Saturday, June 24, 2006
The future of the Dimmicrat's cut and run plan
“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the ‘heart’ of every Muslim and a remedy to the ‘chests’ of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”This was the moment that he became bold enough to come after American's in America. All he needed was a safe country to base himself out of, and he got that in Afghanistan with the Taliban. We bailed out of Afghanistan after helping them revolt against the Russians. Once Russia was out we left them alone BEFORE a stable government was built and running. Then Bin Laden moved in with the Taliban. Bin Laden was no threat to American soil until he had a safe haven to base himself out of. Now we are coming full circle with Al-Quaida moving back into Somalia.
To recap it went like this
Help Afghani's but run out before a stable government is up and running. Taliban moves in and bases Bin Laden. Move into Somalia but run out when the going got tough, 13 years of fighting and Bin Laden's Al-Quaida gets control of the military in Somalia. Now the dimmicrats and the MSM want us to pull out of Iraq before they are stable and able to defend themselves. What has history shown us the result would be?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Treason or money making opportunity?
Their reporting has become a form of negligence and is putting the lives of every American here and abroad in danger. You see, they want a fight on 1st amendment rights etc. Then the conservative right becomes the "nazi" party (and you know that's one of the moonbats favorite names to call the right). If the Bush admin were to press charges for treason they would gladly sit in jail during the trial, no I think they would DEMAND to sit in jail during the trial, so long as they could write about it.
However, if a class-action civil suit for willful neglience and endangering the life of all American's (I will leave it to someone who speaks legalese to come up with the exact phrase) were put in motion. Now THAT would get their attention. Nothing would speak louder to the MSM then a nice big fat lawsuit. Imagine the dilema of a liberal activist, law making judge. Greater Public Safety vs. MSM? Imagine the public outcry against the MSM when a lawyer stands on the courthouse steps and talks about "How the NY and LA Times put every American life at risk with their carelessness over a legal program".
I think the best thing about that would be the incredible battle that would go on in the MSM, they all love a juicy story and the misery of someone else, especially their peers vs. trying to defend their craft. Now that would be art worthy of an NEA grant.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
This almost feels bad but it's not
It's ideas from 2 towns like these that the congress needs to look at and implement into any "comprehensive immigration reform bill". These are the ideas that we, as concerned citizen need to talk about an spread! Start with our own state rep's to get the groundswell going and work on the Congressional idjits at the same time. 2008 isn't that far away, and we need to start looking over the 2004 platform and adjusting it to current world status. Immigration is a large large part of that and needs to be addressed. The person who takes the lead on Immigration and war on the Islamic Jihadist movement gets my vote.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
A quick post, more to come later
- Bill Oreilly says "we" (meaning America) are partly to blame for the illegal immigrant problem because we "allowed" them to come here. Ok, it's our "fault" we have a thriving economy and a land of freedoms. Sure, we did nothing to stop them Bill, you know that thing called the border guard and the fence wasn't a clear sign that we wanted people to come in the right way. STFU. On second thought, yeah maybe he has a point, after all we give illegal immigrants free health care and free schooling. Does anyone think for even a second that the illegal immigrants thought it was ok to break into the country? Yeah we don't have a large fence across the border (give the minutemen time though). However, I would counter that with this, if you walk into someone's house and steal their TV it's still theft. Yeah you might not get charged with "breaking and entering" but it's still theft. So illegal immigrants might not be responsible for "breaking into our country" but they are still responsible for the theft of services. Steal cable and see how serious "theft of services can be".
- I read a post on a person's blog recently that talked about a relative having a drinking problem that could cost him his job and his relationship. One of the posters mentioned that it was an "addiction" and that people should talk to this guy gently and firmly. Screw that, it's called "you made a choice to be a drunk, now make a choice to sober up". The libs are famous for labeling something a disease, affliction, problem etc rather then calling it what it is. A serious defect in your ability to make the right damn choice. My family has alkies going back at leat 3 generations yet no one in this generation is, know why cause my siblings and I made the choice not to be. We drink, we party we don't become idiots and let drinking overrun our lives, nuff said. More people need to stand up and say "stop making stupid decisions and you won't have this "affliction".
Monday, June 19, 2006
PA. city steps up to the plate when the feds don't.
Last week the mayor of this former coal town introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.Here's what was the straw that broke the camels back.
Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man. Other recent incidents involving illegal immigrants have rattled this city 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, including the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for firing a gun at a playground.
How come the Senate/House can't pass a bill like this? Small town America sees the issue and is taking steps to combat it, why can't our statewide and national elected officials see it? I will say that it's nice to see my home state start stepping up on the issue, 1st with Joey Vento at Geno's and now this. Philadelphia Freedom baby!
Yeah, so how that work out for you?
- Violence started in 2001 with a lot of policemen killed and over 50 insurgency related incidents (from wikipedia: South Thailand insurgency). Thailand's Prime Minister's response "I don't think religion was the cause of the problems down there because several of the policemen killed were Muslim."
- Then let's bomb them with love, peace and goodwill. This event happened in December of 2004.
- Well now, they've applied the liberal principles of Deny and Hug, so it must of worked right? Here's some examples of how Denial and Hug worked out here and here oh yeah and here (notice all the progressing dates of the articles).
So what you say, who cares about Thailand? We all should, what you need to remember is the pervasive side of the Islamic Jihadists. It's a movement (I will no longer call it a religion because it is more cultlike then anything else) that believes it has a divine right to spread and conquer. Look at the this map and what you will see is the close proximity to some countries whose histories have been anything but stable i.e. Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia. The problem we are really facing here in America is that we are stuck in the "denial" step of things. We call them "insurgents", we act like the only place the Islamic Jihadists are trying to take over are in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignore the fact that this hydra has many heads (Israel,Somalia and Thailand to name 3 others) and are determined to spread and cause instability in the hopes of conquest. The GWOT (global war on terror) needs to change it's tact and voice. We need to stop calling it the GWOT and call it what it is, a war of ideas,values, and freedom against the Islamic Jihadist movement. We have to fight this war, not only on the streets of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan, but in other smaller countries as well. In addition, we need to be vigilant and demand that the news media provide better coverage of this and calls it what it is a war on Freedom by an Islamic Jihadist Movement.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
- This one appeared on my yahoo home page. Olmert rejects international probe into Gaza beach deaths
- This one is from the Jerusalem Post. PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast
Article 1 JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected calls for an international inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach nearly two weeks ago in which eight Palestinians were killed.
"We will never agree to become subject to an investigation by international bodies," Olmert told ministers during a weekly cabinet meeting.Israel denied any responsibility after the deadly June 9 incident in which seven members of the same family were killed while picnicking on the beach in the northern Gaza strip.Article 2-
Israel will not agree to an international investigation into the blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians and which the IDF said was not caused by IDF artillery fire, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at Sunday's cabinet meeting.
"We will never agree to be the subject of an international investigation," Olmert told the cabinet. "The world is not always willing to accept what we say, but nobody can cast doubt on our investigation. I accept it completely," Olmert said of the IDF investigation that determined the deaths were not caused by IDF fire on Gaza.
These are the first 2 paragraphs, with the bolding was added by me. Notice the quotes from Olmert. In article 1 they left out the end part of the quote where Olmert mentions that Israel investigated the incident. So if you were a casual reader you could be thinking from Article 1 that Olmert is just thumbing his nose at the international community. However, when you see the same quote in Article 2 you see the rest of it where he says there was an investigation. Now lets look at some more paragraphs.
Article 1 paragraphs 3 and 4.
Article 2 paragraphs 3 and 4.
denied any responsibility after the deadly June 9 incident in which seven members of the same family were killed while picnicking on the beach in the northern Gaza Strip.
An internal military inquiry into the incident, ordered by Defence Minister Amir Peretz, absolved Israel of any involvement.
"I believe the IDF, and I trust [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz and the army," Olmert said. He stressed that neither British Prime Minister Tony Blair nor French President Jacques Chirac criticized the IDF's defensive operations in the Gaza Strip during his meetings with them last week.
Culture and Sport Minister Ophir Paz-Pines' question about whether it would not have been wise to have had civilians involved in the investigation into the blast, led to a heated discussion of the matter as well as a report Saturday in The Times of London alleging that the deaths were caused by an IDF artillery-shell.
These paragraphs aren't bad either way. However, article 1 leaves out where Olmert says that 2 world leaders whom met with Olmert last week never expressed a problem with Israel's defensive actions. That is a pretty decent sized ommission.
Now if you continue reading both articles you see this at the end of article 1.
Look at the end of article 2.
Peretz told cabinet colleagues the world was wrong in its assumptions about the cause of the deaths, suggesting they might have been caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance or a Palestinian landmine left over from before Israel's withdrawal of ground troops last year.
"It may turn out that the blast was caused by old IDF (Israel Defence Forces) explosives on the beach. Things are still being examined. I hope that within several days we will have a complete picture," the minister said.
See the difference? In article 1 the reporter uses a quote to basically imply that Israel might still be responsible if it was old ordinance. However, when you see the end of article 2 that there are doubts recently published in Germany questioning the claims of the Palis. Those are 2 radically different endings, that people who finished the articles, would get. Article 1 also mentions how Israel regulary shells Gaza in order to stop Palestinian rocket fire but Article 2 actually names the town that's getting shelled (Sderot). Know what the difference is? It's the fact that Article 2 puts a name to a place that is under bombardment, that makes a huge difference to the subconscious. Think about it, Palestinian rocket fire vs. Sderot being attacked by rockets. Which would gather your attention more?
Meanwhile Sunday, Sueddeutsche Zeitung- a leading German daily - published its own investigation into the incident casting doubt on the authenticity of pictures taken of the scene immediately following the explosion.
According to the article, the pictures taken by a Palestinian cameraman at the scene of the explosion contradicted Palestinian claims that an IDF shell had killed the family of seven on June 10. The paper also raised the possibility that the entire scene was staged by the cameraman in an effort to frame Israel.
The newspaper also doubted the Palestinian claim that the girl who survived the explosion was not injured since she was in the water when the alleged IDF shell exploded. In the cameraman's footage, however, the girl is fully dressed and her clothes, the newspaper claimed, were dry.
Some quick hits
- Major newspaper comes out in defense of FEMA and the 16% of emergency money spent on bullcrap. If you read the whole article they defend FEMA to some degree, then bash them for trying to make changes to make it better. Really, where is the outcry over the lack of personal responsibility of the people cheating the system? In all the press I've read and tv watched on this I've yet to see anyone say "those people are scum of the earth criminals that need to be arrested and forced to work on cleanup of New Orleans". That's one of the things wrong with this country right now, is that their is no personal responsibility for your actions. Everything is someone elses fault i.e. the govt shouldn't of given out that money, Bush lied, the education system failed me. People need to accept that ultimate responsibility for their actions and the consequences lie with them, not someone else.
- Ace of Spades HQ has a great post about Coulter and whether or not the right should defend her now.Here's an excerpt.
If Coulter's defenders have some PRINCIPLED way to defend Coulter's, errr, exuberances while continuing to condemn similar over-the-line comments from the right, please share. So far I've not seen any. All I've seen is claims that Coulter is using the left's tactics against them and the like.Now I've got somethings to say here. 1st there is no one on the right more capable of defending themselves then Ann Coulter. The woman eats leftards as a snack, so we don't need to defend her. She's not a victim asking for help. 2nd there is a good reason for her rhetoric and that's the publicity for the book that gets garnered by it. If Coulter had made the same point on the "jersey girls" without the rhetoric she never would of been on the Today show or most of the other MSM outlets. When most media outlets are controlled by the enemy (and make no bones, the extreme left is the enemy we battle for the soul and future of this country) then sometimes you have to make a radical move to get the attention to get your point out to the undecideds in the war. 3rd Using the basis of the battle between Conservative and Liberal I call upon this quote of Sun Tzu,
Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength
- The war in Iraq, you know, watching the news etc. you might be led to believe that it is going horribly for us. I came across this article and page, and I got to tell you, it's absolutely frigging brillant. I won't describe, just go look.