion. It is the General's contention that Saddam transported his WMD via airplane. He has said that two Iraqi Boeing planes were converted into cargo planes. It took 56 trips, on these formerly civilian airliners, which were disguised as an Iraqi aid package, for the weapons to be completely smuggled to Syria. “There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands. I am confident they were taken over,” General Sada Claims. This also fits in with an underreported fact that Israel has been adamant that Iraq moved its weapons to Syria before the invasion. As a person who has read, “Saddam’s Bomb maker”, written by the former head of Hussein’s WMD program, and who is now reading “Saddam’s Secrets”, I have to tell you that I have almost no doubt that Hussein moved his WMD. [Iraqi General Comes Clean]

You can watch the interview (I linked it at the bottom) at Expose The Left to determine whether or not you believe a man who actually has seen Saddam’s Weapons, or if you think this man is a liar. There is no doubt that Saddam wished, at the very least, to reconstitute his weapons programs and there is no doubt that he has used such weapons. There has been conflicting reports from here or there but the least we can do, if we want to know the truth, is accept all sources of information especially those sources that actually know what went on. You can be a political partisan and disregard the General's first and second-hand accounts by claiming he is a liar or you can be open-minded. Whatever you feel comfortable doing is up to you but for me I try to be right as often as possible. Liberals tend to smash their face in the sand when it comes to having to think about something that gives credence to removing Saddam Hussein, so I really don’t expect for them to admit they have no clue about Saddam’s WMD. They would rather believe what Code Pink or MoveOn tells them to believe…it’s quite sad.

During the Sada interview I noticed that the Daily Show seemed to be wasting Sada’s time trying to avoid getting to the part where General Sada stuffs reality down the throats of the ignorant daily show audience. General Sada himself had to bring up the WMD subject towards the end of the interview. If it were an Iraqi general who claimed there was NO WMD the first thing Jon Stewart would have asked about is the WMD. Even towards the end of the interview Stewart still cringed at having to hear a view that supports President Bush's case for war. It’s Just another example of the hypocritical left and their phony outrage. But watch the video yourself and tell me if my assessment is wrong. [
WMV Video or MP4 Video]

Study: Whiners Grow Up Conservative

It turns out that according to a study, conducted by a UC Berkeley Professor Jack Block, kids who were whiners and complainers in nursery school tend to grow up to be conservatives. He also claims that confident and self-reliant kids in nursery school tend to grow up to be liberal. The study tracked 95 kids from the Berkeley area for 20 years and his released findings have been reported by the Toronto Star. “Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.”

What I find hilarious is that if this is true that means given the reality we know today, conservatives stop whining and complaining when they grow up but liberals save their whining and complaining for adulthood. I think this study was designed to make people on the left feel better about themselves because when they reach adulthood their insecurities fester up and create the lefty-loons that we see today. This study has been widely discredited by people like Jeff Greenberg a professor of the University of Arizona who said, "I found it [the study] to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best.” However, I think I’ll use the professor's argument because it means that Conservatives evolve from kids to live life in a mature adult fashion while Liberals devolve into whiners as they get older.

I also find it funny that the Toronto Star and the Berkeley professor would put this study out to take potshots at conservatives. But I think all it does is prove how conservatives act like kids at the proper age but liberals do the opposite by growing up to be crybabies. I suppose that’s why Liberals tend to use backward logic to argue points. I love it! All I see is liberals whine about this, protest about that and base their opinions on hatred. I know some people need little studies like this to make yourselves feel better about how unwanted they are. I know some are angry about how fun it is for us to make fun of you pot-smoking, hippie-looking, shower-disregarding, conspiracy-theory nutcases but come on. Enough is enough…stop your whining already.

Iran: The Inevitable War

Recent intelligence estimations have indicated that Iran, the leading member of the Axis-of Evil, has been assisting top ranking members of Al Qaeda with communications and attack preparations. Some U.S. intelligence officials have expressed a deep concern about this issue but they have indicated that there is no certainty to the allegations. Some officials have said, according to electronic intercepts and top secret satellite imagery, that they “believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations.” It was also mentioned in the L.A. Times that these Intel officials, who reported anonymously, have indicated that it seems like “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging an alliance with Al Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere.” If true, this adds fuel to the fact that Iran has committed acts of war against the United States by providing explosives and suicide bombers in Iraq. While we hold “talks” with Iran they are aiding Al Qaeda and are assisting in the murder of Iraqi citizens and American forces. Given that reality, this is what the U.S. should say in these upcoming talks. “The United States will no longer accept Iran’s interference in Iraq and we will no longer sit idly by while you contribute to the deaths of American soldiers.”

It has been reported that officials of Iran have begun to construct underground bunkers that would protect them when, not if, the United States and NATO engages in an all-out bombing campaign against Iranian targets. I hope that we are not dumb enough to allow the Mullahs and the anti-American leaders of Iran the chance to survive. I strongly advocate the immediate launching of massive air strikes against Iran. Specifically at Nuclear facilities, military/communication infrastructure and known leadership houses, offices and buildings. We have no choice but to launch these strikes not only to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but because they have already committed acts of war against the United States and our allies. There is zero chance that Iran will voluntarily stop its quest for nuclear weapons and there is no doubt that these air strikes are necessary. The United States must convince NATO, which I think has already been done, to use force against the country that is a threat to world peace. You might be wondering about the troops in Iraq and possible retaliation by Iran against our forces. It is a very legitimate concern but this is why I think it should not be a factor in the final decision to strike Iran. A) US troops are likely to be in Iraq for at least another two years. That means if we wait two years to get our troops out of range of retaliation, Iran would have likely acquired the weaponry it so desperately wants. Meaning it would be too late. B) If we wait another year, the extremist leaders in Iran would be safely tucked away in their ultra-hardened bunkers and still capable of ordering chemical or biological attacks against Israel and Europe. C) If we strike now while Iran is off balance it is possible to take out the Mullahs and those in power which would allow for the possibility of a popular uprising that the people of Iran have been anxiously awaiting

Ground forces, unless absolutely necessary, seems to be out of the realm of possibilities and for good reason. A ground war in Iran would require a full effort by the US military and would require our allies to commit (Which wont happen) troops to fight a more conventional war. The U.S. volunteer military is stretched too thin for an invasion so that is something that cannot be done unless the mission in Iraq is given up. However, an intense and long bombing campaign can do the job that is needed to prevent nukes from ending up in the hands of Iran. It could also be useful in that it would decimate the military structure of that country; both of which need to be done. Forgive me if I don’t trust the International Community to deal with Iran. They, the UN, have proven to be a failed organization that turns a blind eye to genocide and allows for tyrants to kill, acquire nukes and refuse to adhere to security council resolutions. This strike, if you wish to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, must be done sooner rather than too late. Conducting phony diplomacy is great window-dressing but what about reality?

Code Pink on The O'Reilly Factor

The co-founder of the group Code Pink, Medea Benjamin, was on the O’Reilly Factor tonight displaying the idiocy that accompanies the insanity that embodies the anti-war movement. Code Pink believes that if the United States pulls out of Iraq today, the country would come together in harmony because the only reason there is violence in Iraq is the United States. They also believe that the Sunni minority would be capable of fending off the Iranian Mullahs that would undoubtedly try and take control of that country if the U.S. pulled out. She then went on to make a case for Iran having a nuclear weapon because it’s unfair that Israel, Pakistan and India have them. And when asked if Code Pink would be for preventing the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons she evaded answering the question by advocating that Israel and others voluntarily give up their WMD. She then claimed that instead of force the only thing needed to prevent Iran from getting the “bomb” is the so-called international community. When O’Reilly pointed out that negotiation and the international community made it possible for North Korea to acquire Nuclear Weapons, the founder of Code Pink denied the accepted fact that North Korea even has weapons. It was the most pathetic show I have ever seen and for some reason I was surprised. O’Reilly completely destroyed this lady and her naiveté with very simple questions that seemed to catch her like a deer in headlights. It was shockingly typical to see how common sense so easily flew right by this person. I will post the transcript when available.

I have trouble comprehending the fact that these completely useless groups have so many supporters. It literally disturbs me to see such ignorance and hopeless idealism be turned into a force that is capable of rallying thousands of people to repeat their moronic slogans of protest. Is there someone out there that can explain to me how it is possible for people to think they are so enlightened and yet be completely unhinged from reality that they can not even recognize how insane their positions are? Hopefully, ETL or some other video blogsite puts this interview up so I can link it for you. The interview and positions put forth by the co-founder of Code Pink were so ridiculous that they cannot be described as rational. Does anyone, other than these groups, believe that negotiation or the international community is capable of convincing Iran to stop its WMD program? If you’re reading this and you happen to trust the international community, i.e. the UN, to effectively prevent Iran from acquiring the weaponry they wish to use to destroy Israel, then you my friend have a long way to travel to reach the realm of common sense. Diplomacy only goes so far and diplomacy when put forth to countries like Iran or dictators like Kim Jong-Il, only helps them. Negotiation is IMPOSSIBLE if one side never intends to keep its word. If you are a supporter of Code Pink please wake up to reality…do the world that favor. Be against the war if you wish but please don't be agaisnt common sense.

Update, 10:00pm: ETL posted the video:ETL Video of Interview

Incompetence on Iraq: Fire Rumsfeld

It is the third anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and so far the fight for freedom is still very bloody and very disheartening. There is no doubt that this war is not yet a success and any person that says otherwise is doing so for political reasons or is misrepresenting the truth to save face. That is not to say that there have not been successes in this war because there has been many. I define success in Iraq as such: It becomes a fairly stable country. Most of the U.S. Troops are home. We establish military bases there as well as an ally in the war on terror. I define successes in Iraq as: Establishing a government, elections, reconstruction, centralizing the enemy, killing the enemy, getting sectarian factions to negotiate, and setting the foundation of the possible beacon of choice in part of the world that really has no choice.

As most of my readers know, I am very much for the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. However, I disagree with President Bush on many issues including the way the war in Iraq has been conducted by leading members of his Administration. Left-wing ideologues who visit this site have accused me of being a Bush-apologist but that is only because they have no other way of discounting what I post, so childish name calling is their only refuge. With that being said, I will outline what I wish President Bush would do and what the man should do in regards to the Iraq situation.

First, President Bush must fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This must be done because his arrogance and incompetence has caused great harm to the American servicemen and women fighting in Iraq. He has nearly caused an irreversible disaster in the strategic aspect of the war by conducting himself in a fashion that reeks of ignorance and the unwillingness to right the obvious wrong. Those responsible for ignoring General Shinseki’s troop level request did so for reasons that have to do with the “winning the hearts and minds” strategy. This strategy of limited force for fear of backlash has led to the situation we see in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of troops were needed to successfully complete the mission and they are still needed. My suggestion is to send more troops into Iraq to specifically guard the border areas of the country. This will help prevent deadly explosives and insurgents from coming from other countries and it will allow for a more efficient training of Iraqi security forces [meaning we leave sooner]. The "hearts and mind" strategy is good in theory but what the hell is winning the hearts and mind mean when you refuse to do anything to prevent the current bloodshed. It’s insanity and I am very unappreciative of the fact that these people have yet to rectify the failed strategic guidelines that have proven to be very costly. Because Donald Rumsfeld refuses to do his duty he should be resigned from office and condemned for his poor performance in the position of Secretary of Defense. We have the potential war with Iran looming and I have lost my patience with those in the Administration that feel a change in strategy is unnecessary.

Secondly, the Administration must release all Iraqi documents in regards to United Nations corruption and the corruption of the countries that aided Saddam Hussein in his efforts to rape his country. I want these leaders exposed as the two-timing, poverty-profiteers that they are. I want all documents regarding the sales of illegal weapons sold to Saddam Hussein by France and Russia to be released and I want the United States to call for the resignation of Kofi Annan and his entire staff.

Finally, the Administration needs to be outspoken in its rhetoric in terms of why this effort is important. Quit speaking to audiences like their children and explain to them the long term strategy of Middle-East reformation. Remind them that the war in Iraq is worth the effort. I get the feeling the Administration thinks that these ad-nausea sound bytes that they call war-on terror-speeches are somehow supposed to get public opinion back on their side. Be blunt and tell the people that this effort is bloody and that America does not run away because bearded extremists are using tactics that are sickening. I truly despise most of the Democratic Party for their intense undermining of the war and their appalling lies but their calls for President Bush to fire Rumsfeld and others in his cabinet are right on the money. Don’t give the Democratic Party an opportunity to be right because they will weasel their way into the White House and…well, trust me, we can’t afford to let that happen. President Bush needs to fire Rumsfeld, take the American people serious and re-make the case for war in Iraq. Not doing so will cost more lives and jeopardize the success needed to establish the second victory [first was liberating Afghanistan] in the global struggle against terrorism. I'm growing weary of my President on this issue because of his unwillingness to do the right thing and fire people for their negligence. Forget what your advisors are pleading for you to do Mr. President and get the damn job done!
If you are for the war and support the firing of Donald Rumsfeld as well as the other suggestions laid out in this message please send this post to:

Send A Letter to the White House:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Contact at 202-456-1111

Peace Groups: Anti-War, Pro-Brutal Dictatorship

(AP) “Thousands of anti-war protesters took to the streets around the world Saturday, marking the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq with demands that coalition troops leave immediately.” Allow me to help out the peace movement. Living under a brutal tyrannical leader, mass graves, mass torture, and mass executions is not the definition of peace. I'm sorry to let you in on realty but what you claim was peace was actually one of the worst regimes in history. Why is it that these so-called peace activists never marched in the streets during the time Saddam Hussein was in power committing genocide? It seems very hypocritical for people to claim they are for human rights but at the same time be content with mass murder. “In Stockholm, about 1,000 demonstrators gathered for a rally and march to the U.S. Embassy. Protesters carried banners reading "No to U.S. warmongering" and "USA out of Iraq," while some held up a U.S. flag with the white stars replaced by dollar signs.” They are basically saying “no” to removing tyrants by force and "yes" to allowing brutal tyrants to kill their own people. Frankly, I’m not an idiot so I can’t speak to how these people come up with opinions that allow for them to be content with the status quo [tyranny, oppression and genocide] and yet be against overthrowing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. It could be that they are naïve to the point in which they actually think that if we simply asked Saddam Hussein to stop being a dictator he would have kindly accepted the suggestion. Maybe, their hatred towards the US for removing Hussein outweighs their mild contempt for the actual crimes he committed, who knows.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for peace…when Americans aren’t being attacked and when a dictator has not used WMD on several occasions. I’m all for peace, if UN resolutions are taken seriously and if the UN was not systematically corrupt. In this world there is the ideal on one hand [fairy-tale peace-activist land] and on the other hand there’s reality. I don’t know if our brothers of peace realize that we live in a world that is full of death, destruction, evil, tyrants, corruption, genocide, starvation, and crazy Islamic-fascists that purposely kill innocent people to make political statements. True peace is a phantom ideal that only leads the weak to the slaughter. We live in a backwards world in which people literally go insane and call for beheadings and kill people because of a single political cartoon. We live in a world where people walk into a wedding ceremony with an explosive belt strapped to their waist and blow themselves up to kill people. We live in a world where idiotic protestors, in a war involving George Bush and Saddam Hussein, compare Bush to Hitler. Two leaders, one is Saddam Hussein [one of the worst dictators in history] and the other is George Bush and these morons disregard Saddam to compare Bush to Hitler. Does any anti-war nut out there see how insane that is? Why don’t these phony peace activists protest the horrid failure of the United Nations in regards to the genocide that is taking place in Africa? Oh wait, that would make too much sense…we can’t have common sense get in the way of misplaced outrage, now can we.

Bill Clinton’s Failures Led to 9/11

Nancy Soderberg, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, made the claim that President Clinton tried on several occasions to take out Osama Bin Laden. She said in the interview that, “President Clinton actually acted preemptively against Bin Laden repeatedly, including taking out a chemical weapons factory in Sudan.” Now, I’m not an expert in national defense or in military intelligence but I am an expert in deciphering BS. Luckily, she made this false claim of Clinton "repeatedly" going after Bin Laden on the O'Reilly Factor because if she made it on CNN or the Daily Show she would have been allowed to get away with it. O’Reilly cut her off in mid-lie and explained the truth to her. “Nancy Look, if you want to believe that President Clinton did everything he could to neutralize Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, as they were openly operating in Afghanistan- all our satellite intelligence saw what they were doing- if you want to believe that you’re free to believe it; but it isn’t true No serious analyst believes it and that’s the record.” The United States Government, during the Clinton Administration, was very content with Americans being killed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda and in fact ignored assistance that was provided by the Sudanese government. The Clinton Administration even refused to take Intel about the Al Qaeda operatives responsible for the bombings of US embassies. I'll let the report from the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council speak for itself:

ESPAC- "(1) Part of what was offered to the Clinton Administration was several hundred Sudanese files on al-Qaeda and its members. (2) The Administration also passed up the opportunity of interrogating two al-Qaeda members who had clearly been involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in east Africa. In keeping with its very questionable Sudan policy (3), the Clinton Administration rejected all of Sudan’s repeated offers. The implications of this studied indifference are clear. As 'Vanity Fair' stated: "September 11 might have been prevented if the U.S. had accepted Sudan's offers to share its intelligence files on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda files." It had also earlier been revealed that in addition to offering the Clinton Administration intelligence on al-Qaeda, the Sudanese government had in 1996 also offered to extradite Osama bin-Laden - just as Khartoum had extradited the international terrorism known as "Carlos the Jackal" to France.(4)This offer was also rejected by the Clinton Administration."

So, as you can see, my contention that the incompetence and the terrorist-appeasement of the Clinton Administration led, in large part to 9/11, is most definitely true. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Clinton Administration would have taken a proactive approach to combat terrorism and did its duty to protect the American People, 9/11 would not have happened. And, for you liberals, the war in Iraq would not have happened. [The list of Al Qaeda Attacks on the US under Clinton]. ESPAC- "[And] for all the attempts by his advisers to downplay the sincerity of the Sudanese offers, the simple fact is that former President Clinton displayed considerable courage in describing the refusal to accept Sudan’s 1996 offer as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency. Rather than desperately trying to distance themselves from their role in Clinton’s "biggest mistake", his national security and foreign affairs team should have the courage to admit that their advice to the president was simply wrong." Sorry Bush-haters; Bill Clinton is to blame for many of the global problems we are facing today, not to mention a horribly worse President than George W. Bush. "The Truth Usually Upsets Those Unwilling To Accept It" -Anthony Tafoya-

Declassified Iraq Documents Released

(-)We know that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. We know that he provided aid and assistance to Al Qaeda as well as other big name terrorists. (-)We know Saddam allowed terrorists to train in his former country. (-)We know he used WMD and we know that he (-)planned to gas Israel during the Gulf War. We now know that he wished to reconstitute his WMD program. (-)We know that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. (-)According to General Sada, Hussein shipped his WMD to Syria and we know that he refused to live up to the surrender agreement he signed at the end of the first gulf war. (-)We know Saddam ignored a decade of negotiation and we know that he ignored the will of the international community. We know that he also failed to step down as Iraq's president which led to him being forcibly removed. We know that he is now on trial; his sons are dead and the Iraqi people, along side American and British forces, are fighting for their freedom.

Soon, we will know more about Iraq and it's inner workings because the Pentagon has finally decided to declassify internal Iraqi documents, audio and video tapes that are crucial to understand the actual truth. Republicans have been insisting on the release of these documents for some time now because they feel it strengthens the president’s case. The refusal, thus far by the Pentagon, has been linked to the Iran issue. As most informed people know, France and Russia who are key partners in the Iran situation, were at that time actively aiding Saddam Hussein and were bribed to not only vote against a UN war resolution but to lift sanctions on Iraq which would have allowed Saddam to re-start his WMD program. It is being said that some of the documents that are going to be released might embarrass our so-called allies because the Iraqis kept detailed records of their “illegal” dealings with France and Russia. The speculation has indicated that, since we “need” France and Russia in this Iran deal, the documents were held up to avoid alienating the two countries. I say disclose the entire truth and who cares what the French think; chances are they will hang us out to dry in regards to the Iran issue anyway.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration Wednesday night released the first declassified documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war, showing among other things that Saddam Hussein's regime was monitoring reports that Iraqis and Saudis were heading to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops. The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic - with no English translation - including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaeda members were inside Iraq in 2002. The Pentagon Web site described that document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaeda Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names." The release of the documents, expected to continue for months, is designed to allow lawmakers and the public to investigate what documents from Saddam's regime claimed about such controversial issues as weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda in the period before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Bush Censure Stalls While Feingold Runs Away

You might have heard about the Democratic Senator who proposed President Bush be censured for [efficiently] tracking suspected terrorists and their phone calls. It’s bad enough that someone disagrees with the president for tracking members of Al Qaeda but now people want to condemn the man for doing his job. The liberal outrage meter must read something like this. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being “not at all outrages” and 10 being “extremely outrages”, liberals rate: Indoctrination of students- (1); comparing the US military to the forces of Stalin and Hitler- (1.5); The outing of secret CIA prisons and plane routes endangering the CIA and the American people- (3); The UN aiding Saddam Hussein and raping underage African girls- (4); but tracking suspected terrorists via the NSA...that gets a (10). At least we know they keep their priorities in order.

Anyway, Russ Feingold the Wisconsin senator that has introduced the proposal to censure President Bush, really gave us a look at how cowardly people like him can be. Yesterday, Feingold gave a thirty-minute introduction to his proposal but when Arlen Specter (R- PA) wished to debate him on the merits, or lack their of, Feingold literally ran away and hid. He scurried away amid calls for him to return to the senate floor by Mr. Specter. I suspect he was afraid of being made a fool of, although he did a great job of that himself. I don’t blame him because I think everyone knows that this censure proposal is more ridiculous than the talk of impeachment that the Democrats finally realized wasn’t going to fly. This is just another example of how their party has no ideas other than to desperately attack President Bush and propose phony censure motions. The closest the Dems will ever come to impeaching GW is through a
New Jersey high school. [ETL has the Video of Feingold]

Do you know what this reminds me of? Remember, during the beginning of the war in Iraq and near the 2004 presidential elections, when the Democrats used the threat of a military draft as a fear-mongering technique to scare voters? And do you remember who it was that actually proposed a draft? It wasn’t Mr. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld…no, it was Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel. They used a military draft proposal (
made by a liberal) to drum up fears that the Bush Administration was going to steal America’s children and force them to fight in Iraq. Isn’t that the Democratic Party we just know and love? I wasn’t going to write about this call for a censure because it was beyond stupid and many Democrats have distanced themselves from it. However, since Russ Feingold has refused to debate his own proposal I felt that it was important to point out why he has issued the proposal in the first place. He is making his bid to the far-left political groups, which literally own the party, in order to stake out a position for the upcoming 2008 presidential election. The far-left, which reason escaped long ago, has demanded that their employees (the Democratic Party) try to impeach President Bush. That is out of the question for most Dems because they know how frivolous the attempt would be and they know it's political suicide. Given that, MoveOn and other activist groups have realized that the impeachment thing will never happen so they were forced to support another desperate move…censure. It’s kind of sad, huh. It’s almost as sad as Air America and its inevitable collapse due to the fact that they have to actually pay radio stations to put their filth on the air.

The NY Times Reports Bush Did Not Lie

The New York Times has contradicted the far-left chants of “Bush lied, thousands died” in their latest report on pre-war Intel. The Times has reported that Saddam Hussein concealed the fact that he had no weapons of mass destruction from his own top military leaders. “The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.” This report and newly released audio tapes of Saddam Hussein indicating that he planned to reconstitute his weapons program are some of the new revelations coming to light. What the New York Times has indicated is that Saddam Hussein purposely misled the United Nations to allow for the perception that he indeed had WMD. [NY Times Article]

So, Bush did not lie and Saddam Hussein wished to reconstitute his Weapons program…what a shocker. I guess the next time I trust the radical left I better remember to just shoot myself in the face! The fact that Hussein wished to reconstitute his weapons or the fact that President Bush did not lie will be ignored because those who hate; hate for reasons only known to the psychotic. The Democrats supported this war and according to the left, they were tricked. Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq US policy but according to the left, he didn’t really mean it. French officials were bribed to vote against going to war in Iraq (betraying the US) and the left considers them to be the country that dictates “global consensus”!!! UN employees rape African women, aided Saddam Hussein’s regime, steal money from starving children, fail to enforce every resolution it makes. The UN appoints the world’s worst human rights violators the head of their human rights organization. They are corrupt on every level yet John Kerry and the left want us to adhere to their wishes…give me a break. What world do we live in when a major American political party undermines the war on terror while praising the UN as the savior of the world? What Twilight Zone episode am I in when I have to hear Democrats claim they were misled into voting for the war; and having people actually believe that? Since when is the treason of the Democratic Party supposed to be ignored because a sect of imbeciles hate our current President. AND WHY IS IT THAT NOT ONE DEMOCRAT HAS CONDEMNED THE FACT THAT THEIR PARTY IS SELFISHLY UNDERMINING THE WAR ON TERROR. Does any Democrat reading this have the moral courage to admit the truth and condemn their party for lying with every breath and for putting our country and our military in danger? Where the hell is the outrage from you people! I will praise the first democrat that actually admits what his party is doing… yes, we are the level where these people deserve praise for admitting the truth; we really can’t expect more from them.

Clooney To Democrats: "F*ck You!"

George Clooney has denounced those Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq. He claims that they were cowards and afraid to be called unpatriotic. "Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'Fuck you, you weren't misled.' You were afraid of being called unpatriotic." Hey, I’m proud of Clooney, although he is only half-right. It is true, the Democrats did not vote for the war because they were misled. However, he is wrong to say that they voted for the war because they were afraid of being called unpatriotic. Those who supported the war in Iraq did so because they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein. Most Senate Democrats agreed 100% with George Bush and still do. They all wanted regime change in Iraq and when the opportunity presented itself they [Democrats] did what they felt was right. It’s that simple. The reason I have problems with the Democrat Party is because they all wanted regime change but when the insurgency grew and when we bacame bogged down, they began to lie and say that this war was "George Bush’s war". [Huffington Post Article]

In the same article Clooney also equated himself and his "liberal" tag to the Civil Rights Movement and the Women Rights Movement. “Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper ‘I'm a Nazi.’ Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying ‘I'm a liberal’ and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man.” I’m not quite sure what Clooney was trying to say but it seems that he thinks that simply being a liberal means you are as righteous as Rosa Parks or as important as the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps, he is saying that if you are a Republican you must be a bigot that lurks in the shadows oppressing people with whom they disagree. Normally, people are able to stop themselves from displaying their self-important mindset but sometimes you get people like Clooney who forget to keep that characteristic under wraps . To hear the actor speak you might think that Clooney was some kind of self-centered messiah that is upset that his greatness is in question. Who does this guy think he is? Once again, I will point out that it was the Republican Party that fought for Civil Rights legislation and it was the Republican Party that led the way to a more just society. “To turn away from saying I’m a liberal is like turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus.” Sorry Clooney, you're not Rosa Parks.

The Deeper Struggle: Beyond Iraq, Beyond the Violence

Does violence mean that those people who wish to be free should give up that quest and righteous goal? Can we as a country agree that Saddam Hussein’s regime was evil? Or is that too black and White for some people? Can we not agree that genocide is wrong and by wrong I mean should be stopped by all means necessary? Is this so-called global community really just a mask of the self-centered? Are we obligated by morality to curb the accomplishments of evil? Are we? Is this war in Iraq really just representative of the war within ourselves? Is it representative of the struggle between good and evil and how best to manage that struggle? If you really think about it, that is all we do. We simply attempt to manage evil with glancing acknowledgements of disapproval. We saw what happened when Europe attempted to manage Hitler and the spread of Nazism. We reaped the horrific clutching of evil that we so naively tried to ignore for reasons that were timid in nature. Timidness, when put forth to the face of Evil is easily exploitable. We cannot curb genocide with timidness or negotiation. There is no bringing back tortured souls that are piled on top of each other in mass graves.

Does being a Humanitarian mean that you ignore the plight of people with contrite acts of “good will” to prove something to yourself, or does it mean you fight to free those oppressed? A real humanitarian, in my opinion, is someone who is willing to fight and die, despite the reason, to help others. Many people have asked why Iraq, why not Iran or North Korea? My response is, so you support the removal of oppressive dictators, or is it that you are taking a contrary position because you lack the courage to take a stand. I’m not saying Iraq is going well, far from it. I’m simply saying that those of us, who expect a quick victory and a small number of casualties in the struggle between the ideology of hatred and the ideology of reformation, are doing so at the risk of losing our own country’s struggle. I, like many people, have taken a step back and asked if pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do. Is it? Can anyone say with absolute certainty that pulling out of Iraq will lead to the best future for that country and the world? What if, on D-Day, the Allies would not have pushed through the defensive lines of Nazi Germany? And what if, at that time, we thought to ourselves that this struggle is just too costly to continue? Can we as a people afford to question our resolve when our adversaries will, at no time, question theirs?

Howard Dean Lives in La La Land

After the Republican Party successfully derailed the UAE port Deal the Democrats, as predicted, became even more bitter than normal. In an attempt to take credit for the GOP’s victory, Howard Dean said this in his weekly radio address, "America had a great victory this week in the War on Terror. Key Democratic senators and representatives forced President Bush to give up the idea that six major American ports should be run by a foreign country. Republicans in Congress followed the Democrats' lead to demand the president change the policy." I somewhat agree with the first sentence of Dean’s trite attempt to make the Democratic Party look significant. His second sentence is the archetypical example of why their Party is inept in their ability to lead. Key Democratic senators did nothing except try to capitalize on a moronic port deal that the Administration should have never allowed to happen. His second sentence is a flat-out lie. At no time did the Democrats “force” President Bush to give up the idea of allowing this port deal to go through. In fact, President Bush is calling this blockage a negative occurrence that has weakened our so-called alliance with the United Arab Emirates. Dean’s last sentence is another lie because it was Republican Party leaders that took the initiative, negotiated with the company, rallied against the President, and successfully accomplished imposing the American people’s will in disallowing the UAE company from controlling certain aspects of US port operations. Talk about lying with every breath.

Howard Dean then went on to say that, “Republicans have shown a pre-9/11 mind-set when it comes to closing the gaps in our security at our ports. Democrats will continue to fight to secure our ports." Yesterday, Harry Reid tried to use the GOP tactic of calling for an up-or-down vote and now Dean used the GOP phrase of “pre-9-11 mindset”. So, the Democrats take credit for Republican victories and steal our arguments; and they’re called the party of no ideas. We called for an up-or-down vote because many Democrats were advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq and we wanted to call their bluff. They call for an up-or-down vote for a non-deal and a former nominee…come on people, let’s get real.

Here are my tips for DNC: First, you must discontinue your attempts to undermine the war on terror. It really puts our troops and CIA operatives in danger. Secondly, you need to fire Howard Dean. He has squandered your campaign finances and has alienated the entire rational wing of the Democratic Party [Joe Lieberman]. Third, you have to grow a backbone. Start condemning the indoctrination of young students, start condemning those in your party who go to foreign Arab countries and slander America [Al gore]. Fourth, you need to come up with some ideas other than attacking President Bush. It is an old tactic and nobody, with half a brain, buys your phony outrage. Oh, and unless you want to lose the 2008 Presidential election I suggest you nominate a moderate candidate. Or you can do us a favor and nominate Hillary.

Bye Bye Dubai Makes The Democrats Cry

Well, once again the Republican Party outmaneuvers the Democratic Party. John Warner R-VA., Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, negotiated through the night with the UAE Company looking to take control of some port operations within the United States. This port deal sparked a huge backlash against President Bush on the part of many Republicans, including me. The firestorm led to speculation that the GOP was in disarray and that many GOP leaders were distancing themselves from the President. However, the quick and efficient work of John Warner and other Senate Republicans threw salt on the fire and got the necessary job done. John Warner gave a surprising announcement yesterday that the UAE was indeed pulling its bid for the port takeover. This maneuver was no doubt ingenious on the part of Warner in that it provides a sense of relief for the American people and at the same time, it prevents the looming showdown between the President and members of the Senate.

As you might have guessed the Democratic Party was upset at the fact that DP World pulled out of the deal. They have been using this issue to gain traction and strengthen their horrendously weak stance on National Security. It’s not that they really wanted to protect the ports as much as they wished to use this hyped controversy as a launching ground that would have, in their hopes, propelled them to the right of the Administration on National Security. Remember, I pointed out that CBS negatively skewed an opinion poll against Bush in order to over-dramatize the affect this controversy was having on the President’s poll numbers. CBS tried and was caught aiding the Democratic Party in their effort to jump to the right of the President. It would have been a brilliant move on the part of the political activist group…if they wouldn’t have gotten caught. --
CBS Skewed Poll--

Yesterday the Dems were blind-sided with the news that DP World pulled its bid, so Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer decided to hold a press conference to weigh in on the decision [meaning attack Bush]. In a classic ironic moment, the disorganized and overly-contempt Democrats, held their press conference reacting to the UAE withdrawal at the same time President Bush was signing the historic Patriot Act renewal legislation. The Senate Democrats were cut off by all of the cable news networks about one minute into their press conference…it was very funny. However, right before they were cut off, Harry Reid in a desperate attempt to keep the controversy alive demanded that there be an up-or-down vote preventing the already non-deal from happening. You might remember when the Dems miserably failed at trying to use the GOP line of an “up-or-down vote” for Harriet Miers after she withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court. They could not comprehend that when someone withdraws their name from the nomination process, there is no vote. They did it again yesterday, like school children saying, “Well you did it so why can’t we do it”. What they really had in mind was to use the port vote, that is no longer necessary, in campaign commercials for the mid-term elections. But now that the Republicans, once again, beat them to the punch their bitterness has just increased five-fold. Now the democrats have no legitimate vote that they can point to saying we are tough on terror. With no positions or moral-fiber the Democrats are once again forced to use smear and hate-filled attacks on President Bush. We saw how well that worked for them last time.

The Left Attacks Student for Exposing Jay Bennish

The discontent for Sean Allen is beginning to show among some people that favor indoctrination of students. According to Stephen Elliot, a contributor to the Huffington Post, Allen should not have snitched on his teacher. “The problem is that people in power are offering you [Sean Allen] praise. There is something wrong with your governor Bill Owen. The governor of Colorado who supports you and what you have done. The governor of a state, a grown man, making public statements in support of children taping and snitching on their teachers… Do we really want to encourage secret taping of adults and then use this evidence procured by our children to persecute their teachers."
And in an ironic childish attempt to attack Sean Allen, Elliot condescendingly wrote. “And you worry, when you hear your high school teacher poisoning the young minds around you. You worry about their feeble minds. You worry they won't be able to handle what you are able to handle. So you taped your teacher and released it to the press. Your teacher has been suspended. But he was popular and you are not popular and now you also cannot return to your school. The other children want to beat you up.” [
Elliot's Huffington Post Article]

And Yesterday on Hannity & Colmes a civil Rights attorney named Michael Gross yelled at Sean Allen and tried to lecture him. When Alan Colmes posted a quote from Bennish, Michael Gross became enraged at the young student. “DID YOU HEAR THAT! Did you hear that! When you were taping him without his knowledge or permission. Did you hear him say I’m not telling you what to think…Do you know what that means…He [Allen] needs to be lectured to! He doesn’t decide what a teacher should teach!!!" [
Watch the Video via ETL]

So, the far-left is mad at the 10th grade student for taping his teacher. And believe me when I say that they are not upset because of their free-speech claim. Like I pointed out in an earlier post; if this teacher was giving a religious-right rant about how he feels Evolution is a fabricated notion, or if he read scriptures from the Bible, they would be attacking this teacher and not once would they mention free speech. So when you hear the argument of “academic freedom” being used, you know that it only counts if that freedom is used to stuff leftist propaganda down the throats of impressionable students. The real reason that they are so upset over this tape is because they can’t handle the fact that someone has recorded the indoctrination that is the mainstay of their ideological plan to change America.