Saturday, June 24, 2006

 

The future of the Dimmicrat's cut and run plan

There's an old saying that "those who don't learn from their past are doomed to repeat it". I've heard it used concerning Iraq and Vietnam, that we are repeating mistakes here. Their right, we are. In vietnam politicians and panty-waisted protesters led us to lose that war. Now they are trying again, but that wasn't the last time they convinced us to run from a fight that was right. The last time was in the 90's in Somalia (for more info look here, here and here . Who led the charge for us to tuck tail and run in Somalia? It was none other then Dick "chicken heart" Murtha.Ok, luckily so far the Dimmi's haven't won enough to get us to cut and run. Now's the time we need to remember what the effects of that decision was and we need to remind the rest of America what happens when we run from terrorists. Let's see what guest editor of the the New York Times said about Murtha's military strategy in Somalia..
“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?

I've been reading this post over at hot air and I got to disagree with all the people who are saying we should try the NY slimes reporters for treason etc. What we NEED to do is get a class-action lawsuit together. Normally I am against lawsuits being used to solve disagreements, but I think their actions call for it.
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

I saw this over on Hotair today and well I gotta applaud Dallas. Ok, the 4 of you who read my posts know that I am a die-hard Philadelphia Eagles fan consequently I hate the cowboys and TO. That makes this soo hard to do but, I have to give MAJOR props to the politicians in Dallas, Tx. for this thing right here (go on click it, you know you want to!). Once again local politicians are getting what our federal politico's aren't. Look here for what Hazelton, PA. (NW of Philly) is doing (yeah that's right, Dallas copies a PA town in trying something to crack down on illegal immigrants. It's a damn good thing and we all need to work on our Senator's and Rep's to get with what the people want. You can go here to see what your states reps and senator's have done on immigration.
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

Ok, just a quick vent post on something called "personal responsibility". Where the heck has it gone? Everything is a disease, affliction, or someone elses fault. What brought this on (the 4 of you who read this might ask?) is somethings like this.
Every day we all see in the news how, some crime etc was someone elses fault. Look at Cynthia Mckinney and Patrick Kennedy. Both blamed their crimes on someone else, Mckinney on a cop doing his JOB (you know that thing that democrats don't want you to have so you can be on welfare) and Kennedy on "ambien use and having an addiction". What should of happened is Mckinney apologizing, and at the least getting community services working at FOP fundraisers and Kennedy losing his license and doing a little bit of time. Both share the personal responsibility of not knowing when to have a large cup of STFU.

Monday, June 19, 2006

 

PA. city steps up to the plate when the feds don't.

Saw this article here and wanted to share it with everyone. The sleepy little town of Hazeltown (I've been there a lot for work, it's small town America) has stepped up to the plate on illegal immigrants.
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?

So, I read this article over at Lgf and was wondering why we aren't seeing it all over the news. Then I realized, that outside of the conservative blogosphere and President Bush's (when he gave the speech calling it an "International Jihadist Movement" after his Iraq visit), no one else seems to be able to see it. Perhaps it's a case of Chamberlainitis or an ostrich-defense strategy? So let's take a look at some examples of how appeasement has worked in Thailand. Below is a timeline of some events and the policies taken to combat it.
  1. 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."
  2. Then let's bomb them with love, peace and goodwill. This event happened in December of 2004.
  3. 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

 
Let's compare 2 articles concerning the same thing. The Gaza beach explosion that killed a bunch of pali's taking a day off from firing missles at Sderot.
  1. This one appeared on my yahoo home page. Olmert rejects international probe into Gaza beach deaths
  2. This one is from the Jerusalem Post. PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast
Bear in mind that most people in our short attention span world only read the first few paragraphs of any article, unless it really grabs their attention. Now from here on out, I will refer to them as article 1 and article 2.

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.

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.
An internal military inquiry into the incident, ordered by Defence Minister Amir Peretz, absolved Israel of any involvement.

Article 2 paragraphs 3 and 4.

"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.

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.

Look at the end of article 2.

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.

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?
 

Some quick hits

Ok, last night was a late night, but for the 4 people who read my blog on a regular basis I would be remiss if I posted nothing so here we go.
This means at times we will be faced with the need to go on an offensive, and since we are fighting, not on a field of battle, but rather in the wasteland that is the media, we need to do things to be able to take the "field". That's what Coulter did by using that rhetoric, she forced herself onto the field(main stream tv) more then she usually is. The only way to challenge the "infallibility of the victim" was to challenge the "victim" themselves in such a way that it could not be ignored. I leave you with this thought on the subject, how can you have rules in war when only 1 side obeys them?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?