Freedom Now!

Massachusetts Speaks to America

2010-01-20T01:31:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Massachusetts and Republican, Scott Brown!!!

Only one year into the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party has lost the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for almost 47 years! This was in one of the strongest blue states in the country. It was also frustrating for the Democratic Party because only a month ago Martha Coakley, the party's candidate, was a shoo-in to take the seat.

Most importantly, this setback means that the Democratic Party loses it's 60th Senate seat, which could have prevented a filibuster by the GOP. So the healthcare bill that the Democratic Party has struggled to pass is in serious jeopardy.

Obama's desperate campaigning on behalf of Coakley still couldnt stop Brown from winning by a margin of 120,000 votes. The wide margin makes it very difficult for the Democratic Party to challenge the certification of the election in order to slow the process down.

It is an ominous sign for the Democratic Party as we get ready to mark the one year anniversary of Obama's inauguration next week.

Scott Brown Will Bring Real Change

2010-01-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

The irony is just too delicious.

Martha Coakley's handling of the case against child molester, Keith Winfield, is not.

Hannity has more details in the embedded video, but please be warned. This was a brutal rape case and some people may find the subject too disturbing...

Is It Really Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?

2010-01-14T09:14:00.000-08:00

What is it about the Democratic Party and Senate seats?

First it was Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted for abuse of power when he tried to sell President Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat. You might remember that as the governor of Illinois he had the power to appoint a replacement for Obama after the president-elect vacated his former U.S. Senate seat for the White House. Blago was caught when the FBI wiretapped his home and recordings were made of him attempting to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Children throughout the state of Illinois are getting prepared to celebrate the first annual “Obama Senate Seat Day” on January 29th. It is hailed as the anniversary of Blago’s conviction (just nine days after Obama’s inauguration!). The Chicago corruption machine vows that no child will be left behind without a Senate seat.

Anyway… Something even worse than the Blago disaster is happening. Now a Republican has the ‘nerve’ to run for the Senate seat left vacant by the Democratic Party’s demigod, Ted Kennedy. Except for a gap of two years, this seat has been in the hands of the Kennedy family since 1953, when John F. Kennedy first won it. (Benjamin A. Smith II, a Kennedy loyalist, kept JFK’s seat warm for two years until Ted was old enough to take over.)

Remember how Blago had the power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy by appointment? Get ready for some heavy-handed irony.

In 2004 Ted Kennedy was instrumental in helping to push legislation that would have prevented Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, from appointing a replacement to John Kerry’s U.S. Senate seat if Kerry had won the presidential election.

In August 2009 Ted Kennedy made another appeal to change the law once again. At the time Kennedy was terminally ill and worried about his soon be vacated seat. However, Massachusetts now had a governor who was a Democratic Party loyalist, Deval Patrick. Kennedy wanted to change the law so that the governor could choose an interim replacement. This would give the Democratic Party the 60 votes they needed to pass their health care bill. Otherwise the seat would be vacant under the law Kennedy fought to pass in 2004.

The law was duly changed thanks to the Democratic Party’s majority in the Massachusetts Legislature. So they got their 60 votes when a Kennedy loyalist was appointed as the interim replacement. That means blue-blooded legislators can just change the law when they don’t want a Republican to be seated in the Senate and change the law when they want a Democrat seated. The arrogance seemed limitless…

However, it is now the turn of the voters of Massachusetts to strike back. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat that has been held by the Kennedy family for 54 years, has came from out of nowhere to become a serious contender. This is despite the fact that it is one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal voter districts.

Here is an example of why Brown is making such an impact on the election. In a recent debate the biased moderator from CNN, David Gergen, led with this query;

“Mr. Brown, let me ask you this question, it’s on a lot of people’s minds. You said you’re for health care reform, just not this bill. We know from the Clinton experience that if this bill fails, it could well be another 15 years before we see health care reform efforts in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say, ‘I’m going to be the person. I’m going to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat and I’m going to be the person who’s going to block it for another 15 years’?”

Brown brilliantly replied;

“Well with all due respect it’s not the Kennedys’ seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat. And they have the chance to send somebody down there who is an independent voter, and an independent thinker and going to look out for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts. And the way that this bill is configured, I’d like to send it back to the drawing board because I believe people should have insurance. Not just this particular bill because it’s not good for the entire country. You’re talking about another trillion dollars in costs, a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, military people, if you’re veterans, you’re going to have cuts in Tricare, and it’s not good. We need to go back to the drawing board. Nobody has confidence in this bill right now.”

As Gergen admits, he “got stuffed”. The arrogant sense of entitlement that defines such anti-democratic talking heads is becoming unglued.

The Three Wise Men - Part 2

2010-01-06T11:55:00.000-08:00

In ‘Part One’ I wrote about Al Sharpton and his divisive role in race relations over the years. There was way too much material to include President Obama and Tiger Woods in the same post. That’s OK because splitting it into two sections works better. There are similarities and eye-opening contrasts between Obama and Tiger that makes it logical to include them in their own post.

The inspiration for this commentary was an article that addressed what is obvious to me since I grew up in an African-American community. Associated Press revealed how African-Americans look unfavorably at Tiger Woods because he chooses to chase after white women.

As revelations of Tiger’s infidelities began to surface; an African-American radio show host, Tom Joyner, lambasted the golf champion:

“Thankfully, Tiger, you didn’t marry a black woman. Because if a sister caught you running around with a bunch of white hoochie-mamas, she would have castrated him...

…The question everyone in America wants to ask you is, how many white women does one brother waaant?”

I understand that this is an attempt at humor, but Joyner went too far. Why is it that fellow radio show host Don Imus got suspended in a similar situation and Joyner gets a free pass?

It is particularly disturbing when you consider that in 2008 Joyner was inducted into The International Civil Rights Walk Of Fame. This is a monument that is housed in the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. Supporters give it this description:

“The International Civil Rights Walk of Fame was created to give recognition to those brave soldiers of justice who sacrificed and struggled to make equality a reality for all. This extraordinary display has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the city of Atlanta and has enriched the heritage of the civil rights movement.”

Joyner’s behavior is not what I would expect from a “brave soldier of justice” struggling “to make equality a reality for all”.

Unfortunately, this goes deeper than just a joke. Author, Pearl Jr., writes about issues for African-American women. Her focus is on “exposing the conspiracy to keep black women without love”. It is a part of what she refers to as the “current status quo of the division of power based on race”. Even though she promotes herself as an “Equality Activist” (or maybe because of that), she completely snapped in response to Tiger Woods’ taste for white women. A website, boycottblackmen.com was created to express her frustrations. She asked;

“Are you sick of our black men that leave our race and marry outside our race profiting off the black community while they in turn, turn their backs on us?”

[A screen print of a frame from the website boycottblackmen.com]

Now lets be honest. If a white person set up a website to convince white women not to marry African-American men, would you consider that to be racist? Make no mistake Pearl Jr. is quite clear about her feelings. She goes on to write, “Are you ready to speak up and out in order to ask our black people to stay together; stick together because we need each other?! We are asking our black men to come home because we need you here...helping us rebuild our communities!”

Another author of books for African-American women, Denene Millner, confirms the reservations African-American women have about such interracial relationships. “We’ve discussed this for years among black women… Why is it when they get to this level... they tend to go directly for the nearest blonde?”

Millner claims that she was quoted out of context, however she still admits to saying that statement. Her argument centers on the fact that, “neither I nor a whole lot of the African American women I know are bothered by interracial relationships like we used to be”. She should be commended for moving past her intolerance towards interracial relationships, but it is unfair that she misquotes the journalist who interviewed her (Jesse Washington). He never wrote that Millner was still prejudiced (although she admits that she was in the past). Washington quoted her on how African-American women view such interracial relationships. As Pearl Jr shows, it still holds true whether or not Millner has seen the errors of her own intolerance.

This intolerance is not just limited to African-American women. Books such as John Johnson’s “It Ain’t All Good: Why Black Men Should Not Date White Women” and Rajen Persaud’s “Why Black Men Love White Women” reveal a disturbing portrait of prejudice against interracial relationships. I doubt that Amazon.com would sell a book entitled, “Why White Women Should Not Date Black Men”.

While Millner’s assertion that she had a change of heart is welcome, the manner in which she did it was a bit questionable. This is due to the fact that Millner added the following caveat, “I was neither shocked nor cared about Tiger’s choice in women because he’s never seemed to identify with the “bl” in his “Cablinasian” racial make-up anyway”.

So how is that for an “either you are with us or against us” moment?

“Cablinasian” is a term coined by Tiger to define his ethnicity:

“Ca” – Caucasian
“Bl” – African-American Black
“In” – American Indian
“Asian” – Chinese and Thai

His use of this term has not endeared him to the African-American community. A columnist for FanHouse, Terence Moore, reacted to Tiger’s recent troubles with vindication. He pointed out that the African-American community unconditionally supported other prominent African-American athletes who got into trouble;

“Those other athletes had one of the world’s most supportive casts. They had an overwhelming number of folks in the African-American community standing firmly and loudly behind them -- no matter what. They had Jesse and Al waiting to pounce in the background, if they hadn’t done so already. They had black ministers across the country asking for special prayers in their name. They had folks in barbershops throughout African-American communities talking about conspiracies.

Mostly, despite everything those in black America had seen or heard about the events surrounding O.J., Vick, Iverson and the rest, they had unconditional love.

For Woods, not so much.

Actually, not at all, and Woods has nobody to blame but Woods.

It goes back to April 1997 when he famously took a nine-iron to the face of blacks by telling Oprah Winfrey on her couch that he wasn’t black. He said he wasn’t white, either. He said, given that his father is black and that his mother is Asian, he spent his youth inventing a word for himself called “Cablinasian”.

Just like that, in the hearts of many African-Americans, Woods was on his own…”

Moore makes it clear that he has always felt this way. He proudly dug up an article that he wrote 12 years ago. The piece was written to chastise Tiger when the golfer first publicly used the term “Cablinasian”;

“Tiger, you’re not green. You’re not yellow. You’re not purple. You’re not Asian. You’re not Cablinasian. You’re black.”

Why is it so important that Tiger must declare that he is exclusively African-American? His mother, Kultida Woods complained that, “To call Tiger black is to deny my existence”. She is half Thai, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Dutch. Tiger’s father is one-quarter Native American, one-quarter Chinese, and half African-American. That means Tiger has more Asian heritage than African-American (one-half Asian, one-quarter African-American, one-eighth Native American and one-eighth white).

With that in mind, it is time to write about Barack Obama. He is a great comparison because Obama is also a prominent American with a mixed race background that includes African heritage. Unlike Tiger, he has exclusively embraced his African ancestry.

Despite the fact that Obama was raised by a loving white family and abandoned at a young age by his African father, he rejects his white heritage. In his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” he declared, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race (white) at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

While we should take into consideration the pain that his abandonment probably caused, Obama revealed that he shrewdly evaluated the political benefits of “race loyalty”;

“I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.” (Rafiq was a friend of Obama’s who was a member of the Nation of Islam, it is not believed to be his real name.)

This was how Obama chose the path that ensured he could be defended by “folks in barbershops throughout African-American communities talking about conspiracies” (As Terence Moore put it and conversely Pearl Jr shows that race traitors can also be victimized by conspiracy theories). It insults us in the face of all the progress that we have made in race relations over the years.

On the other hand, this delights Pearl Jr who emphasizes that Obama has a “black wife” and lets out a little cheer to show her approval. In contrast she condemns the sexual preferences of Tiger;

“…Its all these white women, white women, white women and not a black one in the bunch and not even an Asian in the bunch. So Tiger Woods I think that you have been exposed, even to white people you must admit, that Tiger Woods is a White Supremacist. Tiger Woods is racist against black women.

And as far as his buddies Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan is concerned, guess what, they must have their little cult… their little black men with non-black women parties. Black women must not be allowed in their little parties and it needs to be exposed because the racism against black women in the lives of rich black men has gotten out of control.”

So it is no surprise when Johnson Cooper, a 26-year old African American from NY, declares that, “Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him”. Obama’s rejection of his whiteness was the key to jumpstarting his political career.

As an unknown community organizer with no roots in the African-American community, Obama decided to join a radical African-American church (Chicago’s Trinity United). It was a calculated move to give him ‘street-cred’ and the politics of the church was exactly what he was looking for. Trinity was also a powerhouse in the community thanks to its well-connected congregation. Oprah Winfrey was the most prominent member. She would prove to be a very useful ally to Obama when he ran for president. A University of Maryland study estimated that Oprah’s support was worth one million votes. After Obama left the Illinois state senate another member of Trinity, Kwame Raoul, filled his seat. That is how the wheels of power turn.

When Obama’s divisive church became a liability during the 2008 presidential campaign, he just dumped it. Since then Obama still doesn’t attend any church regularly and is leisurely “looking” for one to join. Religion served its purpose. Eventually, as his poll numbers continue to plummet, he will have to find another church. In the meantime Obama didn’t attend any religious services when Christmas came along. As an atheist I don’t have any bone to pick with his religious views, it is his intellectual dishonesty that is bothersome.

Today is Three Kings Day. The tradition states that the three kings visit all good children to give them presents. Well, these three kings have given you a lump of coal, but they have taught us a valuable lesson about the sad state of racial relations today. It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t have to be this way. We let it happen.

Feliz Dia de los Reyes…

The Three Wise Men - Part 1

2009-12-28T00:56:00.000-08:00

A Story of Race Relations in the United States

American “liberal” ideology relies on race baiting to keep it relevant. To this day playing the race card is a valuable part of the Left’s playbook. That is true despite the disasters which have befallen the hucksters of race baiting politics such as Reverend Al Sharpton. Although he built his reputation as a civil rights activist, Sharpton was successfully sued for defaming the white victim of rape and kidnapping allegations made by an African-American teenager, Tawana Brawley. The accuser’s hoax made such an uproar that the judge was moved to declare;

“It is probable that in the history of this state, never has a teenager turned the prosecutorial and judicial systems literally upside down with such false claims. The cost of the lengthy, thorough and complete grand jury investigation was reportedly estimated at one-half million dollars…

…The total costs and expenses of the lengthy trial before this Court must be staggering. All of this was presumably unnecessary had Brawley come forward to cooperate with authorities. Even absent initial cooperation, once the Grand Jury report was released and it revealed in detail that Brawley had been personally observed by a credible witness crawling into the garbage bag, it would have been most appropriate for Brawley as a young teenager to come forward, admit the allegations were not true and apologize for the pain and upset she had caused Pagones, the Crist family and State Trooper Scott Patterson by her false accusations.”

The punch line was even better;

“At the end of the trial this Court stated, “Let us hope after 10 ½ years, the Tawana Brawley matter is finally laid to rest and we can move forward at last to promote healing and racial harmony.” Unfortunately, the continuing rhetoric by Brawley and her supporters refusing to accept the verdict does nothing to further racial harmony. In fact, in this particular case it is a disservice to the African-American community since it diminishes credibility and may adversely affect other viable complaints. This Court recognizes that it is perfectly proper in appropriate circumstances to speak out against any legitimate racial injustice. In this case, the injustice was against those wrongfully accused of heinous crimes that never occurred. The jury did justice by righting that wrong. Brawley and her supporters have no right to claim that justice was not accomplished by this jury.

These are not rational people that we are dealing with. Take for example, Sharpton’s lawyer and co-defendant in the defamation lawsuit, Alton H. Maddox Jr. His accomplishments are sickening;

1) After filing complaints of racial discrimination against the state of New York, he was ordered to repay the state for legal costs incurred while defending itself from Maddox’s accusations. The judge stated that his complaints had “no factual or legal basis”.

Maddox had filed the lawsuit claiming that he had to apply for permission to represent an indigent defendant, J. Ricardo Burgos, in a murder trial while two white lawyers were appointed to represent Burgo’s co-defendant without having to apply first.

The lawsuit fell apart when the state provided evidence that the two white lawyers did apply to represent their client. However, when Maddox was given an application, he filed a discrimination lawsuit instead of following through the application process. It is another example of using the race card to abuse our justice system.

2) In 1997 a white English teacher filed a complaint with NY’s Commission on Human Rights. The teacher protested that she was discriminated against when she was denied entry to a meeting of the United African Movement, a group led by Maddox. The Commission fined the African Movement $10,000 after it concluded that the teacher was denied entry due to her race. When she was barred from the meeting she was told that, “this place is only for African people”.

3) “Alton Maddox, alluding to Farrakhan’s use of the term “bloodsuckers” to describe Jews and others, said: “You’d better be glad that the only thing we are doing is calling you bloodsuckers.” He added: “This ain’t about ceremony, this is about blood. The price of victory is blood.... You got to spill some blood if you want to be free.”

Despite years of high profile Jewish activism in the Civil Rights Movement and their current high profile activism for “liberal” causes, there has been a great deal of hostility from the African-American community against Jews. During the Crown Heights riots in 1991 Sharpton made the following threat, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”. Sharpton had called for protests in response to the death of a Guyanese-American child who was killed when a Jew lost control of his car after an accident with another vehicle. In retaliation for the death African-American “protesters” killed an innocent Jewish visitor from Australia, Yankel Rosenbaum. Over a period of four nights the protesters targeted local Jews, businesses and police in an orgy of hate crimes.

In 1995 Al Sharpton was protesting against New York Jews again and there would be even more blood this time. The African-American owner of a Harlem record store, Sikhulu Shange, was facing eviction by a Jewish businessman, Fred Harari. Shange recruited Sharpton for help and he became the most publicly visible negotiator on behalf of Shange.

Protests erupted outside the business owned by Harari (Freddy’s Fashion Mart). The protesters expressed anti-Semitic hate speech and threats of violence such as:

“Get out Jew bastards”

“Bloodsucking Jews”

“Burn and loot the Jews”

Protesters warned that they would have “a coffin for Freddy”

One protester by the name of ‘Shabazz’ exclaimed, “I will be back to burn the Jew store down -- burn, burn, burn.”

Sharpton claimed that he didn’t control the protesters, but he certainly supported them and encouraged people to join the protest. On a radio show Sharpton made this disturbing statement:

“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street. We’re asking our black community to go down there, and I’m going to go down there, and do what is necessary to let them know that we’re not turning 125th Street back over to outsiders.”

Another protest leader, Morris Powell, used the same radio station to broadcast his own call to action:

“We’re not going to stand idly by and let a Jewish person come in black Harlem and methodically drive black people out of business... We gonna see that this cracker suffer.”

Both the NYC Police Dept and the Human Rights Commission investigated the protests, but never intervened. The results were tragic. One protester, Roland J. Smith Jr., was aroused to commit a massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart. He used a handgun to shoot up the store and paint thinner to burn it down. Including the gunman, eight people were killed and four wounded. The death toll topped the slaughter of six people murdered in the Long Island Railroad Massacre, which was yet another racially motivated mass murder perpetrated by an African-American.

After years of threats to murder whites; Colin Ferguson, an African-American born in Jamaica, carried his handgun and a canvas bag full of ammunition onto a Long Island Railroad commuter train. It was a premeditated hate crime. Sharpton was worried that the public perception of “Black and Hispanic dissatisfaction” would be undermined by this incident. He complained that, “the people in the media who attempted to demonize black and Hispanic dissatisfaction by saying this man was inspired or condoned by us when he did a very sick and perverted act is unfair.”

The protection of the leftwing victimhood racket was his main concern. Years later Sharpton would go on to join a campaign on behalf of African-Americans who committed a violent crime against a white person. The Jena 6 were African-American high school students who attacked an unsuspecting white student, Justin Barker, and beat him until he was unconscious.

Activists spread the rumor that Barker had been hurling racial epithets before the attack. However, five of the defendants admitted that such accusations were untrue:

“To be clear, not one of us heard Justin use any slur or say anything that justified Mychal Bell attacking Justin nor did any of us see Justin do anything that would cause Mychal to react.”

[Victim, Justin Barker, in the hospital after being attacked. Photos of two Jena-6 supporters flank his picture. The one to the left is a well meaning, but misguided protester. The one on the right calls for further violence until a perverted brand of justice is achieved.]

Of course our media has short-term memory loss when it comes to anything that contradicts the consensus of our “liberal” upper-class. Talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is almost universally derided as a rightwing extremist, so check out his contentious but almost amicable exchange exchange with Al Sharpton.

Although Sharpton is generally well respected in our leftwing media, he really comes off as hopelessly biased, while O’Reilly is rational. They discuss the Duke Lacrosse case in which three white athletes from Duke University were falsely accused of rape by an African-American stripper.

The case against the athletes was so weak that the prosecutor became the first sitting district attorney in North Carolina history to be disbarred. It was an “unprecedented and historic moment”, one that was quickly forgotten by our media. Unfortunately the wrongly accused students suffered badly, but they represent acceptable collateral damage to keep alive the leftwing race-baiting machine.

Race relations in our country are beset with difficulties. Unfortunately some prominent leftwing activists provoke race baiting for political profit and throw their uncritical support to hucksters around the country. Times have changed so that all too often it is the race baiting activism of the Left, which intentionally inflames racial tension.

In the next post (Part 2) we will examine how President Barack Obama and Tiger Woods perceive race relations in the United States and the effect that they have had on our nation.

Time to Make a Stand

2009-11-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

President Obama Fiddles While the World Burns

In Iran the most amazing things are happening. Every year on the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran, pro-government demonstrators march in front of the embassy to denounce America. This year Democracy activists are counter-protesting and appealing to the U.S. for help. It is an amazing turn of events which reveals that Obama Administration has been neglecting Iran’s Democracy movement for too long.

Many protesters gathered in chants of, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us”. Obama’s culture of self-loathing anti-Americanism is being challenged like never before. His foreign policy of playing nice with our enemies and tough with our friends is not paying off. The leftwing ideology of anti-Americanism is cracking at the seams.

President Obama has been dithering for too long. His policy of ignoring the truth about the Iranian regime in order to foster dialog with them is angering Iranians who long for freedom. While the Mullahs of Iran are helping to kill American troops, support further instability in the Levant, oppress their citizens and stall efforts to prevent its nuclear proliferation… Obama does nothing.

Obama and His Generals

It is an all too familiar pattern. After some early hope that Obama would live up to his hawkish campaign promise to focus on the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the President has become negligent towards what he once referred to as the “central front” in the War on Terror (or rather what used to be called the War on Terror). Judging by the way he has always shunned our top generals in the field, it was inevitable.

On January 10, 2007, Obama was quoted on MSNBC as saying the following about the Iraq Troop Surge:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Considering the success of the Surge it would be logical to wonder which military officers Obama was talking to.

In May of 2008 Vets for Freedom released an ad challenging Presidential candidate Barack Obama to meet one on one with General Petraeus, whom he had been reluctant to consult with. It was a part of a firestorm of criticism that forced Obama to visit Iraq and meet directly with Petraeus.

So Obama didn’t sit down to meet with General Petraeus, one on one, until July 2008. Therefore he never properly consulted Petraeus (the principal architect of the Surge) before condemning the operation. Furthermore, he had to be shamed into directly meeting with the general through determined political pressure. Obama didn’t speak privately with any military officer who believed that the Surge would make a substantial difference on the ground because he was not interested in meeting with military leaders that would express such sentiments. His consultations with military leaders were dictated by his desire to shape his military policy according to his own political agenda and so he consulted only with military leaders who he felt would support his preconceived conclusions.

This is not an isolated trend. In August of this year the Obama Administration shelved a report from General Stanley McChrystal asking for a troop increase in Afghanistan. By the end of September it became known that the President didn’t meet with McChrystal in person since the general took over command of Afghanistan in June and only spoke to him on one occasion during that time. Once again, after concerted political pressure, Obama was shamed into meeting our top commander who was in charge of our most critical war zone.

President Obama is not as interested in winning the war in Afghanistan as much as he is interested in promoting himself politically. I don’t doubt that he would like to win the war, but he has other priorities ahead of that goal. His non-stop political campaigning takes precedence. Obama is running for the 2012 presidential election now, just like he spent much of his only term in the U.S. Senate running for President in the 2008 election.

When Obama finally met McChrystal, the general had to fly to Denmark where the President was campaigning to have the 2016 Olympics hosted in his hometown! McChrystal was lucky that Obama was able to squeeze in 25 minutes to meet him. He was third down in the list of the President’s priorities.

Associated Press related that Obama originally turned down several requests by the Chicago bid committee when they asked him to take part in Chicago’s presentation to the IOC. Despite Obama’s long commitment to Chicago’s bid, he professed that he was too deeply involved with the debate on health care. Ultimately the lure of Chicago politics won out and Obama decided that one day wouldn’t jeopardize his work on health care “reform”. The meeting with McChrystal was added at the last minute to a schedule that was put together at the last minute. It was a measure of Obama’s appreciation for his top general in Afghanistan.

Note: You have to cringe at the first paragraph of the AP article… (sorry the link is already dead and I can't find another respectable link.)

In a quick dash of salesmanship, President Barack Obama is in the Danish capital, putting his personal powers of persuasion on the line to boost Chicago’s Olympics bid.

Without the colorful embellishments of the American media, Obama’s exaggerated powers of persuasion really don’t amount to much in the real world.

With the haphazard meeting out of the way, the media could now turn its attention to attacking McChrystal. The same tired arguments that were shown to be false during the Iraq Troop Surge are being regurgitated in Afghanistan.

As mentioned above, Obama predicted at the beginning of the Surge that it would fail. The popular sentiment was that an increase of American troops in Iraq would lead to more violence. Yet the opposite was true. This is because ever since the Vietnam War our society has cultivated a misconception of war and occupation. There is no evidence after the success of the Surge that the sentiment of the Iraqi public dramatically changed to the point that they overwhelmingly “loved” their occupier. What happened was more realistic and is the cornerstone of COIN strategy. Our allies in Iraq felt more protected and our enemies felt more threatened. This was how the Surge was so successful.

Where is our Afghan Strategy?

When the Obama Administration ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in February 2009, the increased troop levels were expected to last three to four years. Yet in September Obama said that we need an Afghan strategy before sending more troops. He stated, “I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don’t make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready.”

So why did he order troops to go to Afghanistan in February if he didn’t have a strategy? Its bad enough that President Obama neglects to consult with his top commanders and has to be shamed into meeting with them one on one... but he just completely neglects our troops in Afghanistan so he can campaign for healthcare “reform”, promote Chicago’s Olympic bid, play golf and fight a war against Fox News.

This was his greatest mistake. By using his Alinsky tactics of attacking and attempting to isolate Fox News, Obama has offended his most prized ally, the media. Now they are starting to see the Obama Administration for what it is.

So President Obama... You have no choice, but to abandon your rhetoric of self-loathing anti-Americanism. Iranian protesters need you. Your top generals deserve your ear. Afghanistan has to have more troops to defend its people who are isolated by mountainous terrain and victimized by a terrorist enemy who can slip through a porous border. Do something… you are the leader of the free world and you cannot sit on the fence any longer.

Dawn of a Glorious New Age Pt 2

2009-09-25T08:20:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Part II of my commentary on President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations...

The retired dictator of Cuba is encouraged that Obama is committed to destroying the economy of the United States. As a responsible democratic republic we can be pressured into a feverishly heavy burden of anti-carbon legislation. This is despite the fact that our environmental laws are draconian compared to countries such as India and China.

Fidel Castro gushes like a childish American journalist, “The President of the United States has conceded that the developed nations have caused most of the damage and should take responsibility for it. It was certainly a brave gesture.”

Thanks to Obama the definition of brave these days means to denigrate the United States.

This nonsense of wealthy nations versus poor nations unites Socialists in an orgy of envy and hatred.

Meanwhile the world’s number one polluter, China, reels from anti-pollution protests. In the Shaanxi province Chinese authorities ignored hundreds of protesters who complained that their children were being poisoned by industrial waste. The situation turned into running battles between police and protesters. Reporters had to sneak past roadblocks that were set up by the authorities to prevent news coverage of the riots. Local doctors have been ordered to restrict testing children for lead poisoning and now such tests can only be done when an official brings in a child.

Here is a brief list from Times Online of some recent environmental protests and scandals in China:

- Ten thousand demonstrators took hostages and fought police at a $5 billion petrochemical project in Fujian on the east coast. The battles forced the local government to promise strict anti-pollution measures at the plant.

- Authorities closed a chemical plant in central China after two locals died of cadmium poisoning. Chinese newspapers exposed a long-running scandal of political collusion that had allowed the plant to flout environmental standards.

- Mass protests broke out over “cancer villages” near polluted waterways in eastern China. A series of campaigns followed to win compensation for villagers who became ill living next to filthy canals and rivers full of factory discharge and effluent.

In recent decades the United States has made dramatic improvements in its air quality thanks to the Clean Air Act, however scientists are concerned about the effects of pollution from Asia that travels across the pacific in the upper atmosphere.

Estimates state that “Asia contributes 27% of the mercury deposition in Colorado” and the primary source of that mercury comes from the burning of coal, a heavy carbon emitter.

So Hey Obama… Perhaps developing nations should take responsibility for the environmental damage that they are creating right now. Please stop living in the past and digging for ways to bash your own country.

Dawn of a Glorious New Age Pt 1

2009-09-24T06:31:00.000-07:00

Obama’s speech before the U.N. was the most pompous work of fiction so far in the 21st Century. It comes across with a religious fervor in which the rhetoric of anti-Americanism is neatly packaged into a holy screed that is easily digestible for Pavlov’s media trained public.

Of course, all religions need miracles and Obama does not let us down. He bragged of his amazing accomplishments bringing progress to the Middle East;

“Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow.”

Within the space of one day, the Great Obama has done in the West Bank what he has been unable to do in the United States for nine months!!! Is your leg tingling yet?

Obama's Feet on the Fire

2009-08-19T15:31:00.000-07:00

VIDEO GALLERY OF SHAME

Obama's recent troubles forcing a Public Health Care option on an unwilling public is the result of a badly mismanaged campaign. The lies and bouts of projection that have marked this campaign have clearly revealed the underhanded partisan politics of the Obama Administration.

This arrogant Administration and its Democratic Majority has become too overconfident. Now they have learned that even with their overwhelming sympathy from the media, activist organizations, unions and academia... they still can't tell lies at will.

There were two lies that fell apart amidst public outrage.

The first was an act of projection. Tea Party activists, who have been derided as "Tea Baggers", were accused of being "Astroturf" activists and not a real grassroots movement. Yet it quickly became apparent that many Public Option supporters were in the employment of Obama's "Organizing for America" and ACORN, while union thugs beat up "teabaggers". It is rare to see such a blatant act of projection on such a huge scale.

In this video Out-of-State Astroturf Activists arrive in New Hampshire to support Public Option Health Care!!!:

Patriots chant "Don't Come Back! / Get a Real Job!" at leaving ACORN buses after a townhall in Pennsylvania:

Secondly, the Obama Administration insisted that it was the victim of a nefarious disinformation campaign. Linda Douglass, the Communications Director of the White Office of Health Reform, specifically targeted an article on Drudge Report entitled... "Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate Private Insurance". Even though Obama is clearly quoted before he was president as a supporter of a Single Payer Health Care System and he also related his strategy for eliminating employer coverage over a period spanning a 10 to 20 years. Watch Ms. Douglass lie through her teeth and actually deny Obama's own words:

You may recall that Ms. Douglass is the woman who set up an email address for Americans to turn in their fellow citizens who disagree with Obama's health care proposals:

It turns out that flag@whitehouse.gov is illegal either way you view it:

While the Democratic Party and their media allies have smeared Tea Party activists as anti-Democratic protesters who lower the debate on healthcare, Ringos Pictures Blog reminds them how badly Anti-Bush protesters lowered the debate during the Bush Administration... with little concern from the media and its allies in the Democratic Party:

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

Nancy Pelosi decried the use of Nazi imagery during these protests, but Zombietime Blog reminds her of the use Nazi imagery by Anti-Bush protesters during the Bush Administration, once again, with little concern from the media and its allies in the Democratic Party:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612

Then there is Zombietime's collection of protesters calling for the assassination of Bush:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

The media will not challenge the astroturfing hypocrisy and outright lies of the Democratic Party. It is up to bloggers to spread the word through the Internet, while protesters spread the word on the streets.

Race Baiting 101

2009-07-30T09:06:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party has resorted to its deck of race cards in order to push through the appointment of former LA RAZA member and current nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, threatened the Republican Party stating, “I just think that their voting against this good woman is going to treat them about the same way that they got treated as a result of their votes on immigration”. He was backed by activists representing civil rights, Hispanic and women’s groups. In this way he was making it clear that the Democratic Party is using such groups to advance Sotomayor’s nomination, as he fielded an unstated assumption to race bait Republicans.

The choice of a Supreme Court judge nominee, who was once a member of La Raza, was guaranteed to solidify the rank and file of the Republican Party against her. This nomination was designed to paint Republicans as prejudiced and to garner the support of minority groups. It is not the result of the post-partisan and post-racial promises that Obama made on the campaign trail. The choice was made to inflame racial tensions for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

It’s ironic that this nomination took place at the same time as the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The knee jerk reaction of Gates and the leftwing race baiting machine was to accuse the arresting officer of racism. President Obama quickly weighed in to support his friend (Professor Gates) and condemned the Cambridge Police Department’s handling of the case by saying that they “acted stupidly”.

This led Obama to rant about racial profiling:

“…there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That’s just a fact… …And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentimes for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.”

Long time race baiting advocate and former prominent Democratic Party politician, Jesse Jackson, chimed in about racial profiling:

“This issue of Dr. Gates being a victim of excessive force and bad judgment is a much bigger subject...This one case could open up the issue of the pervasiveness of race profiling.”

However, the accusation of racial profiling fell apart when it was discovered that the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, taught a class for five years at the Lowell Police Academy on how to avoid racial profiling.

The politics of race baiting needs to be laid to rest…

Chavez Lies Again

2009-07-06T08:55:00.000-07:00

Venezuelan Caudillo, Hugo Chavez, was lying when he asserted that he had not interfered in Honduran affairs. He said, “We’re not an interventionist government… It’s cooperation, a mechanism of cooperation with countries that have been exploited”.

Generally, our society is very tolerant of leftwingers and extremely suspicious of rightwingers, even moderate ones. In this permissive atmosphere leftwing strongmen can tell outrageous lies and threaten war with impunity. They are mostly tolerated.

One month after former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya congratulated Chavez for winning a constitutional amendment that lifted term limits on elected officials in Venezuela, Zelaya called for a referendum in Honduras that would allow him to run for re-election. Within several months the Honduran government was united against Zelaya. The country’s Supreme Court, Congress and human-rights ombudsman all declared the referendum illegal.

Yet it was Chavez who printed up the ballots and delivered them to Honduras.

When the nation’s top military chief refused to defy Honduran law by distributing the illegal Venezuelan ballots he was fired by Zelaya. Since the government and the military (which is normally responsible for distributing ballots) were against the referendum, Zelaya resorted to extralegal means to force the vote. He organized a mob and stormed the Tegucigalpa airport to seize the ballots. Zelaya was at the head of the mob as it tore down the gates of the base and swarmed past riot police protecting it.

Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the interventionist foreign policy of the Venezuelan government. One by one the new democracies of Latin America are being subverted by Chavez and his allies.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy spread like wildfire throughout Latin America because leftwing revolutionaries lost their funding and suffered a serious political defeat. Only Cuba resisted change. Now militant Socialists have regrouped and have followed a similar path that the Nazis took to seize power... the subversion of representative democracy.

Don’t be fooled…

Irony Express

2009-06-03T06:39:00.000-07:00

After Obama’s arrival in Saudi Arabia in his first stop of a trip designed to appease Islamist arrogance, CNN had this little tidbit for us:

Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy, (a senior fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy), said Muslims want more than talk; they want action.

They want to hear “that he is very serious about solving the Israeli-Arabian problem, that he is very serious about engaging the Muslim world on the basis of recognizing the equality,” Fandy said.

In addition to Saudi Arabia’s status as the most religiously segregated country on the planet, as well as being home to Wahhabism (the ideology that inspired Saudi Arabia to contribute the most suicide bombers to kill Americans)… Saudi Arabia (a Muslim country!) is also the country that the United States defended for over a decade against the aggression of Saddam Hussein.

So it’s a poor choice for the first stop on this trip.

Then Obama is off to another Muslim country, Egypt, a recipient of almost 60 billion dollars in U.S. aid since 1975. Oh, the oppression!

Enjoy the show. Lets HOPE that Muslims get the equality that they deserve when they take their wives and non-Muslim friends on their Hajj to Mecca.

Iran Offers Conditions for U.S. Surrender

2009-03-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

To chants of “Death to America” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed President Obama’s recent overtures to his country.

In between heaping praise on Iranian culture and expressing verses of poetic love that, “the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations” – Obama emphasized that, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

It was instantly declared to be a master stroke of diplomacy that would diplomatically isolate the Iranian Mullahs. Instead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the occasion to rally his base and denounce Obama as a liar. The Ayatollah challenged the Obama Administration to back up his flowery words with acts of appeasement when he stated, “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged.”

However, other news that could have diplomatically isolated Iran went unmentioned during Obama’s message. Iranian blogger, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison on the same day as Obama’s rainbow-colored speech. Mirsayafi was jailed for allegedly insulting Iran’s leadership and he died amid claims that the Iranian government was at fault for his death. Bloggers are routinely harassed and jailed in Iran.

Ironically, the blogger was held in Evin Prison, which is the same prison that Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, is being held. Of course Obama also neglected to mention her in his mating call to the Iranian Mullahs.

Saberi is a brave reporter who defied the Iranian regime when it took away her press credentials in an attempt to silence her. After she was arrested her family didn’t know what happened to her until 10 days later when she finally was able to make a phone call to them. The arrest of Saberi came as the regime began another series of crackdowns on university students. Such oppression may be connected with the upcoming Presidential elections in June.

Saberi’s father publicly stated that, “We told her to hang on, and not give in. The whole world is with her.” Evidently, Obama is not with the whole world on this point. She is an obstacle to his diplomatic overtures.

The Master of Disaster

The Obama Administration is just stumbling around like a chicken without a head. When the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, addressed pseudo-economist Jim Cramer’s critical stance towards the White House’s economic policy he stated, “I think you can go back and look at any number of statements (Jim Cramer) made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too”.

Robert Gibbs has a valid point. During the 2008 Presidential Election Cramer was enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign.

On June 22nd of 2008 Jim Cramer appeared on NBC’s, “The Chris Matthews Show”. During that time the show was stumping for Obama’s presidential campaign and so this episode was a veritable Obama-lovefest. During the show Cramer heaped praise on Obama’s economic plans and the following exchange was recorded;

“MATTHEWS: So the Election Day is over, the morning after election, if Obama wins, does the stock market go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Even though capital gains go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Absolutely. We’re sick of it.

MATTHEWS: Whoa, what a--this is news we’ve made here. Jim Cramer says the market will resound positively to an election by--of Barack Obama.”

Interesting enough, on the day of Obama’s inauguration, the Dow fell in the most dramatic freefall of any other inauguration day in history. Then on March 5th stocks fell to their lowest level in 12 years.

Even as late as December of 2008 Cramer raved about the “Obama Factor”. His ridiculous pro-Obama rants are now quite embarrassing. He boasted that, “When Obama speaks, the market buys, it doesn’t just listen, so listen to Cramer to know where to spend the money!”

The euphoria of the Obama personality cult led to the election of a woefully inexperienced and radically leftwing president. Diplomacy was often held up to be Obama’s strength, but after a comedy of errors the president has been revealed to be too overwhelmed to conduct routine diplomatic affairs.

When British Prime Minster Gordon Brown came for a state visit the Obama Administration neglected to offer a customary press conference and formal dinner as our closest ally is accustomed to. The Administration’s reaction was indignant to the outrage of Britons. A State Department official who was involved in planning Brown’s visit angrily responded that, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment”.

The thoughtlessness of the Obama Administration seeped into every aspect of poor PM Brown’s visit (it’s a good thing that Great Britain really needs us, my apologies to our friends there). As many bloggers are aware, it is customary on such occasions for leaders to offer each other presents that show good will towards each other. Brown gave Obama a pen crafted from the wood of the 19th Century anti-slave trade ship (which is the sister ship of the vessel that the wood of the president’s Oval Office desk is made of).

Yet Obama gave his counterpart a set of 25 DVD movies, which turned out to be nothing but the first 25 of the American Film Institute’s list of the top-100 American movies. As if that isn’t thoughtless enough… when Brown went home and settled down to watch one of the movies, he discovered that the DVDs were formatted for North American DVD players and cannot be played on DVD players sold in Europe. A message stating, “Wrong Region”, appeared when Brown tried to play them.

Does it get any worse? Incredibly it does… Britons were outraged that two days after snubbing Prime Minister Brown, Obama lavishly hosted former IRA terrorist, Martin McGuinness. British blogger Archbishop Cranmer complained:

“Gordon brown entered the White House through a side entrance and was granted a half-hour chat with the President followed by a working lunch. There was no press conference and the British delegation was limited in numbers.

Mr. McGuinness will walk in through the front door of the White House and be given the full red carpet treatment. It is a de facto State Visit with full retinue and a joint press conference. There shall be two hours of talks and a lavish gala reception at which Mr. McGuinness shall be a guest of honour, seated on the top table.”

And this came after a rare spat of violence in Northern Ireland in which a policeman and two soldiers were murdered in separate incidents.

But don’t forget our illustrious Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her recent diplomatic blunders…

As if it wasn’t enough to botch her first official visit as Secretary of State to the European Parliament by mispronouncing her counterparts’ names, insulting European sensibilities by saying that American Democracy is older than Europe’s and mocking multiparty democracy... She followed up this embarrassing episode with an “enlightened” visit to Russia.

Complete incompetence was the order of the day when Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift meant to symbolize Obama’s diplomatic overtures to the Russian government. She gave him a button that she believed stated “reset” in Russian and expressed her hopes that we could “reset” our relationship with Russia. As she handed Lavrov the gift she said, “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” He replied that it was incorrect and the button actually stated “overcharged”. So how hard did they work to get one word wrong?

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

I think that it is fair to end this post with the full video footage of our Teleprompter President’s fantasy message to Iran…

The video starts off with Obama saying, “Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world. This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with family and friends”…

One thing is for certain… Roxana Saberi, an American citizen, could not spend Nowruz with her family and friends because she was locked up in an Iranian prison while her president flirted with her captors.

A Brave New World

2008-12-31T18:02:00.000-08:00

2008 Government Subsidized Auto Show

2008-12-15T16:10:00.001-08:00

Dear Comrades,

What have we learned from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout? The Democratic Party’s Ministry of Disinformation has taught us that the problem stemmed from the Republican Party’s opposition to regulation and the mortgage industry’s predatory lending.

Of course, neither is true. It was the Democratic Party that blocked all attempts to reform the GSEs and denied that there was any problem, while the Republicans fought to enact new regulatory legislation before it was too late. Additionally, it was the Democratic Party and its allies (like ACORN) that prodded and coerced the mortgage industry into making loans to high risk borrowers.

But just ignore the elephant in the room. Support our glorious seven-digit income automobile executives as they flock to Washington D.C. looking for handouts at the taxpayers’ expense. These robber barons are the vanguard of the revolution.

Everyone knows that all cars are created equal. In the name of justice we must legislate the equality of American automobiles with their foreign counterparts. A “Car Czar” must be appointed to distribute cash to our automobile industry so that we can protect it from the Capitalist evil of competition.

To highlight the urgent need for these measures we present the 2008 Government Subsidized Auto Show. This is a great opportunity to emphasize the many successes of rampant Socialism. All automobile manufacturers are rated according to the Red Star system, with five stars as the highest award.

Zaporozhets:

This vehicle is affectionately known as Zapor, which is short for Zaporozhets. Due to a misfortunate twist of irony zapor means “constipated” in Russian. It’s actually an accurate description of this tiny and cheap car.

When it was first introduced back in the late fifties the sentiment among some Ukrainians was that the car was introduced as punishment by the Soviet Union.

Such a creative chastisement by the Ukrainians’ Communist overlords earns the Zapor two Red Stars!!

Some owners preferred to dispose of their Zapor rather than pay a parking ticket which would be greater than the value of the vehicle.

Trabant:

For about 50 years East Germany was a progressive paradise until the reunification of the country reintroduced Capitalism. The powerful two-cylinder Trabant is a testament to the superiority of Communism over free market economies. Nowhere was that more apparent than in the difference between East and West Germany.

West Germany produced inferior automobiles such as BMW, Mercedes Benz, Porsche, Volkswagen and Audi. On the other hand, East Germany manufactured outstanding automobiles such as the Trabant and Wartburg. East Germany’s auto manufacturers reached a level of craftsmanship that remains untouched these days (Mostly, because they are out of business).

Ladies and Gentleman, Freedom Now is proud to award the Trabant three Red Stars!!! With a plastic body and a hydrocarbon emissions rate of about 10 times that of modern cars, the tiny Trabant makes a strong showing.

Trabant’s Eco-Friendly Chia Car (hat tip to Nanc).

Moskvitch:

Thanks to the theft of an entire German automobile factory after WWII, the Moskvitch was based on the design of the Opel Kadett. Most Eastern European automobiles were based on Fiat designs so this made the Moskvitch unique.

Manufactured at the “Youth Communist League Car Factory”, the appearance and performance of the Moskvitch more closely resembled a tank rather than a car.

The export of the Moskvitch brand to Great Britain actually made a bit of a splash in the early 70s until the Consumers’ Association published an article that questioned the safety of the vehicle. Any fender bender in the imported Moskvitchs could turn into an experience worthy of a ‘slasher flick’ thanks to the incredibly sharp edges of the dashboard and dangerously positioned aluminum handbreak.

Such Soviet engineering boosts the Moskvitch to a four Red Star rating!!!! Congratulations comrades!!!!

A brand new, fully complete Moskvitch just after rolling off the assembly line.

The Yugo:

This was a heroic automobile manufactured in Yugoslavia’s “Red Flag Factory”.

“Every car came with a rear defroster to keep your hands warm as you pushed the car...” A triumph of Communist engineering!!!

During its existence the Yugo earned many enthusiastic reviews. Car & Driver magazine wrote that shifting gears in the Yugo is like “trying to shift a baseball bat stuck inside a barrel full of coconuts”.

Consumers have been happy too. Extra features such as removable doors have boosted the Yugo’s reputation so that no one is surprised to hear that Freedom Now awards the Yugo five Red Stars!!!!!

The Grand Prize Winner, with a souped-up hand warmer!!!!!

Now get out there and make Socialist cars for our Democratic Party bosses!!!!!

Our Ignorant Activist Media

2008-12-05T16:45:00.000-08:00

In the 2008 presidential elections the media threw away any pretense of objectivity and campaigned on behalf of Barack Obama. Most news articles were sprinkled with the conformist nuances of ‘truths’ that are widely accepted by our intellectual elite. The result is that they continue to behave like Pavlov’s dog at every mention of the Iraq War and obediently serve the role that Al Qaeda gave them.

Such bias can only thrive in an environment of ignorance. The media misinforms the American people in its partisan battle against Republicans.

Today, I had enough when reading a New York Times article about the piracy problem in Somalia. Ever since this subject has become headline news the media has pushed a meme stating that the piracy was created by the fall of the Islamic Courts.

Much like our elites mourn the downfall of mass murdering Saddam Hussein, they claim that American and Ethiopian interference led to this piracy problem. These robots don’t have an original thought in their puny collective mind.

I have never seen such utter ignorance as this article entitled, “Grand Theft Nautical”. The writer, John Burnett, relies exclusively on leftwing talking points. If you can read this quote without regurgitating your last meal you have a stronger stomach than I do, or you really don’t understand the issues here…

“There was some semblance of law and order in 2006, when the Islamic Courts Union, loosely linked with Al Qaeda, took over much of the country and imposed Shariah law. Though there were cruel tradeoffs, the Islamists virtually eradicated piracy. (The crime was a capital offense punishable by beheading.)

When Ethiopian forces, supported by the United States, replaced the Islamists with an ineffective transitional government in 2006, piracy returned with an intensity not seen since the 17th century.

It is evident that no nation can impose its will on Somalia; the colonial British and Italians learned the hard way. And certainly no nation can force Somalis to stop the best business in town. But if the West really hopes to eliminate the scourge of piracy in these strategic shipping lanes, then it should consider involving the courts union, the only entity that has proved it could govern the country, and its militant wing, Al Shabaab, in a new government.”

Where to begin? This guy is a complete idiot and makes a lot of money as a result. He writes what our intellectual elite wants to hear. Here is a short history lesson for Mr. Burnett...

Somalia is split into many different regions. Some of them consider themselves to be independent countries, but are not internationally recognized. Somaliland is one of the most prominent of them. At one time the Islamic Courts controlled much of the lawless south, but not these autonomous regions. To the north is Puntland, another autonomous region that unlike Somaliland does not consider itself to be independent. This is where the majority of pirates are headquartered. Local Puntland authorities have developed business links with the pirates who have safe havens there. The Islamic Courts has never had any significant control of any land in Puntland.

How can journalists go to the best universities and still come out so utterly ignorant in the blind pursuit of leftwing political activism?

Burnett wants to give the fascist Islamic Courts influence in a region that they have never had any control?... All so liberals can thumb their nose at Republicans and America’s lukewarm ally, Ethiopia?

Let me be fair. According to a report by the Chatham House, the Islamic Courts eradicated piracy during the second part of 2006 when they rose to a brief supremacy. However, the pirates simply moved to Puntland and continued their expansion of criminal activity. So does Burnett advocate handing over Puntland to the hurting Islamists? (Yes, I know the Islamists have recently made some gains, but they still are a shadow of their former power. It all depends if your glass is half full or half empty… Or rather, if you choose to propagandize on behalf of Islamists or not.)

Funny enough, the report goes on to say that funds from the ransoms paid to pirates have gone to Al-Shabaab. If you recall, Burnett advocated the inclusion of Al-Shabaab in the Somali government as a solution to the piracy problem. Even you overlook the problem that he doesn’t know the difference between the Somali Transitional Federal Government and the government of Puntland, you still have to admit that he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

Obama's Track Record on Unity

2008-10-31T09:55:00.001-07:00

Lipstick on a Politician

Obama’s rhetoric reminds me of a salesman who knows his product, but doesn’t really care about anything more than making a sale. His comments earlier this week are a treasure trove full of irony. For the choice quote of the night he stated;

“In one week, we can choose hope over fear, and unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo.”

It would be comforting to listen to a leader who speaks of “hope over fear” in post 9/11 America, if he was talking about the fear that our enemies have spread… but Obama is not talking about Al Qaeda or the Taliban. He is talking about his fellow Americans as he falseheartedly speaks of unity.

Obama claims to stand for unity while he accuses his opponents of using the politics of fear. He has no right to make such accusations. If Obama didn’t run for president he would still be attending services at his former hate filled church, Trinity United Church of Christ, while denying that it is controversial. He only gave up his church after months of pressure from his critics. So Obama wasn’t able to deliver his closing “unity” speech at his former church.

First Obama lied, issuing denials about what he knew was going on at Trinity:

“Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them. What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor.”

Then he admitted the truth:

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

The disclosure of Rev. Wright’s hateful speeches forced Obama to condemn his pastor’s comments and it was only after this created a public feud between the two that Obama finally left his church. Yet Obama still refused to denounce the divisiveness of his church. As he left his church Obama stated:

“ I’m not denouncing the church and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church.”

Obama refused to condemn his church’s outdated 20th Century Black Nationalism even as he distanced himself from it in the name of political expediency... Black Liberation Theology is the basis of the vision statement of Trinity United and the heart of its philosophy. It is a sick creed of reverse racism. James Cone is the leading advocate of this theology and has described its theories and his feelings towards whites in the following manner:

“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”

“What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

“What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

“Whether the American system is beyond redemption we will have to wait and see. But we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable.”

“All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, “Racism is not my fault,” or “I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man”...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty.”

Some of the quotes that Rev. Wright made infamous are included below:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’? No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme.”

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Obama claims to be a uniter, but the reality is that this election has forced him to distance himself from his divisive past. We are the ONES who have waited for him to catch up to the 21st Century. Not the other way around as he so falsely suggests.

Before Obama had focused on his ambition to be president, he wrote an autobiography in 1995 entitled “Dreams from My Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance”. This book honestly related his feelings on race and reveals the motivation that led Obama to join such a militant black church. Although his mother was white, he rejected his whiteness and sought to embrace his black heritage exclusively. This was despite the fact that in his teenage years he was raised in a loving white family and experienced no notable acts of racism from whites.

His book, “Dreams from My Father”, describes this transformation. In his own words he decided to “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”

He completely rejected his “whiteness”. As he wrote, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

My aim isn’t to prove that Obama was (or is) a racist, it is to show that for much of his life his worldview was divisive. I used his own words to map out the ‘us against them attitude’ that drew him to Trinity United Church. Once again from his autobiography he wrote, “To admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred.”

Obama contemplated Black Nationalism as a political tool overriding all other concerns. Again, in his own words, “I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.” He settled this question by joining Trinity and adopting the anger of Black Nationalism as his identity. (Rafiq was a friend of Obama’s who was a member of the Nation of Islam, it is not believed to be his real name.)

I do not accuse Obama of being a Muslim. He was the member of a church that spread a message of hate. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. Just as there are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

So on what basis does Obama champion the cause of unity? In 2007 the National Journal’s annual vote ratings gave him the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Its interesting that many times Obama uses the word “we” when he is really referring to himself. On Super Tuesday he gave one of the worst speeches that I have ever heard. At one point Obama said, “we are the ones that we have been waiting for”. He states these empty slogans as if they were biblical quotes. I don’t need Obama, McCain or any politician to change my life. Change is constant and my life doesn’t revolve around Obama. Its no accident that at Obama’s rallies his crowd chants “Obama, Obama, Obama”, but at McCain rallies his crowd chants “USA, USA, USA”. Obama’s cult of personality comes at the expense of everything else.

On the other hand McCain actually fulfils a requirement that unity demands. He is not afraid to cross the political aisle. McCain even worked closely with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. That is a good example of a Conservative (however moderate he may be) reaching out across party lines to someone widely regarded as an extreme liberal in American politics. McCain is also not afraid to buck his own political party, as he proved when he forced the Bush Administration to accede to the McCain Detainee Amendment. It was a measure to enhance the rights of detainees, which incurred the wrath of many Conservatives.

Obama has no similar credentials, but he still promotes himself as a uniter when all he represents is division. The politics of fear comes from the discharge of suicide bombs and hijacked airliners. They are the tools of our enemies. Obama would be better served by targeting these terrorists with his accusations and not his fellow Americans.

Storm Clouds on the Horizon

Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress against the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Ironically, Pelosi has been an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War and so has Sheehan. Conservative observers have been amused by the friction between the two leftwingers. According to Sheehan’s website:

“Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She declared opposition to the war in Iraq, but consistently votes to fund it. She has offered no analysis of the real reasons motivating the war in Iraq. She voted in favor of invasive wiretapping and immunity for corporations that engage in illegal wiretapping. She has initiated no legislation to fix our ailing schools, health care facilities, the housing crisis, etc. She has accepted money from the following corporations, to name a few of the many: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Comcast Corp, and Wells Fargo Bank.”

Over the years Bay Area radicals have been expressing their discontent with Pelosi. The feeble Democratic-controlled Congress has been powerless to stop President Bush from escalating the Iraq war and winning a pivotal battle against the brutal insurgents. Obama took a stab at reducing the U.S. role in Iraq, but failed. He didn’t have much time to spend on his attempts to hijack the progress made by the Surge because much of his short career as a U.S. Senator has been consumed with his presidential campaign. He has only been a U.S. Senator since 2005 and has been campaigning for almost two years.

In any case, the same forces that Pelosi’s anti-Iraq policy helped unleash in her raw pursuit of power have boomeranged against her.

In March 2007 CodePink, the radical “antiwar” group, organized a protest they called ‘Camp Pelosi’. It was a round the clock vigil in front of Pelosi’s San Francisco home. The protestors demanded that Pelosi cut the funding of the Iraq war. It became a string of on-and-off protests that continued to dog Pelosi for a long time. Additionally, CodePink wasn’t satisfied with just harassing Pelosi at her home so they took to following her to political events and harassing her there. Since CodePink found that protesting President Bush has been ineffective they started to target Democrats like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Gael Murphy, a co-founder of the group, claims that their efforts targeting the Democratic Party have made a difference. During the primaries she said, “We’ve gotten to a place now where Hillary and Obama are falling all over each other to be the leading peace candidate”.

Another co-founder of CodePink, Jodie Evans, has become a bundler for the Obama campaign. She has pledged to raise between $50,000 to $100,000. CodePink’s most visible leader and close Sheehan ally, Medea Benjamin, bragged about the influence that their radical group has on Obama. She declared that, “we have the ability to push from the inside and the outside. And it is being right here in this kind of place and places like this around the country that are the antidote to the people who are pushing Barack Obama to be quote ‘centralist’, which means be a warmonger”.

While CodePink has aggressively attacked leaders of the Democratic Party such as Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, they have been relatively supportive of Obama. CodePink has set up two watchdog groups to attack Pelosi and Clinton, ‘Pelosi Watch’ and ‘Listen Hillary’. Even though CodePink’s grievances with Pelosi and Clinton also apply to Obama, they have been willing to overlook these similarities. Instead CodePink claims to be willing to work with Obama on the same issues that CodePink viciously attacks Pelosi and Clinton. This sentiment is shared with many leading leftwing radicals.

An open letter published in The Nation declares support for Obama and warns that the signatories of the letter will challenge him on issues that they don’t share. One of these issues is “the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan”. The letter is signed by prominent leftwingers like Phil Donahue, Juan Cole, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Christopher Hayes (the editor of The Nation) and many others... especially JOURNALISTS.

So what will happen if Obama becomes president? CodePink is concerned that Obama is influenced by “centralists” who take a more favorable stance towards the use of military force. On the subject of Afghanistan they have cause for concern. Both presidential candidates favor increasing the U.S. troop presence in that country. The battle in Afghanistan is often referred to as the “Good War” and no frontrunner in any presidential election has opposed it.

Yet the “antiwar” lobby has been firmly against it. At the very first instance of U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan back in October of 2001, the “progressive” website Common Dreams declared the war a failure. In an editorial, Marion Winik (a commentator on NPR’s “All Things Considered”) stated, “Whatever they say, I think we've already lost”. Common Dreams may be a radical publication, but look at the many mainstream writers and prominent Democratic Party loyalists that have graced its pages; Jesse Jackson, Adriana Huffington, Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Ted Rall and many others.

During the 2008 Election the Left has united around Barack Obama. However, if he is elected president, Obama will have a great deal of difficulty maintaining this fractional alliance under his Afghan policy. After the 2004 election, when the Democratic Party stood stunned at its losses in the Congressional and Presidential elections, there was a burning reaction to get even. The same thing can happen to the Republicans in 2008. It is easy to be the opposition party, you merely have to be contrarian. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the partisan warfare during the Clinton Administration shows that the Republicans are just as good at this game.

Since the Republican Party is almost universally united behind the war in Afghanistan, Obama will miss out on a reliable support base on this issue. These bitter Republicans will be consumed with a desire for revenge and dreams of power, much like the Democratic Party has been for the last eight years. Meanwhile Obama’s supporters will be ideologically divided over the Afghanistan War.

I take no pleasure in this partisan bickering. During the Clinton Administration I supported the President against the partisan attacks that he suffered from. If Obama is elected president I will support him on his Afghanistan policy, if he follows it as he has already presented it. My overriding concern is victory over our fascist enemies. I would rather have a leader that I could be confident in, but if Obama wins the election he will have to do in the meantime.

There are two issues that will be of the utmost importance for our next president and Obama is problematic on both issues.

1) The War in Afghanistan
2) The Economy.

Obama’s weak ability to prosecute the Afghan War is scary enough, but he has also taken over $100,000 from Fannie May and Freddie Mac as they slid into a collapse that required a costly bailout. At the same time McCain warned against the problems of the GSEs. When Obama’s serious lack of experience is also taken into account you have to conclude that there is no HOPE for the prospect of an Obama Administration. It’s only an empty slogan...

We Are The One

2008-10-16T06:50:00.000-07:00

Did Obama Write The Original Version of “We Are the World”?

A controversy has erupted over claims that Obama may have written the original version of the hit song, “We Are the World”. Certain sources within the Obama campaign, who wish to remain anonymous, have been leaking a story of dissent within Obama’s staff. These close advisors feel that Obama should come out and take ownership of the song. Obama allegedly wrote it when he first became a community organizer in Chicago’s South Side.

Other cautious advisors fear that such a revelation will reveal that Obama’s ambition to be the messiah stretched back much farther than his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Those aides in favor of disclosing Obama’s authorship feel that voters will behold, “a light that will shine through their windows, they will experience an epiphany and they will suddenly realize that they must go to the polls and vote for Barack”.

The original version of the song has been leaked to the press:

“We Are Obama”

There comes a time when we need a certain call
When the world must come together as the One
There are people dying
Oh, and it’s time to lend a hand to Obama
The greatest gift of all

We can go on pretending day by day
That someone, somehow will soon make a Change
We’re all a part of Obama’s great big family
And the truth - you know he is all we need

(CHORUS)
We are the One, we are the children
We are the Change we’ve been looking for
so let’s start Believing
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
When we make Obama the One

When you’re down and out
There is still Hope for all
If you just Believe
There’s no way we can fall
Well, well, well, let’s realize
Our time for Change can only come
When we stand together as the One

(REPEAT CHORUS & FADE INTO GROUPTHINK)

For reference here is the version edited by Lionel Richie and Michael Jackson:

“We Are The World”

There comes a time when we need a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
Oh, and it’s time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can’t go on pretending day by day
That someone, somehow will soon make a change
We’re all a part of God's great big family
And the truth - you know love is all we need

(CHORUS)
We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
so let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It's true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

When you’re down and out
There seems no hope at all
But if you just believe
There’s no way we can fall
Well, well, well, let’s realize
That one change can only come
When we stand together as one

(REPEAT CHORUS AND FADE)

Obama Bootcamp:

Navigating The Media Spin

2008-10-08T06:38:00.000-07:00

Back in June a frustrated correspondent from the NY Times complained that there wasn’t enough news stories about the Iraq War…

“According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of the war in Iraq has been ‘massively scaled back this year’. Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq war coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The ‘CBS Evening News’ has devoted the fewest minutes to the war, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s ‘World News’ and 74 minutes on ‘NBC Nightly News’. (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.”

The real reason for the journalist panic rears its ugly head later in the article. Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News, relates how she begged to embed with some Navy Seals only to have a CBS producer tell her that, “One guy in uniform looks like any other guy in a uniform”. But all is not lost. Don’t be alarmed by the prejudice against our troops that comes from a big shot at CBS. Its not just prejudice that distorts our media, its an agenda. As the article continues:

“In the follow-up phone interview, Ms. Logan said the producer no longer worked at CBS. And in both interviews, she emphasized that many journalists at CBS News are pushing for war coverage, specifically citing Jeff Fager, the executive producer of ‘60 Minutes’. CBS News won a Peabody Award last week for a ‘60 Minutes’ report about a Marine charged in the killings at Haditha.”

You may remember the headlines that this case made several years ago. Congressman John Murtha was infamous for making the false accusation that the marines involved in this incident, “murdered these Iraqis in cold blood”. Despite the fact that the marines were convicted in a ‘trial by media’ before the investigation was even completed, all of the defendants except for one have been cleared of all charges (the last defendant’s charges have been reduced and his trial has been postponed). So as the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, Ms. Logan is excited about an executive producer like Jeff Fager who keeps alive the media’s hostile view towards U.S. troops. It’s no wonder why Ms. Logan bemoans the fact that the media hasn’t released enough pictures of dead American soldiers when she bizarrely ties that statement to her assertion that our soldiers are forgotten by the public. As if plastering pictures of dead American soldiers everywhere is something that our troops would benefit from, rather than benefit the “antiwar” lobby.

The McCain Doctrine & Republican Revolt

Now that the Surge has dramatically succeeded above expectations don’t expect the media to continue dubbing it, “The McCain Doctrine” or “McCain’s Plan”. Over a year ago the media advocated a meme that McCain was putting himself at risk for being such a staunch advocate of the Troop Surge. This came at a time when the Surge was controversial so there was some truth to this sort of analysis. However, to create a scenario of impending doom that supports this conclusion, the media misled the public about the level of Republican dissent against the war.

In July of 2007 the L.A. Times tried to paint McCain as being slowly isolated from even his fellow Republicans on the issue and that the Republican Party was looking to redefine itself away from President Bush’s Iraq policy:

“As President Bush struggles to maintain support in Congress for his Iraq ‘surge’ strategy, the three leading Republican presidential contenders have been quietly backing away from any commitment to continue the buildup.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have made it clear that their original support for the escalation does not mean they are signed on to keeping the current 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, even as they have laid out hawkish positions on other aspects of foreign policy.

Their recent moves underscore the president’s growing isolation on Iraq as the GOP begins searching for a post-Bush foreign policy. The shifts also distance the three top contenders from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the former front-runner who Tuesday reaffirmed his commitment to the troop escalation.”

Over a year later it is obvious that this article was pure partisan bullshit. All of these former candidates have faithfully supported the Surge and continue to support the President’s Iraq policy.

You don’t hear much about the alleged Republican Revolt anymore, but over a year ago it was a vital part of the Democratic Party’s strategy that was used to manipulate public opinion with an unbalanced viewpoint of what was really going on. After a suicidal ousting of Senator Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party during the 2006 elections, an appearance of Democratic Party unity and Republican Party division was created by Democratic Party strategists and a compliant media.

In July 2007 the House passed the “Responsible” Redeployment from Iraq Act (HR 2956), which was designed to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq in less than a year. This legislation was proposed about a month after the Surge officially began. The Redeployment Act was a desperate attempt to destroy the Surge before it had a chance to run its course.

In many cases when anti-Iraq policy legislation is proposed, the Democratic Party has used a handful of sympathetic Republican Party politicians as sponsors or authors to create a false bipartisan appearance. The Redeployment Act had three Republicans who were promoted as cosponsors (out of 43 total cosponsors); Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. However, the voting record shows that only four Republicans voted in defiance of their party to pass this legislation. Unsophisticated observers might still feel that this justified the media’s assertion of a revolt within the Republican Party, but the media and general public missed the fact that 10 Democrats defied their own party by voting against the measure!

So despite all claims of a Republican Revolt, more than double the amount of Democrats revolted against their own party and the top “three” presidential candidates from the Republican Party have remained steadfast supporters of President Bush’s Iraq policy. As the minority in Congress, the Republican Party needed to remain loyal to Bush in order to beat back the many legislative attempts by the Democratic Party to reverse the Surge. While the Republicans brilliantly maintained party discipline amid an unpopular war, the Democrats were not as successful.

The hysterical chatter of a Washington Post columnist (Harold Meyerson), who called the GOP a bunch of “gutless wonders”, reveals that the Republican Revolt was just a creature of wishful thinking by partisan journalists and the Democratic Party. He displayed some extreme bitterness towards the few dissenting Republicans who supported the Democratic Party on this issue, but failed to change our Iraq policy. Its as if he wouldn’t be happy with them unless they became suicide bombers…

“They have seen the folly of our course in Iraq. The mission, they understand, cannot be accomplished. The Iraqi government, they discern, is hopelessly sectarian.

In wisdom, they are paragons. In action, they are nullities. Perhaps they are simply farsighted. They have seen the problem with Nouri al-Maliki’s administration in faraway Baghdad. They seem unable to see the problem with the Bush administration at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Lugars and the Warners seem to share with many of their Democratic colleagues a common assessment of our presence in Iraq: It has become an unfocused and costly occupation in a land beset by civil war. We should, in good order, pull back, leaving behind only what we need to deter jihadists who threaten us.”

This article is worth reading in its entirety in order to digest the full extent of the conformist, bullying tactics of those who were determined to defeat the Troop Surge. It is mind boggling to imagine that intelligent people once thought that the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. forces from Iraq would lead to conditions that could deter jihadists in that country. At the same time those who defended such a highly unpopular policy as the Surge were accused of being gutless. A year later it is now obvious that those whom Meyerson labeled as gutless were actually very brave to help enable the enormously successful Surge operation against all conventional wisdom and savage criticism.

Leadership & the Mortgage Crisis

If you want a great example of leadership then look no further than Senator John McCain’s stance on the Surge. It was pointed out that his enthusiastic support for this unpopular issue could have hurt his presidential campaign, but he took the risk because he felt that it was worth taking.

Both leading presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain support the recent $700 million dollar bailout package for the financial industry that passed last Friday. Yet McCain has taken a beating for temporarily suspending his campaign in order to get House Republicans to support the bill. Critics have labeled his effort as grandstanding, but just like the Surge it shows that McCain is willing to take risks that come at his own expense for the sake of the country.

As Obama takes a back seat on the issue and can only hope for change, he and his fellow Democratic Party partisans blame their Republican counterparts for the current financial crisis. At this point in the election the media’s collective memory only extends to whatever benefits Obama’s presidential campaign. Its up to bloggers to force the media to cover more than just the Democratic Party’s talking points.

Back in 1999 the NY Times wrote about the pressure that Fannie Mae was receiving from the Clinton Administration to take on more risky loans. It was an ominous sign of the negative influence that the Democratic Party was to play in this crisis:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

Ironically, the Democratic Party has taken to blaming the crisis on the Republican Party’s support for deregulation, but the American people are not getting the whole story of what really happened. In 2003 the NY Times relates the following:

“The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.”

Guess who opposed President Bush’s attempt to enforce meaningful reform of the regulation of these GSEs?… Almost any blogger knows that the Democratic Party joined ranks to fight it. Get a load of this infuriating statement from Rep. Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee:

“These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Rep. Melvin L. Watt, a fellow Democrat, continued to display the same attitude of downplaying the risk of subprime lending that got us into this mess in the first place:

“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.”

Attempts to pass this legislation were thwarted along partisan lines as the Democratic Party solidly voted against any attempt to reform the regulation of the GSEs. However, the Republican Party continued to struggle with the obstructionist Democratic Party voting bloc. In May of 2006 John McCain addressed the Senate about a different regulatory reform bill:

“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

When the Obama campaign accuses McCain of being against regulation of the GSEs and that Obama warned about the potential problems of the financial crisis in 2007, you have to wonder how biased the media is in order to understate such an outrageous lie. The resistance of the Democratic Party to such regulation for years is lost in the memory hole. By 2007 it was obvious even to the staunchest supporter of risky loans like Barney “Not facing any kind of financial crisis” Frank that the Democratic Party could no longer deny that subprime lending had created a disastrous situation. On the other hand, McCain had cosponsored legislation going back to September 2003 calling for regulation of the GSEs.

Interesting enough, Opensecrets.org compiled a list of the top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions over the last 19 years. Its no surprise that Democrats top the list; but as a freshman U.S. Senator, Barack Obama incredibly came in third place even though he’s only been in office for less than four years! As number three on the list he actually beat out Barney Frank who’s been in office for the entire 19 years that the survey covers. So if Obama was so concerned about the root causes of this crisis; why did he take so much money from these two GSEs in such a short period of time, even as the financial crisis unfolded into catastrophic proportions?

Almost all legislation attempting to reform the regulation of the GSEs was drafted, sponsored and voted for by Republicans. In addition, many Democrats are on record defending Fred and Fannie, going as far as denying that there was a problem with them.

H.R.1409: Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises Regulatory Improvement Act - Apr 4, 2001

H.R.2575: Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises Regulatory Improvement Act - Jun 24, 2003

Thank you to Rep. David Scott (D-GA), who was the only Democrat to cosponsor the bill out of 21 cosponsors. Unfortunately, this bill was not able to make it out for a vote.

H.R.2803: Housing Finance Regulatory Restructuring Act of 2003 - Jul 21, 2003

S.1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003 - Jul 31, 2003

John McCain was a cosponsor of this bill.

S.190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Jan 26, 2005

John McCain was a cosponsor of this bill.

H.R.1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 - Apr 5, 2005

The bill made it out of the House, but the vote was more or less along party lines with the majority of Democrats voting against it. Thank you to the only two Democratic Representatives who cared enough to vote for the bill… Sam Farr (CA) and Gene Taylor (MS). 208 Republicans and only 2 Democrats voted Aye.

H.R.509: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1461) to reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes. - Oct 25, 2005

Passed by the House. 220 Republicans and 0 Democrats voted Aye.

Then after years of denials by the majority of the Democratic Party… all of a sudden in 2007 new reform legislation is introduced by Barney Frank, a politician who previously stated the following during a House Financial Services Committee hearing addressing regulatory reform in 2003:

“I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.”

Then look at this favorable exchange between Frank and executives from Fred and Fannie which transpired at another hearing. It is unbelievable the amount of deference that Frank shows them when he should be grilling them instead:

“Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Rep. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Rep. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here… I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.”

So this is the same politician who introduced the following bill:

H.R.1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 - Mar 9, 2007

Many long-term Democratic deniers voted for this bill, allowing them to be so duplicitous that a year later they would claim to have warned the American people about the subprime crisis and that they are champions of regulatory reform of the GSEs. This is despite the fact that only a handful of Democrats were in favor of reform before this bill and the absolute majority of Republicans were in favor. The Democrats only jumped ship after it was no longer credible (even in a compliant media) to deny the problems with regulating the GSEs. Incredibly it is John McCain who is being painted as a flip flopper on this issue.

Besides Barney Frank, another Democrat who voted for the 2007 bill (H.R.1427) was Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY). This “Johnny-come-lately” stated the following during the same hearing held by the House Financial Services Committee in 2003 that Barney Frank issued his bogus denials:

“…I am just pissed off at OFHEO [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job…”

In addition to Frank and Meeks there were other “Johnny-come-latelies” who voted for this bill. Take Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr. (D-MO) for instance. At a 2004 hearing concerning allegations of accounting and management failures by Fannie Mae, he was adamant in his defense of FM:

“…I find this to be inconsistent and a rush to judgment. In informal conversations with the executives from Wall Street and individual large brokerage houses, I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, as OFHEO says that it is. But of course, the markets are not political…”

Clay’s best sound bite of the evening was when he declared, “this hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines (the ex-Fannie Mae chief executive officer)”. Hmmm… Eventually Raines was forced to pay a settlement of $24.7 million in that accounting scandal. In addition, Fannie Mae paid a $400 million civil fine in a settlement with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission back in 2006. Clay’s accusations of political partisan politics were clearly acts of projection, as revealed by his hypocritical defense of a guilty party for political purposes.

Incredibly, the media reports that McCain is losing in the polls due to the financial meltdown caused by the mortgage crisis. Yet he has a record going back to 2003 of cosponsoring legislation to reform the regulation of the GSEs responsible for this mess. At the same time the Democratic Party has a solid record of opposing such efforts and in Obama’s short experience in the U.S. Senate he has taken an enormous amount of money from them.

Lacy Clay said that the allegations of misdeeds by the GSEs were politically motivated. This is how the Democratic Party’s attempt to cover up financial mismanagement by the GSEs led to unwarranted attacks on the Republicans who only wanted the truth. See the following quote from an article published back in 2004 when Fannie Mae’s CEO Franklin Raines was under fire. The author, Henry Blodget, is an Obama supporter who sometimes writes for Slate.com and the Huffington Post. Check out how he twists and turns in order to protect Raines:

“…Maybe … or, maybe, more likely, he (Franklin Raines) is the same man of discipline, intelligence, honor, and integrity that a half-century of actions and words suggest. If so, we need another explanation for the Fannie proceedings and the assault on Raines.

The simplest, and most conspiratorial, is that the Fannie investigation represents a Republican payback for Enron and Halliburton. Conservatives are delighting in the gutting of Raines and Fannie Mae—a Democratic boss of a Democratic-leaning company. Former Fannie CEO James Johnson, who got some of the bonuses OFHEO criticized, has also been short listed as a possible Kerry treasury secretary. The accounting investigation, if nothing else, has probably made both Raines and Johnson untouchables to a Democratic president.

My fellow bloggers you have every reason to be angry with the media, but please keep in mind that they are eager to smear and misrepresent your voice. They are very protective towards Obama when it comes to what they can construe to be smears. However, they are quick to ignore the torrential amount of smears hurled at McCain and Palin. Obama has never suffered from an attack as vicious as Sarah Palin had to put up with. Nothing compares to accusations that she lied about giving birth to her last child Trig. The assertion that her husband had sex with her daughter and that Trig was born as a result of incest is the worst campaign smear that I have seen in a long time. Yet it is Obama who is continually painted as a victim.

The extent of the media memory hole is proof that a Representative Democracy is only as healthy as those who participate in it. So spread the word and keep our country strong!!!

To Surge or Not to Surge

2008-07-27T18:15:00.000-07:00

Sunni Arab politicians ended a yearlong boycott of the Iraqi Parliament. This is a major breakthrough for reconciliation in Iraq. Despite the huge significance of this event, it occurred with little notice.

The boycott was a reaction of the Sunnis to the sentiment of their leadership that the government was not addressing the violence of Shiite militias. A solution was implemented when the Iraqi government launched a military operation against the Shiite Mahdi Army in the wake of the vast military successes of the U.S. Troop Surge. While the government offensive met with some initial setbacks in the city of Basra, the operation ultimately turned out to be a decisive victory.

So despite the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), military operations like the Surge and recent operations against the Mahdi Army have led to serious political gains in addition to security. A report by the ISG that was released in December of 2006 stated the following, which was widely accepted as conventional wisdom at the time:

“Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.”

Back in January of 2007 current presidential candidate Barack Obama went even farther than the report and insisted that sending additional troops to Iraq would actually increase sectarian violence. Obama refused to acknowledge the Surge’s success, even as the evidence was piling up. Powerline has an excellent post that tracks the history of Obama’s stubborn adherence to his disinformation agenda:

Obama said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

(What kind of experts was he talking to?)

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

“[E]ven those who are supporting - but here’s the thing, Larry - even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.”

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

“And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.”

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

…If we had listened to Barack Obama, all U.S. combat forces would have left Iraq in a phased withdrawal that would have began on May 1, 2007. So the Surge would have been crippled before it fully got off the ground on June 15, 2007.

When Obama introduced a failed piece of legislation entitled, “The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”, his office had already declared the Surge a failure before it even began.

“The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President’s failed policy of escalation.”

It brings to mind the ear screeching protests of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who stated; “I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.” Reid’s premature declaration came almost two months before Surge operations would fully get under way.

A vital component in any decision making process is to compute your findings based on reliable data. By declaring the Surge a failure before it officially began, Harry Reid and Barack Obama showed an eagerness to rush to a hasty judgment based on either on a critical lack of analytical skills or political expediency.

While we should give them some benefit of the doubt that they could be honest morons instead of deceitful politicians, I just can’t see these people reaching such high places without the ability to think analytically on such a basic level. The facts reveal that it is much more likely that they just view the Iraq conflict through the narrow prism of political gain.

How can we believe someone who lies so effortlessly as Barack Obama does? Take a look at the quotes from Powerline above. There is a long paper trail that documents Obama’s continual claims that the Surge would fail to reduce violence and actually make it worse. Then read his more recent statement from January of 2008 in which Obama whitewashed his previous stance;

“Now, I had no doubt, and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

Obama’s aborted visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his world campaign tour sheds a lot of light on the subject. When the Pentagon told Obama that he couldn’t bring his campaign staff with him while visiting the medical center, he just bowed out. Obama was only interested in using this visit as a campaign event although the Defense Department has a directive prohibiting “the use of military installations for campaign events or speeches”. What a typical politician.

Lets not forget the Democratic Party’s rough treatment of our greatest general, David Petraeus. In the circus surrounding his testimony to Congress on the progress of the Surge in September 2007, the Democratic Party issued a storm of disinformation:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated the following about General Petraeus;

“He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual. I have every belief that this good man will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in his report, but it’s not his report anymore. It’s Bush’s report.”

Senator Dick Durbin declared;

“By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.”

Representative Rahm Emanuel, claimed;

“Instead of a new strategy for Iraq, the Bush administration is cherry-picking the data to support their political objectives and preparing a report that will offer another defense of the president’s strategy. We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.”

Representative Robert Wexler grilled General Petraeus during his testimony;

“In your testimony today, you claim that the surge is working and that you need more time. With all due respect, General, among unbiased, nonpartisan experts, the consensus is stark. The surge has failed, based on most parameters… Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.”

Then there was Senator Hillary Clinton’s classic accusation against General Petraeus;

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside.”

The Democratic Party has done everything it can to force a retreat and it failed. Instead of relying on defeatism, we implemented a military solution that made the difference when our intellectual elite said it wasn’t possible.

Eli Pariser, a spokesman for MoveOn.org, defended their anti-Petraeus debacle: “We stand by our ad — every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus’ claims”.

Supply and Demands

2008-06-26T08:14:00.000-07:00

Some of us remember how Congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened to socialize the American oil industry last month at a congressional hearing on high oil prices. She blurted out;

“…And guess what this liberal will be all about. This liberal will be all about Socializing… ahhhh ummm… (pause) will be about (pause) basically taking over and government running all of your companies.”

The idea of the takeover of the oil industry by an incompetent congresswoman is bad enough, but other Democratic Party hacks are playing hardball to hinder the ability of our Iraqi allies to sell oil. Democratic senator Charles E. Schumer sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatening retaliation if the government of Iraq issues modest contracts to four foreign oil companies. One is from the U.S. (Exxon Mobil), one is from the Netherlands (Shell), one is from France (Total) and the last is from Great Britain (BP).

This bizarre letter claims that awarding modest no-bid oil contracts to foreign oil companies will result in some sort of Armageddon… stating, “It is our fear that this action by the Iraqi government could further deepen political tensions in Iraq and put our service members in even greater danger”. So what is Schumer’s solution?… Unless he and his comrades get their way they threaten to further deepen political tensions by cutting off financing for unnamed programs in Iraq that they claim are not directly in support of American troops.

There aren’t many U.S. government funded programs in Iraq that are not in direct support of American troops. This is a war against terrorist guerillas that attack civilian infrastructure. Part of the reason that Iraq is producing more oil these days is because the terrorists have suffered many major defeats and their ability to attack civilian utilities has been hampered. A crucial tactic of Counter Insurgency operations is the usage of humanitarian projects to win over the local populous (something referred to as winning the “hearts and minds” of the population). Other efforts to help the local government and security forces are important as well.

That leads me to believe that this latest threat is just a projection of the Democratic Party’s desire to encourage instability in Iraq. Much like the Copperheads during the Civil War, the Democrats have done everything they can to hamper our ability to wage this war and instead focused on “bringing our troops home”... also known as “cutting and running”. These Copperheads even have the nerve to deride loyal American military officers as traitors and liars, while these soldiers put themselves at risk during a time of war.

The Democratic Party has focused its efforts on oil speculators as the cause of the recent upswing in oil prices. However, at this time there is no concrete evidence that the oil market is being manipulated by foul play. I have no problem with legislation that ensures the transparency of such speculating, but the Democratic Party is also proposing hostile legislation that will interfere with legitimate business practices. In effect they are legislating against a problem that they do not understand and may not even exist, because they have no evidence of such activity other than their own speculation.

Again, I agree that the possibility should be investigated and if the current high oil prices are proven to be the result of artificial price gauging by speculators, then we can legislate a solution. Yet the law of supply and demand shouldn’t be dismissed so lightly in favor of sentiment that has not progressed beyond the stage of conspiracy theories.

Rather than driving oil trading overseas to less regulated markets, we should enact legislation that will not exacerbate high oil prices. This means regulating intelligently by passing legislation aimed at a proven problem instead of using a shotgun to cure cancer.

Recent proposals to reduce fuel taxes make sense if we sincerely want to reduce gasoline prices. Europe is notorious for high fuel taxes and as a result many countries in the region pay twice the amount per gallon that Americans do. They have faced deadly riots and protests because of this. So even a small decrease in fuel taxes will help consumer confidence and will surely influence speculators if combined with the opening up of American oil drilling in restricted regions that are known to have huge untapped oil reserves.

Attacks by ruthless rebels on Nigerian oil installations recently drove up oil prices, as such attacks usually do. At its peak Nigeria had an output estimated at 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd). The country is Africa’s largest oil producer and is a founding member of OPEC. Here in the United States it is estimated that we have up to 2 million bpd that could be tapped from proposals to open up drilling in areas currently prohibited by legislation. Just like any trading market, psychological factors weigh in almost as strongly as the physical transactions that are being traded. So even though we will have to wait 10 years until oil production in these currently protected areas can begin, it will still have some effect on the market now (especially in combination with fuel tax breaks). Even more importantly, since it takes about 10 years to begin production, we’d better start now rather than waiting until the problem is worse.

Just in April an article from the Obama-worshipping blog, Daily Kos, was advocating the raising of gas taxes and attacking Hillary Clinton as an anti-progressive heretic for having a moderate idea (the summer tax holiday). This is a mainstream movement in the quasi-Socialist Democratic Party. A week after the failure of a recent climate tax bill, which over 20% of Democratic Party senators opposed, Obama and the Democratic Party leadership suffered another defeat when they pushed for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Remember the deaths and riots happening in Europe? The Democratic Party wants that here.

No matter how high the price of gasoline gets, the Democratic Party continues its desire to increase taxes on the oil industry. Even last August the Democratic Party was pushing for $16 billion in taxes on the oil industry (this effort also thankfully failed). It is naïve to think that taxing the oil industry is going to result in lower prices yet Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) had the nerve to say, “This (bill) will save consumers money”. We have a working model for high oil industry taxation in Europe and that surely isn’t the case.

Instead of banning, taxing and penalizing the Democratic Party needs to learn good government practices. Oil industry profit margins are no larger than most industries and are actually modest compared to many. They, “average, at 8.3 cents for every dollar of sales, compared to the chemical industry’s 12.7 cents for every dollar of sales, the computer industry’s 13.7 cents and the pharmaceutical industry’s 18.4 cents for every dollar of sales”. It is the government that is the biggest profiteer from high oil prices. In 2005 the Tax Foundation reported that since 1980 oil companies “remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments”. You may recall that 1980 was the year that Congress was actually successful in slapping a windfall profit tax on the oil industry. This disaster forced “oil companies to reduce production of crude oil and increased our dependence on foreign oil by an estimated 8 to 16 percent”.

Offering more incentives and subsidies will be much more effective than heavy-handed tactics that do more harm than good. We cant afford such knee-jerk reactions which only results in restrictive legislation that does nothing but hamper business and creates the usual divisive politics that the Democratic Party is so good at.

The real problem lies in the developing world. China and India subsidize the sale of oil. This dramatically lowers the price of oil and gasoline in those countries and increases consumption at astronomical rates. Bob O’Brien, the online stocks editor at Barrons.com, stated;

“China is undergoing this economic boom and is effectively willing to pay any price. Just by the nature of the market, the product is going to seek out the end user that is willing to pay the most. And that dynamic is not going to change anytime soon.”

William Anderson hilariously characterizes the Democratic Party as “criminalizing higher oil and gasoline prices”.

He goes on to state, “When in doubt, Congress makes something a crime. Keep in mind that while they are first speaking of $5 million fines, ultimately they will be throwing people in prison for ‘economic crimes’, and ‘speculation’, which was the hallmark of the former Soviet Union.”

While his Libertarian tendency to exaggerate government abuse of power is a bit overboard, his conclusion is right on the money;

“…we have bluster, threats, and measure after measure that would further strangle and regulate production of oil and oil-related products. Congress always tells us that it knows best, but once again, we see nothing but economic ignorance from Washington’s finest. For now, they have been held back by a filibuster, but I fear that such a reprieve is only temporary - that Congress and the others in political power in this country will not be satisfied until they have fully destroyed the US economy and replaced it with something we thought would disappear when the Iron Curtain finally fell so many years ago.”

The Audacity of Dishonesty

2008-05-14T10:18:00.000-07:00

Before Reverend Jeremiah Wright was purged in order to save Barack Obama’s presidential bid, the hate-filled reverend claimed that his quotes were only sound bites taken out of context.

NPR enthusiastically covered the reverend’s objection that “his comments have been taken out of context and that the attacks on him are actually toward the entire black church” (Trinity United Church of Christ).

Yet even Obama refused to back up his former pastor on this subject… stating, “Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.” Obama also said that if Rev. Wright didn’t retire then he would have left his church.

It’s interesting to note that according to Newsweek one of the major reasons former-churchgoer Oprah Winfrey left Trinity in the 1990s was Rev. Wright. However, Obama stayed for 20 years.

Rev. Wright knew his days were numbered and he said; “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said, ‘Yeah, that might have to happen.’” It’s a pity that not much good can be said about Obama’s sense of loyalty. In light of his comment in which he called his grandmother a “typical white person” this is not surprising. Not only did Obama save his political career by ditching his former mentor, but he saved the Trinity United Church as well.

It has escaped the notice of the media that even before Rev. Wright became pastor, the church adopted a racially separatist agenda. According to a key Trinity lay leader at the time, Vallmer E. Jordan, the church leadership decided that, “For years we had prided ourselves on being a middle-class congregation within a mainline denomination, but suddenly the values within the black community had shifted. Aspirations for integration and assimilation were being replaced by those of black pride and separation.” (Speller, Julia 2005. “Walkin’ the Talk: Keepin the Faith in Africentric Congregations.” Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 80)

Even a staunch Trinity apologist like Jason Byassee admits the following…

“There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone’s groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people... All white men are responsible for white oppression… Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil’... Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.” Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, “Black suffering is getting worse, not better... White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison”.

Rev. Wright fit the mold of what church leaders like Jordan were looking for. After all, Rev. Wright asserted on the behalf of his African-American congregation that, “We are descendants of Africa, not England. We have a culture that is African in origin - not European. The Bible we preach from came from a culture that was not English or European”.

In the 21st Century I strongly disapprove of Cone and Rev. Wright’s racial separatism. American culture owes a great debt to Africa. Our music, arts and dance are strongly influenced by the continent and I wouldn’t want to be associated with a European-American congregation that resented African culture because their ancestors came from England. Either way it is a step backwards away from tolerance and a step closer to hatred.

CNN relates that bulletins from the Trinity United Church back in June 10, 2007 include comments (reprinted from other sources), which maintains that South Africa and Israel worked on “an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs”. They also quote a historian who said, “What the Zionist Jews did to the Palestinians is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews”. Another one of those church bulletins, from July 22, 2007, includes an article refusing to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. At the bottom of the page, the bulletin has a copyright in Rev. Wright’s name. He regularly published such disgustingly anti-Israeli articles.

So it’s interesting to note that Democratic Party Frontrunner, Barack Obama recently said that John McCain’s quote stating that the militant Islamic group Hamas favors Obama is “offensive” and a “smear”. While the Obama campaign demanded that McCain should apologize for “repeating tired and divisive attacks about Barack Obama that he knows are flat-out untrue”.

Well, the fact is that Ahmed Yousef (a political adviser for the militant organization Hamas) stated the following in an interview with New York’s WABC radio station, “Actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle”.

Therefore McCain’s statement is a factual one. So what’s next? Will statements saying that, ‘since Obama is a freshman senator - he doesn’t have much foreign policy experience’, be “offensive” or “a smear”?

In order to win the liberal, Democratic Jewish vote Obama is trying to prove that he is pro-Israel. So all of a sudden, he dumped his reverend and fired one of his Middle East policy advisers who has regular contacts with Hamas. But after 20 years of attending Trinity, Obama still claimed as recently as March that:

“I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.”

Then when video tapes of Rev. Wright starting appearing on prime time TV and on the Internet he back tracked to say:

“I did not hear such incendiary language myself personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew.

So besides Ophray Winfrey, did any one else at Trinity hear these speeches? Was the clapping of hundreds of enthusiastic churchgoers in the Rev. Wright videos piped in? Obama has to repudiate the church members who didn’t sleep through Rev. Wright’s incendiary remarks and instead cheered him on.

It is unfortunate that if Obama wasn’t running for president he would have never disowned his reverend-mentor and would still be calling him his spiritual advisor. To believe that after 20 years of membership in this congregation that one election cycle can purge such hatred is not realistic unless Obama comes clean. If he really wants to be a president who unites this country then he must give up his hateful church and denounce it for what it is.

Rev. Wright isn’t an expendable scapegoat who can be the fall guy for the sins of the entire church. Almost every word he preached was met with adoring cheer. For 36 years Rev. Wright led the flock. He built up the church from 87 members to 10,000. Right before Rev. Wright came to Trinity, church leaders had determined that the decline in membership was due to changes in the values of the black community. If you recall, church lay leader, Vallmer E. Jordan, named these values as black pride and separation. Additionally, it should be pointed out that the church’s vision statement is based on James Cone’s racist liberation theology.

So we’re not just talking about Obama’s connection to Rev. Wright, his connection with his church is important too. Obama has to admit that his church spread hate during his many years of membership there and that he knew it. Obama needs to come clean before any intelligent person can ever believe him again. How could someone aspire to the presidency of the United States of America and for 20 years not realize that his church, (Trinity United) is controversial? Not only has Obama been dishonest about that, but he has also been intentionally misleading about his knowledge of his pastor’s inflammatory statements.

Before Obama changed his story, he claimed on March 2008 that, “Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them... …What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor.”

Yet back in January 2007 Obama asked Rev. Wright to deliver a public invocation at the announcement of his presidential campaign, but Obama knew that his reverend spoke about a lot more than just “Jesus” and “faith”. A month later he revoked his request and invited Rev. Otis Moss III (Rev. Wright’s replacement at Trinity and a firm ally of the retiring reverend) to deliver the invocation, but Moss refused out of loyalty to Rev. Wright. The clincher is that when Obama spoke to Rev. Wright he said, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public”. So Obama abandoned Rev. Wright not because of his offensiveness (as he clearly knew about all along), but only to further his campaign for the presidency.

Much like the reason he all of a sudden loves Israel after 20 years of going to a church that enthusiastically promoted anti-Israeli propaganda. In 2005 the United Church of Christ (UCC) Synod even passed a resolution calling for divestment from doing business with Israel and the dismantling of Israel’s security barrier (which has saved many Israeli lives from Palestinian terrorism). The Simon Wiesenthal Center called the resolution, “functionally anti-Semitic”. Two years later when Obama spoke before the Synod, “Israel’s newly christened friend”, never mentioned the resolutions. Only a dysfunctional media can miss the issue here. For a man running on a platform of “Change We Can Believe In”, the only thing that you can really believe in is that Obama will continue the age-old campaign strategies of dishonest politicians.

(Note: The IRS has notified the United Church of Christ, that they have opened an investigation into Obama’s address at the UCC’s 2007 General Synod because the church was engaging in political activities.)

The chance of Obama denouncing his church is slim because it has been the center of his power base for a long time. Trinity is a nepotistic hydra with many heads. When Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate back in November 2004 his vacated seat was filled by Kwame Raoul... Who just so happens to also be a member of the same church as Obama, “Trinity United Church of Christ”!!! It’s a political machine that Obama has relied on for years and the church will increase its influence through him unless he does the right thing for the American people. Now is finally the time for Obama to fully divest himself from hatred.

Lets give Rev. Wright the last word;

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’. No, no, no, not God Bless America. God Damn America - that’s in the Bible - for killing innocent people. God Damn America, as long as she pretends to act like she is God, and she is supreme.”

The Road To Kuwait

2008-04-13T12:32:00.000-07:00

Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr.

If the United States is losing the Iraq War as some insist, then these bitter opponents must be the winners.

In reality the United States, the Coalition and its Iraqi Allies have won every important battle.

You’d have to be sick to want them to lose…

It was too late for these victims of Saddam’s regime.

Terror Tourism

2008-04-05T16:12:00.000-07:00

Back in December of 2007 the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce and MSNBC brought you a publicity campaign to increase tourism in the biblical city of Bethlehem.

If the Palestinian Department of Tourism can have a spokesman like Ahmed Balboul, a terrorist from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, then by all means let us devise a Tourist Adventure Package worthy of their high standards. We don’t have to create something brand new. No, we can benefit from existing terror-tourist guidelines. Take the accommodations that are already offered by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

This tour package gives you the opportunity to prove that Liberals support the right to bear arms… well, at least weapons that belong to terrorists, of course.

ISM “Peace Activists” pose with weapons under the supervision of a terrorist from the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade (on the right). Please note that the woman in this picture, Gabi, is disguised as an Orthodox Jew. This is a great example of the deceitfulness of the ISM. She is not even Jewish, let alone Orthodox. (The photo is from Stoptheism.com)

Many people want some adventure when they take a holiday and the ISM put together this package especially for thrill seekers who love to get their adrenaline flowing. The ISM holiday tour allows you to enter a war zone with the mission to protect terrorists and their weapon smuggling tunnels. At the end of the day you can even sleep in the bed of a terrorist and live to tell about it.

Paul Larudee, a leader of the ISM in Northern California, is notorious for proudly exclaiming that he slept in the bed of a suicide bomber. If you ever wondered how self-professed pacifists could justify their support for terrorism against democratic countries just take a look at how Larudee rationalizes the unthinkable. In his own words…

“Although we are totally dedicated to nonviolence, we recognize not everyone in the Palestinian community is dedicated to nonviolence and under international law we recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so.”

This pattern of doublespeak is shared by the terrorist allies of these pacifists. Check out how the wanted terrorist and tourism advocate, Ahmed Balboul, sends ‘a message to tourists all over the world’:

“Welcome to Bethlehem, Bethlehem a holy city. I and my nation/people refuse the terrorists and we like the life, we like all the world and I say to them they are welcome to Bethlehem. This is a holy place and a holy city.”

And how exactly does Ahmed Balboul “refuse the terrorists”?

Well… he closely associates himself with the commander of Islamic Jihad in the Bethlehem area, Mohammed Shehadeh, and two other Islamic Jihadists. Shehadeh was an expert bomb maker who was behind several terrorist bombings including a suicide attack on the Jerusalem Hilton.

It’s sad that our media is so quick to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but not our troops or democratically elected leaders. The article that inspired this post was entitled, “Normal Life Escapes Palestinian Militant”. It made the dubious claims that Balboul disavowed violence and expressed his support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

While it is true that Balboul has postured for peace, the truth is that he only wanted amnesty for his crimes. If the Emmy award-winning journalist who wrote this article was capable of researching Balboul’s claims to the standards that an Emmy award supposedly requires, she would have to reveal that Balboul actually condemned the peace process and of course associated with terrorists who still supported violence against innocent Israelis.

In December of last year Balboul held a press conference with his terrorist comrade-in-arms, Mohammed Shehadeh, denouncing peace with Israel. In his last interview before his death Shehadeh used children as human shields and declared, “…I don’t ask any pity from the occupation, the opposite, one must be cruel before it…”

Balboul’s association with the Islamic Jihad leader cost him his life because Israel had recently stepped up its efforts to kill Shehadeh. When they finally caught up with the terrorist Balboul was beside his comrade as always. This is a severe setback for the Bethlehem tourist industry. They may now be forced to recruit spokesmen who are not terrorists with innocent blood on their hands. It is a stark example of how Israeli military operations are hurting tourism in Bethlehem.

Sympathy for El Diablo

2007-12-23T18:03:00.001-08:00

So the ailing Cuban Dictator, Fidel Castro, states; “My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, or even less to obstruct the path of younger people, but to share experiences and ideas whose modest worth comes from the exceptional era in which I lived.”

The truth is that this tyrant has clung to power for almost 50 years. Since 1959 he has ruled Cuba as his personal gulag while executing or jailing his political opposition. Suddenly Castro expects the world to believe him when he declares that he wouldn’t selfishly cling to power. Even a casual observer would have to note that this statement is only the result of his deteriorating health and his desire for the continued oppression of his country after his death. However, Castro is not a political figure that is viewed critically in our media or among our political elites.

Latin America’s most hated dictator was Chilean General Augusto Pinochet. He is well known for the repression of civil liberties, murder and torture that was committed by his junta in the seventies. His regime is believed to have murdered about 3,000 people and no sane person could praise the dictator’s morality. On the other hand, Fidel Castro has murdered about 14,000. So Castro’s regime has been much more repressive than Pinochet’s and the Cuban dictator has not given up power to make room for democratic reform like Pinochet did.

Yet many prominent Americans openly admire this Communist dictator. Take these quotes for example…

“Cuba’s Elvis!” (Dan Rather.) “Castro is the most honest and courageous politician I’ve ever met! Viva Fidel!” (Jesse Jackson.) “If you believe in freedom, justice and equality, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!” (Harry Belafonte.) “Castro is a genius and Cuba is a Paradise!” (Jack Nicholson) “The greatest hero of the century!” (Norman Mailer) “One helluva guy!” (Ted Turner.)

Barbara Walters is one of many American journalists who have expressed admiration for both Castro and his protégé, Hugo Chavez, the most authoritarian rulers in this hemisphere. Over the last century the Americas were rife with dictatorships. Today all of the rightwing dictatorships are gone and have been replaced by republics with a much more democratic representation of the people. Castro’s leftwing junta is the only dictatorship left and Venezuela teeters at the brink thanks to their despotic leader, Hugo Chavez.

Despite this, Walters is infamous for stating, “For Castro, freedom begins with education”.

Why do prominent journalists act as such willing dupes for totalitarians?

In this picture Barbara Walters meets with Chavez cronies in their Caracas stronghold, giving them a treasure trove of publicity. Jose Gregorio Cedeno, in the red cap, is president of a Chavez-controlled community council. The woman in blue, Doris Seren, is a teacher and member of the council. Such teachers are important to the “Revolution”, which emphasizes a complete revision of history to reflect the Socialist viewpoint that almost all conflict throughout history was the result of class struggle. It reminds me of the Castro statement… Walters would have been closer to the truth if she changed just one word…

“For Castro, freedom begins with RE-education”.

In any case, the picture was taken as a part of a staged political propaganda tour that was orchestrated by Chavez in exchange for an interview that was to occur shortly thereafter. The tour and the interview were eagerly promoted in the Chavez controlled media. One advertisement stated, “We invite all Venezuelans to watch the interview of the year. The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ‘Comandante’ Hugo Chavez Frias, leader of the XXI Century Socialism, in an exclusive interview with the journalist Barbara Walters, star anchorwoman of the main US network ABC news”.

While Walters felt obligated to address a few of the many negative characteristics that define Chavez, she clearly has a great deal of affection for the Venezuelan strongman. In her interview she never challenges him over the abuses of power that have made Chavez an object of concern for the Venezuelan people. The closest she comes is by asking this pampered question, “Venezuela elected you to a second term. They would have to amend the constitution for you to run for a third term. You want them to do that?”

These are not the words of an educated woman who would at least be vaguely aware of how Chavez has already changed his country’s Constitution for personal gain, packed the courts with his cronies and labored so hard to get these “reforms” passed that he declared the following warning to those who would vote against the Constitutional changes that he proposed… “He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor.” Why is it that Conservatives are almost always exclusively labeled as divisive and suffering from an “Us Against Them” mentality when their leftwing opponents are so unapologetic in such sentiments?

Mostly Walters glowingly refers to Presidente Chavez as “dignified”, “warm” and suffering from “misconceptions” in the U.S. She took the approach of tough love and was sure to stroke the strongman’s ego by complimenting his character and asking biased questions like, “You are not married now. Are you -- Do you want to marry, or are you married to the revolution?” The interview with an eligible bachelor like Chavez obviously sparked Walters’ romantic notions about the “Revolution”.

After wrapping up the interview on 20/20 she expressed her true feelings in a statement that could have been written by a Commissar working at the PRAVDA news desk…

“…when you meet him, when you see him in the navy blue suit and not the red shirt that he’s in, um, he’s passionate about his dislike for George Bush. He does like this country and he’s passionate about his feelings about America. And he feels that with a new President, that we can be friends. He cares very much about poverty. He’s a Socialist. What he’s trying to do for all of Latin America, you know, they’ve been trying to do it for years, is to eliminate poverty. But this is not the crazy man that we have heard.”

Since Walters is so open in her admiration for Chavez it’s no surprise that she reacted sympathetically when the Venezuelan despot lost his recent bid to be president-for-life. As a comparison I find it just a wee bit ironic that she said the following about President Bush;

“He is the president, he is not a king.”

So while Walters glosses over major infractions against the freedoms of Venezuelans by Hugo Chavez (who has also consolidated a massive amount of political power into his presidency and political party) she accuses President Bush of being an autocrat simply because she was annoyed at the security in the capital of the United States, Washington D.C. Right across the water from the Pentagon which was attacked on 9/11.

We need a truly objective media, not this.

San Diego Fires

2007-10-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

The scene today about six miles away from my home.

For those concerned about the San Diego fires, you will be pleased to know that I am safe. The area where I live, off of Freeway 15 in Rancho Penasquitos, is on the edge of a dangerous area that is very vulnerable to fires. However, my home is in no immediate danger.

Since the fire is so unpredictable I have to be prepared for the worst and I have good reason to. It is scary that I am on the very edge of the evacuation area. Only one block north and one block east everyone has been ordered to evacuate. So far around 500,000 people have been evacuated and we are lucky for now. Probably half of my neighbors have already fled. Those of us who stayed are looking out for each other.

The smell of smoke is very strong. There is quite a bit of ash on my balcony and near my windows which I had open yesterday. That was a big mistake! Amazingly the sun is making it through the haze which is a good sign, but when watching videos from areas where reporters were covering raging fires, they experienced the same condition.

I am now almost fully packed and ready to go at a moments notice. I will take my computer if evacuated so I wont lose any data.

The situation is very tense because the fire is raging out of control and cannot be stopped with these high Santa Ana winds. Due to these winds our aircraft have not been able to contribute to the firefighting efforts as much as they could, but unlike the 2003 fire, this time San Diego did not send the bulk of its assets up north only to find that the fire spread down here as well. About 1,000 firetrucks from northern California are on the way down to pitch in.

In 2003 the big object of concern was the flammability of shingle rooftops. This time everyone is pointing out how eucalyptus trees are quick to catch fire. I think that in the future you are going to find a lot less of these trees in Southern California just like shingle rooftops have went the way of the dodo bird... At least in neighborhoods vulnerable to fire.

Thank you for checking in to see if I’m OK.

Update: 10/23 6:54pm PDT

Things have dramatically improved for the city of San Diego. Residents just east of me in Scripps Ranch have been allowed back in their homes. You may recall that this neighborhood was hit really hard in the 2003 fires. The community lost the most homes in that disaster, a total of 343. This time only a small portion of the city limits has been damaged. Unfortunately, the fire still rages in almost all directions; north, east and south.

I am proud to say that the reaction to this fire is dramatically better when compared to the 2003 debacle. None of the confusion that we had last time was in evidence. The Governor immediately came to San Diego and was not combative like the Davis Administration. Governor Davis and his staff took serious offense to our local Congressman, Duncan Hunter, who criticized his slow allocation of federal resources and his bureaucratic attitude. Basically Hunter had secured some C-130 firefighting aircraft from the military and all Davis had to do was ask for them, yet Davis refused.

The Director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Dallas Jones, sarcastically remarked that Hunter was “all wet”... Now lets take a deep breath here. This is not a partisan attack on Davis. I voted against the recall election that targeted him. He should have completed the term of office that he was elected for, instead of falling victim to the power-grab of that special election. I will admit that his handling of the energy crisis and California’s budget problems was lackluster, but he is not the only person that deserves blame. Regardless, the reaction of his office to the disaster in 2003 was miserable.

Right off the bat it was incongruous of Jones to say that Hunter was “all wet”. That was the problem to begin with. He wasn’t all wet. The man lost his home and everything except an old station wagon in that fire. I saw Congressman Hunter in a press conference yesterday during the height of the emergency and he is hardly the political sideshow hack that Davis painted him out to be. Although the speaker gave Hunter a friendly introduction and the opportunity to use his time in front of the media to promote himself, Hunter was all business. He said what he needed to and allowed public officials to continue their dissemination of vital disaster information. Hunter didn’t take the opportunity to campaign or even pull at the public’s heartstrings, despite the fact that the speaker introduced him as a victim of last year’s fire. This is why Hunter will not win the presidency. He is a public servant that puts his job before his political ambitions.

Anyways, I’d like to thank the firefighters who are still battling the blaze in 90-degree temperatures against 1,000-degree flames. They have cleared fire control lines, set backburn fires to redirect the flames away from inhabited areas and made heroic stands to defend individual homes. Firefighters have come down from Sacramento and Camp Pendleton, despite the fact that the fire has reached the Marine base.

Our authorities have done a fantastic job protecting our lives and property. The backwards 911 system has worked almost flawlessly. When a neighborhood needs to be evacuated our emergency services call each home to give them the warning. This has doubtlessly saved many lives and only two are confirmed dead so far. Such procedures are especially important because this fire is much larger than the 2003 disaster, which killed 15 people in San Diego County. (Note: the NY Times has erroneously stated that the 2003 fire was bigger. They included the total acreage burned by all 15 fires during the 2003 Firestorm. These were separate fires throughout California.)

San Diego has pulled together. Volunteers and donations have been pouring into our biggest shelter, Qualcomm Stadium. So many donations were received that authorities declared that no further donations are needed unless requested. Although I have been thoroughly dissatisfied with Governor Schwarzenegger and wont be voting for him in the next election, I have to admit that he is much more effective than the hapless Governor Davis. Military C-130s have already arrived to fight the fires.

My thoughts go out to those who are still in danger as I write. Thanks to everyone who has pitched in!

October Blog of the Month - Moonbattery

2007-10-16T01:44:00.000-07:00

The Blog of Month for October was referred to me a long time ago by my muse, Nanc. She raved about the website so much I just had to take a look for myself. Since Halloween is coming up Moonbattery.com is the perfect choice for the occasion.

Moonbattery is the best blog that highlights the antics of the people referred to as “moonbats”.

Reference.com has an incomplete entry for the term “moonbat” in their encyclopedia and they are at least consistent enough to make the same oversight for their entry on “wingnut”.

Moonbat (also “barking moonbat” and “moonbat crazy”) is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left.

The term, Moonbat, clearly refers to EXTREMIST liberals, but they leave out that important word in this listing (yet correct themselves elsewhere).

In any case, moonbats offer a rich reservoir of material that Moonbattery.com eagerly taps into. Take this article for instance, “Muslim-Moonbat Marriage on the Rocks?”

Self-labeled “Progressives” from Latin America and Iran organized a conference to build-up the alliance between leftwing and Islamist revolutionary activists. Any rational person hearing about this for the first time will chuckle at the prospects of that alliance, despite the fact that they do indeed march side-by-side at protests in the United States and at the very least maintain parallel political campaigns against our country.

The lovefest quickly fell apart when Hajj Saeed Qassemi, “The Coordinator of the Association of Volunteers for Suicide-Martyrdom” spoke about leftwing superhero Che Guevara. Check out the Moonbattery article to find out what happened.

Closer to home Moonbattery.com relates how moonbat activist, Sean Penn, strikes a strong chord among terrorists. “Terror chiefs from Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, two of the most deadly terror organizations in the world, praise Penn’s stance on Iran, Iraq and the war on terror. The terror leaders go so far in their adoration of Penn that they are tapping him as the official spokesman of their terror rings.”

Welcome to the world of Moonbattery.

A Love Story - Project 2,996

2007-09-11T02:54:00.001-07:00

Last year I participated in Project 2,996. This is a web-based tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. I was assigned to write about James Berger, who worked at the World Trade Center for Aon Corporation. It was an honor to have the opportunity to pay tribute to such a brave man. Although the loss of such a loving human being is a great tragedy, his story was so touching that I found it to be very inspirational.

This year’s tribute has left me with quite a different feeling. I haven’t felt this way since the attacks happened six years ago. Intense anger and an overwhelming sense of sadness has shaken me while composing this story.

My choice for the 2007 tribute was Nurul Huq Miah. I chose him because I wanted to honor an immigrant who represents everything that America stands for. In the end I wound up with a lot more than I bargained for.

As I began my research I started to notice that online guest books dedicated to him made references to Shakila Miah and used the feminine pronoun, “her”, as a description. I was a bit confused. Was this is a reference to someone else or were the people making these comments just mistaken because of their unfamiliarity with foreign names?

I didn’t like the answer. It turns out that Shakila Miah was his wife who was also killed in the September 11th attacks. This is how I learned about a beautiful love story and its tragic ending.

The couple were both immigrants from Bangladesh and it is a custom for many Bengalis to be wed in arranged marriages. However, the Miahs were a “love match”. This means that they met outside of parental supervision and fell in love on their own. Naturally when the girl’s parents found out that their daughter was dating someone they were apprehensive and frowned upon the relationship.

In order to communicate with his girlfriend Nurul would leave messages on her answering machine with a deer caller device that is used by hunters. This was his secret signal to her and you could imagine the delight of the young woman whenever she heard it.

The persistence of their love convinced Shakila’s parents to arrange a meeting with the suitor. You have to keep in mind that in Bangladesh society there are many stigmas attached to such courtships. It could be an unbearable embarrassment if the parents are perceived to have lost control over their children in such a manner and many Bengalis would argue that such relationships have corrupted traditional values. So Shakila’s parents showed a very open mind by setting up this meeting.

In an interview with Newsday her father remarked on the overwhelmingly positive impression that Nurul made on his family, “He captured all of our hearts with his behavior. Everybody liked him”. The parents were happy to give their approval and the couple had a traditional Bengali Muslim ceremony attended by hundreds of friends and family.

That’s right, they were Muslim! For all their talk of holy war Al Qaeda has no compunction about killing innocent Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq the terrorist group kills more Muslims than “infidels”. The holy war against America is a sham.

It was the United States that intervened in the Suez Crisis to stop Britain and France from seizing Egyptian land illegally. It was the U.S. that helped Saudi Arabia develop its oil reserves without exploitation while European nations plundered Middle Eastern oil. It was the U.S. that helped Muslims in Afghanistan against the atheist Communists. It was the U.S. that bombed the Serbian Christians in order to stop their genocide against the Kosovo Muslims. It was the U.S. that helped two conservative Muslim countries against the aggression of Saddam Hussein’s secular regime. And it was Al Qaeda that killed innocent Muslim Americans like Nurul and Shakila Miah.

After Shakila found employment at the World Trade Center her father suggested that she should look for a better job because Shakila only had a temporary position at Marsh & McLennan. Since she worked only four floors above Nurul there was nothing in the world that could make her leave his side. Every day they went to lunch together and every day they went home together. The couple was never separated. They lived together and died together. In the year and a half that they were married they shared the deepest love that most people will never know throughout their entire lives.

Shakila liked to sing songs like this one written by Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore.

Sept Blog of the Month - Regime of Terror

2007-09-09T23:39:00.000-07:00

The Blog of the Month is “Regime of Terror”, a blog that I found when googling for information about sectarian violence in Iraq.

While apologists like George Galloway, Ramsey Clark and the legions of other anti-Bush propagandists wax nostalgic about Saddam’s regime, this blog publishes evidence of the crimes of the Baathist occupation of Iraq. The blog primarily focuses on their promotion of terrorism.

To this day elements of the illegitimate regime have continued their time-proven tactics of fostering political violence and “Regime of Terror” makes sure to document that as well. As the insurgency has developed the blog has painstakingly patched together a clear picture of Baathist and Al Qaeda cooperation. So it is an excellent starting point for those looking to educate themselves about the past and current activities of Saddam’s regime and its supporters.

Apologists long for the peaceful days of the Baathist regime. These pictures of the victims of the Baathist regime are a monument to those “idealistic” times before President Bush “ruined it”.

Spirit of America Update - August 2007

2007-08-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

“Dear Blog Community,

Welcome to the first Spirit of America (SoA) monthly update. A new outreach program designed to keep the blogger community informed of the projects that we engage in. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to helping our troops make a difference in the war torn countries of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. Spirit of America facilitates the donation of humanitarian supplies that our troops distribute to civilians in those strategic regions of the world. This assistance is vital towards the creation of jobs and the restoration of public services like education and medical care. Thank you to the blogger community for your support.

Sincerely,
Spirit of America”

This Month’s Topics:

Help us reach out to our Military
A Special Iraqi School Project
Quick Response to Afghan Farmers Request
Women’s Burn Unit & Maternity
Join our Mailing List, pass it on

REACHING OUT
For our first blogger update we would like to ask for your help in order to reach out to our military personnel serving in Spirit of America’s theatre of operations (especially in Ramadi where our forces have had some huge successes recently).

Many front line troops are not aware of the services that we provide to help them assist civilians living in those critical regions that they serve in. We can help facilitate their outreach to these civilians. Such humanitarian aid is vital to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and peace.

Quite often our military personnel have requests for goods like school and medical supplies, sewing machines, hand tools, watches, water barrels, clothing, soccer gear and toys. Since 2001 we have successfully completed many of these supply projects and urge our servicemen and women to contact us to see if we can help them make a difference.

Email Us

SPECIAL IRAQI SCHOOL PROJECT
Would you say that four years is a long time? It’s a fair chunk of change, but it’s hardly an extreme amount of time unless it is spent under extreme circumstances. In the case of Staff Sergeant (SSG) Steven Gardner you can say that he has experienced more in the last four years than most people have in their entire lifetimes.

SSG Gardner has served his country in war torn Iraq since April 2003!!! For almost the entire conflict that has reshaped our times he has been deployed in many different provinces of the country. Throughout this time SSG Gardner witnessed how a brutal insurgency has victimized the Iraqi people.

In order to give the Iraqis an alternative message of hope SoA is undertaking a special project with SSG Gardner to help a local school in the northern Iraqi city of Habur Gate. This endeavor is being conducted in the true spirit of our service men and women. It is something that is not fully appreciated by the general public. Consider the fact that last year 807 schools serving 322,800 students nationwide were completed using American funding and supervised by our military forces. In addition projects like “The America-Iraq School Partners Program” and many others have been completed by SoA to bolster what our troops have accomplished. Despite all of that hard work, this new project is made special by some very unique circumstances.

While many of the military personnel that work on humanitarian relief projects with SoA are very enthusiastic about these efforts, few can say that they have been serving continuously in Iraq for so long. As much as we are concerned about how our soldiers and their families will have to endure extended tours as much as 15 months long, SSG Gardner won’t be going home to his family until 2008. That will make his tour of duty five years long!!! And as if that isn’t enough, he wants to contribute even more to the people of Iraq.

“All of this started because of what I have seen and been through. I want to leave here knowing I came, I fought and I made a difference in someone’s life here. This area is safe or reasonably so. The people are good.”

“The kids are great and the teaching staff try and make do with what they have but with funds and materials not available, they can only do so much. The school is set-up so that the kids attend from middle school through high school. The blackboards are a wreck. No fans or cooling systems in the classrooms. No computers. No sports equipment. There are no sports uniforms (they take a lot of pride in soccer). No art supplies to speak of. Basically, they need an overhaul.”

There can be no better example of the quality of our men and women serving in Iraq than SSG Gardner. SoA is proud to support such an American patriot and friend to the Iraqi people. He doesn’t ask for glory or any form of undue attention, he only desires to help those in need.

Please visit our project page to learn more.

QUICK RESPONSE TO AFGHAN FARMERS REQUEST
WOW!!! Due to your overwhelming show of support, this project is already well underway. Here is the Sergeant Major’s response when told that we had raised $13k in the first five hours:

“I didn’t expect the project to be such a big hit. I am really pleasantly surprised that the project has raised so much already!”

SoA is also working to find the zargol type of saffron which prospers in Iraq. If you have information on where these bulbs can be found or would like to donate saffron bulbs for these farmers, please send an email to us with the subject: Saffron Bulbs for Afghanistan.

The Sergeant Major says:

“The amount of heroin that is produced from this country (about 90% of total world’s production) is unbelievable. Poppy fields stretch for miles. The Taliban use poppy grown in Afghanistan to generate funding for their activities...

...This region is where saffron originally came from, before cultivation spread to Europe. Right now Afghanistan’s neighbor in the west, Iran, grows the largest quantities of saffron, that it exports globally as the world’s most expensive spice by weight...

...I think that if it were more available, saffron would be grown here in greater quantities, taking cash away from the Taliban.”

Please visit our project page to learn more.

WOMEN’S BURN UNIT & MATERNITY
After the rule of the Taliban and decades of war, Afghanistan’s healthcare system has been neglected. Equipment is in short supply and hospitals are in disrepair. Army Colonel Wendell Hickman in cooperation with attorney Melinda Lord seeks your help in improving conditions for at least one community - Herat, Afghanistan.

Nearly two-thirds of the Afghan population is without access to basic health-care facilities. Women and children are especially affected as Afghanistan has one of the word’s highest maternal and child mortality rates. Some studies estimate that an Afghan woman dies giving birth every 30 minutes. In addition, women are often burn victims either at the hands of angry relatives or self-inflicted as a protest against harsh circumstances.

The 400-bed Herat Hospital is the only non-military hospital in this entire province in Western Afghanistan. Supply needs are critical for the Burn Unit where cream, bandages and IV saline are the only solace available for patients, some of whom are tragic victims of the difficult intentional burnings.

Your support of this project will enable SoA to contribute critical supplies to the Herat Burn Center, Gozahra Clinic and similiar facilities throughout Western Afghanistan. In addition to the items listed above which SoA will provide with your help, we will partner with Orchard International in shipping an ocean container of supplies donated specifically for Herat Hospital including incubators, baby warmers, and vitamins.

A very sparse Delivery Room in Herat

You can visit our project page to learn more.

PLEASE ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
Our recent drive for signups to our mailing list only netted about 65 new subscribers. We are hoping that by reaching out to bloggers that we jump start this effort. There’s no risk to pass it on to family and friends, we never share your email address. It’s also very easy for you, at any time, to unsubscribe on our site.

Bloggers please contact us if you wish to publish these monthly updates on your blog or volunteer your time in any way. We are looking for a volunteer Web Technology Director, volunteer Administrative staff and volunteer writers. If you would like to post this article on your blog please contact us by clicking on the email link below or leave your email address in the comments. If you leave your email address in the comments we will delete the comment after we retrieve your contact information in order to protect your privacy. Then we will email you the text and html so you can just copy it into a new post on your blog.

Thank you for taking the time to read our project update. The War on Terror is beginning to pick up steam and our country has finally been able to get out the word due to the contributions of the blogger community. Bloggers like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio and Michael Totten are bringing America’s side of the story directly to the people. In the past when we won important victories like the capture of Saddam Hussein, the conclusion of successful elections, the recapture of Fallujah and many others - the significance was lost on the general public because of the lack of awareness about what is really going on.

That ignorance has led some Americans to remain unaware that our troops do more than just kill the enemy. They spend much of their time building relationships with Iraqi communities, assisting them to defend themselves, coordinating reconstruction projects and distributing humanitarian aid.

Now that we have found our voice it is time to step up our efforts. The blogger community has done a great job so lets keep up the good work. We have a long way to go.

Email Us

All the best,
The Spirit of America Team
http://www.spiritofamerica.net/

Bloggers with the Spirit of America

2007-07-24T09:31:00.000-07:00

Please Help The Iraqi Reconstruction

Many of us have become bloggers because we are outraged at the brutality of our enemy and the callous disregard for reason by some of our countrymen. We wanted to do something to make a difference in the War on Terror. A successful businessman named Jim Hake felt the same way.

He started a charity called Spirit of America to support our troops in the field. This is a non profit group that gives humanitarian aid to Iraqis, Afghanis and civilians from the Horn of Africa. The aid is distributed by our troops in goodwill bridgebuilding missions.

Spirit of America is reaching out to the blogger community to get the word out. Please post this blog ad in your sidebar if you would like to help them.

All you have to do is copy and paste the following html code into your blog template. To retrieve the code just click on the comments section and it is located in the first comment. Highlight the text and click “Control” + “C”.

If you need help just let me know in the comments.

Thanks

The War Against Iran Finally Begins

2007-07-17T16:51:00.000-07:00

While the media focuses on the Surge battle plan in Baghdad, another major operation has begun against Iran. It is a two pronged offensive with one pincer rooting out Iranian backed militias in the Shia south and the other decimating the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

Some liken the operation to a game of whack a mole, but in reality it is more like a squirrel or a badger. Animal rights activists have called it a humanitarian nightmare because of the unconventional tactics utilized by Coalition Forces.

In southern Iraq British troops have unleashed an onslaught of Ferocious Honey Badgers that have terrorized Shia militants and emotionally scarred their children. Human rights leaders have condemned the attacks as indiscriminate against civilians and demand that the exploitation of these animals must cease immediately.

In the meantime these Vicious Badgers have taken their toll on the unsuspecting population. A Basra housewife, Suad Hassan, claimed to have been attacked by a British Badger as she slept. She reported;

“My husband hurried to shoot it but it was as swift as a deer. It is the size of a dog but his head is like a monkey.”

Facing mounting pressure from criticism by anonymous government sources a UK military spokesman, Major Mike Shearer, denied responsibility.

“We can categorically state that we have not released Man-Eating Badgers into the area.”

However, members of Parliament have announced an official inquiry. In order to deflect attention from his upcoming suspension from Parliament, disgraced MP George Galloway declared that he will intervene on the badgers’ behalf.

“I pledge by the blood of the resistance that I will use the money that I received from Saddam’s oil-for-food program to build a rest home and amusement park for the badgers after they convert to Islam.”

The other prong of the operation entails a much riskier tactic that requires deep penetration into Iranian territory. In order to move much quicker, in lightening thrusts, the Coalition has opted for Attack Squirrels that move over vast amounts of land at a greater speed than Badgers.

Initial raids by Squirrel Scouts resulted in their capture by sharp-eyed border guards, but Iran is concerned that they have lost track of the main body of elusive rodents and expect attacks in their rear lines. To defend against such circumstances they have fortified their positions bringing up tanks and artillery.

The Iranian state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported:

“In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran’s borders. The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services.”

Experts agree that this military operation has unnecessarily raised tensions in the Persian Gulf. President Ahmadinejad made a historic speech to the Iranian people stating that all squirrels and badgers “will be wiped off the map”.

While this post is a bit outlandish it is still based on real news stories. If you don’t believe me then check the links for yourself. Even though the game is deadly serious you just have to laugh at the absolute wackiness of these accusations. Other insane conspiracy theories are not quite as funny, but just as crazy…

Iran’s Sahar 1 TV aired a hateful weekly series called “Zahra’s Blue Eyes”. The show accused Israel of stealing body parts of Palestinian children. It featured graphic scenes of Palestinian children whose eyes have been surgically removed and stolen by Israel.

Iran’s daily newspaper Jomhour-ye Islami blamed U.S. soldiers for stealing organs from Iraqis. It based its accusations on European ‘secret’ military reports. “The reports confirm the finding of tens of thousands of mutilated cadavers missing parts… These teams offer $40 for every usable kidney and $25 for an eye…”

Iran’s Mehr News Agency ran a story accusing Israel of inflicting cancer on the Arab world. It was titled, “Israel Exporting Carcinogenic Foodstuff to Arab States”. They stated, “The trend has led to an increase in leukemia and liver and stomach cancer in the Arab countries which have imported Israeli foodstuff”.

Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV broadcast a program claiming that Zionists were spreading diseases amongst Arabs. It stated that there were, “Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like AIDS through exports to Arab countries”.

Hat tips to Right Truth via Atlas Shrugs & Steven Stalinsky at JWR

A Squirrel Commando attacks an Iranian offshore oil facility on behalf of his Zionist masters (Photo by AP).

The Veto Rides Again!

2007-07-12T19:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday’s failure by Vermont Democratic Party lawmakers to override a veto by their Governor cast an ominous shadow over today’s Troop Withdrawal Vote in Washington D.C. The Vermont vote was an effort by majority Democrats to slap substantial taxes on their local utilities, but they faced stiff opposition from their fellow party members. Evidently 11 Democrats felt that the CO2 Scare was not worth risking the bill’s adverse effects on Vermont’s economy or angering their constituents with higher energy bills.

So the stage was set for today’s vote in D.C. where Democrats want to set a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq. The legislation was passed 223-201 in the House. This margin is nowhere near enough to override President Bush’s veto. Almost as importantly, the voting record has shown that the media’s focus on growing Republican opposition to President Bush was overblown. The Herald Tribune and Bloomberg both reported that only four Republicans backed the measure, three of whom co-sponsored the legislation to give it a false bi-partisan appearance. This is a common tactic which is used quite often by the Left.

Over the past week the press has been eagerly devoting massive amounts of coverage to the defection of a handful of Republicans who support a change in strategy in Iraq. The Democrats have eagerly helped promote these unbalanced news stories by getting those dissenting Republicans to co-sponsor the latest withdrawal bill.

Appearances are everything in these days of Al Qaeda and Baathist terrorism. The rhetoric is so high that the media ignores the fact that there is a bigger revolt in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. 10 Democrats voted against party lines and rejected the bill.

It just goes to show that it’s only a matter of what we focus on that decides popular opinion. If America united instead of fighting amongst ourselves the war would have been over already. Its not as if these years of divisive politics have occurred in a vacuum. Even the remotest corners of our planet have access to the worldwide media. Al Qaeda often cites current events like U.S. elections when releasing threatening videos and tape recordings. They know what John Kerry, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi say. It’s no secret!!! Jihadists around the world take heart from the political opportunism of the Democratic Party.

In this day and age its almost as if I cant accuse these “dissenters” of being unpatriotic because nothing short of waging civil war is considered unpatriotic. At least that means that our democracy is the strongest it has ever been. It’s amazing that we are so tolerant during wartime and I am encouraged by the greatness of our country. However, I still reserve the right to criticize these power hungry buffoons.

Year Round Patriotism

2007-07-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

I hope that everyone had a fantastic Independence Day. It would have been nice to have more time off from work to celebrate, but I have to take what I can get... So Happy 231st Birthday America!!!

Patriotism in the U.S.A.

A burning hatred for the Republican Party is a common theme that unites all of the many varieties of leftwing radicalism. Since the Republican Party emphasizes patriotism as one of its most coveted ideals, patriotism is quite often derided by the Left as “blind obedience”.

So when the Fourth of July comes around it is always time for some doublespeak about how patriotic the Left claims to be. In some cases they don’t even bother with such false pretenses and they openly find it distasteful to have to endure the popular expression of patriotism.

Such animosity leads to some wildly inaccurate evaluations of what American patriotism means. Take the Million Workers Rally speech by Dahlia Wasfi. She asserts that patriotism is “a thin veil for racism”. Only an outdated ideology of ignorance could say such a thing in the 21st Century. Ms. Wasfi even admits how uninformed her circle of close associates are by stating that, “Prior to August 2, 1990, when Saddam Hussein moved forces into Kuwait, few of my friends had ever even heard of the country Iraq.”

Fans of Where’s Waldo were disappointed with the release of “Where’s Waldo, the Million Workers Rally Edition”.

The salt on the wound is how these people pretend to support our troops. Wasfi goes on to say, “So should we support the troops? Yes, in the only way we can. Bring them home. Stop them from blowing up children. Stop them from shooting fleeing families. Stop them from murdering demonstrators practicing their freedom to assemble. Stop them from giving up their own lives in the name of Israel, oil, and powerbroker profit.”

Now if U.S. troops really practiced this scale of genocide why would anyone want to support them? Wasfi leaves no question that she believes these accusations so she is clearly lying when she says that she supports the troops. This style of Orwellian propaganda is not unique to isolated extremists like her. Rosie O’Donnell, the popular television host, recently became engaged in a controversy regarding a statement in which she argued that the U.S. is a state sponsor of terrorism.

“I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?”

To defend herself from the fallout that resulted Rosie claimed to “support our troops”, but at the same time she continued to accuse them of committing those 655,000 murders and insisted that our “enemy are innocent civilians”.

Rosie didn’t just pull that number out of the air, she got it from the Lancet Study. This report has the dubious distinction of being released the October before every major national election since 2004. It is the Left’s favorite reference source because its numbers are drastically exaggerated more than any other organization that compiles casualty statistics of Iraqi civilians. That includes, the Iraqi Body Count (IBC), the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health (the Brookings Institution relies on statistics from IBC and the UN). One thing that all of these organizations have in common is that their statistics compile the number of deaths from suicide bombings, criminal activity and sectarian violence from militias. So in other words, these are the statistics of murders committed by America’s enemies in Iraq. They get away with blaming these deaths on America because as an occupying power we are responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people, much like our government is responsible for the welfare of its own citizens.

It’s a rather shaky justification; but to say that every Iraqi civilian who lost their life in a car bombing by Al Qaeda, every Iraqi civilian victimized in a murder of passion and every Iraqi civilian executed by a sectarian militia … were all killed by the U.S. is 100% wrong. That’s like saying that the U.S. killed every American that lost their lives on September 11th.

…And here the circle is complete because Rosie also claims that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. She consistently blames the U.S. for terrorism and excuses the terrorists who commit those acts, a required character flaw for all leftwing activists. In her own words she said, “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” What could inspire such illogical ramblings? President Bush, V.P. Cheney and many of our troops in Iraq are parents too. Why doesn’t she make excuses for them?

Just because Rosie insists that she supports the troops and gets offended when her friends don’t believe her doesn’t mean that she really supports them. Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels once stated, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it will be accepted as truth”. Rosie is familiar with the techniques of executing this theory.

Last year a small group of self-righteous Leftists gathered together for the 2nd Annual Old Time American Flag Burn in Santa Cruz. I don’t know if they’ve held one this year because I haven’t heard a peep about it. I did a quick Google check to no avail.

So this group got together in order to “share” their personal beliefs about flag burning and oh yeah… burn some flags. I wonder about the emotional maturity of those that relish such activities. It is just a spiteful act with no real substance behind it, BUT “I Still Support the Resistance” (that’s for all you Rosie fans out there!).

Seriously, I am 100% against any legislation to ban the burning of American flags. As a matter of fact when I was a young punker in the eighties I burned some flags to protest because back then it was actually illegal. We won the battle, but some day you have to grow up. There’s nothing more pathetic than a former 60s radical that still goes around burning flags while claiming that his or her rights are being taken away. Especially when the best he or she can say is that President Bush is maneuvering to steal those rights and hasn’t actually taken any away yet. So basically it’s a game of fortune telling what could happen, but hasn’t despite six and a half years of alarmist predictions.

If you want to burn a flag go ahead, its no skin off my back. However, there are people that are offended by it and I think many leftwing activists are committing such acts just to hurt those who view the flag as a sacred object. That means that flag burning can be an act of hatred. It certainly is for Islamists in the Middle East who condone acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. I wouldn’t want to replicate the actions of people like that. Yet protestors have that freedom.

In this day and age the only acts of treason that the state finds worthy of suppressing are those in which dissidents attempt to take up arms against our country, directly assist those who commit violence or commit acts of vandalism. During WWI things were different. Anarchist activist Emma Goldman spent two years in jail just for giving public speeches against the draft. After she was released she was deported back to her native Russia. Jump to 2003 and a much-changed United States is the host to massive protest rallies against the liberation of Iraq. Meanwhile Saddam’s regime tolerates no dissent, but imports Western protestors to serve as human shields.

And guess what? I say this is good. We have a healthy democracy in the middle of a war. So how can protestors bellyache about their lack of freedom? If they want to know what real oppression is like they should take a look at Germany during WWII. The White Rose, a student protest group, peacefully opposed the Nazi regime’s war effort and six of their members were beheaded in 1943 for their activism. The crime which they were executed for was the distribution of leaflets.

That is real oppression, not the fantasies of a protest movement that thinks the opposition to Islamist and Baathist fascism is unjust. If you name all of the countries of the world that have tolerated massive protest movements and activism from prominent citizens during wartime you will only be able to compile a list of Western democratic countries. Looking back since WWI the United States has only become more liberal. Even if you don’t go back that far and look back to more recent events like the Vietnam War you will still find that our country has liberally progressed by great strides.

This Fourth of July we had good reason to celebrate the greatness of our country. We must remember that it is up to us, the citizens of this noble nation, to counter the lies of our political opponents. Communists and Anarchists have the freedom to speak out and even get rich from their activism. We actually pay them to insult us with their accusations of an oppressive government. Osama Bin Laden may take this as a sign of weakness, but he is wrong. He underestimates the strength of a democratic government that is not afraid of its own citizens. The supporters of our country may have had difficulty countering the message of our totalitarian opponents, but we should not be counted out yet.

We know that our soldiers fight not just with guns. They oppose the brutality of our enemy with humanitarian aid projects. Our country is not the bloodthirsty bogeyman that our enemies are. Time and the truth will show us to be right.

Our political opponents have no faith in our country. They harbor totalitarian attitudes that make them think that if their will is not fully embraced by the entire country then something is wrong with it. I leave you with the parting words of Cindy Sheehan, an activist that never appreciated our values and gave comfort to totalitarian regimes by visiting Cuba and Venezuela. From there she denounced our country’s human rights, but never spoke out against the massive attacks on civil liberties by her host countries.

“Good-bye America…you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.”

I love this country, but I am not so arrogant that I demand that the will of the majority must match my beliefs 100%, nor do I demand that our country must do exactly as I say before I give it my love. I believe in the greatness of our people and because of that I feel in my heart that we will prevail in this current conflict. Iraq will be free!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that it is easier to destroy than it is to create...

Zarqawi Revisited

2007-06-13T17:12:00.000-07:00

One year ago last week on June 7, 2006 the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. air strike. Unfortunately Al Qaeda didn’t have to scratch up a publicity campaign in order to perform damage control. No… they had the luxury of relying on Western Liberals to do it for them.

There was a flurry of articles stating that the insurgency would not suffer from this loss and some even claimed that the insurgency would actually be invigorated by the death of its most prominent figure. Such sentiment was echoed by political hacks like the culture critic at the Washington Post, Philip Kennicott. In addition to his optimism that the insurgency could benefit from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s “martyrdom”, Kennicott cried foul because he was worried that the death of Zarqawi was being politicized by our government. Yet Kennicott ignores his own politicization of the event. Furthermore, he doesn’t bother to consider that during times of war our government has the right to promote such victories in order to support our troops in the field … At least as much as he has a right to harangue his readers in an effort to undermine the hard work that our troops put into tracking down Zarqawi.

The government was only doing its job by congratulating our troops on a job well done. In times of war this is not unprecedented. Take for instance the Doolittle Raid which was conducted on April 18th, 1942 at the low point of the American war effort against the Japanese Empire. Shortly after this raid the fortress of Corregidor fell and the Japanese conquest of the Philippines was completed. Basically the raid was militarily insignificant because it failed to cause any lasting damage and was not immediately followed up by more air raids. However, it was a propaganda triumph since it marked the first time that the U.S. successfully bombed the Japanese home islands. Our government zealously used the raid to promote its efforts against our enemies and our current government could hardly be blamed for doing the same in the case of Zarqawi’s death. If any motives should be suspect it should be of those Americans who criticize the promotion of a military success that benefits our troops in Iraq and instead explores every possible avenue to spread propaganda against them.

I am not saying that the freedom of speech for such activists should be curtailed in any way. I am merely making the observation that their accusations should be put into proper context and I hope that my own freedom to criticize them in turn is respected as well. Freedom of Speech needs to be a two-way street.

An article in the NYC newspaper, The Indypendent, highlights the extremes that self-professed Advocacy Journalists or Alternative Journalists would go to spin Zarqawi’s death. One of The Indypendent’s writers by the name of A.K. Gupta declared, “…Bush Administration policies promoting sectarianism and death squads also ensure the fighting will continue…”

In a calculated gesture of misinformation Gupta breezes by Al Qaeda’s dependence on sectarian violence and blames President Bush for it. The real source of the current violence should not be glossed over so quickly. Zarqawi championed the complete elimination of the Shia. Two months before his death Zarqawi issued a recorded statement which dictated that, “The Muslims will have no victory or superiority over the aggressive infidels such as the Jews and the Christians until there is a total annihilation of those under them such as the apostate agents headed by the rafidha (Shiites)…” So Zarqawi actually viewed the Shia as a worse enemy than the United States!!! He was rather direct on this point, “The danger from the Shia… is greater and their damage is worse and more destructive to the (Islamic) nation than the Americans… we will hurt them, God willing, through martyrdom operations and car bombs.”

Zarqawi’s words were backed up by a campaign of mass murder that was orchestrated to spark all out war between the Sunnis and Shiites. In March 2004 he was responsible for attacks on Shia shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, which killed over 180 people. In December 2004 he masterminded car bomb attacks against Shiites in Najaf and Karbala, claiming over 60 lives. In addition to many other sectarian attacks he is also believed to be responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in early 2006, which finally succeeded in instigating all out sectarian warfare between the Sunni and Shia. After Zarqawi’s death Al Qaeda continued to use the same sectarian tactics. Just today the Golden Mosque was attacked once again. Sectarian warfare is clearly the policy of the Sunni insurgency and they benefit the most from the instability that it causes.

The Indypendent article was so biased that it actually echoed Al Qaeda propaganda by stating that Zarqawi’s death was a boon for his supporters. Gupta pronounced, “Not that everything is lost for Zarqawi’s followers. Now they have a new martyr to rally around.” It was a very similar tone to a statement published on an Al Qaeda website stating, “We announce the martyr death of our sheikh, fighter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (His death will) only reinforce our determination to pursue jihad so that the word of Allah gains the upper hand.” (Only the religious fervor is missing from the Indypendent’s article.)

Despite their cheerleading, the Indypendent is not consciously on Al Qaeda’s side. They just harbor a pathological aversion to President Bush. So they fail to ponder the fact that their staunch opposition to the U.S. –in combination with– their silence against the brutal methodology behind terrorism is as charitable as donating weapons or money to Al Qaeda. It’s actually worse because weapons and money are only the means by which Al Qaeda seeks to achieve its goal of generating such media stories. The success of their manipulation of the media only encourages more brutal attacks against innocent civilians because it makes such violence a much more valuable commodity.

These news stories are vital to terrorists because they cannot raise an army large enough to defeat an enemy like the United States. They can only hope to break the will of their opponent’s civilian population to support its war effort and shift the blame for their own violence to their enemies. Ever since World War I warring armies have gained a greater appreciation for the value of propaganda. No one understands this better than modern-day terrorists. They actually wage war with the intent of using it for propaganda and don’t use the traditional model of promoting propaganda to support their war effort.

Unfortunately the Indypendent willingly follows the path laid out for them since they actually train future generations of journalists to corrupt their writing. The newspaper holds weekend-long workshops on journalism that teaches its students to assume a one-sided bias in order to discredit the establishment that they hate so much (Al Qaeda is not a part of the establishment so they don’t warrant a second glance, unless it embarrasses the Bush Administration.)

In a discussion of these workshops they addressed their students’ concerns about objectivity in the media. While they make a good point that accuracy is one of the most important aspects of journalism, the workshop goes on to promote political activism as a higher virtue than objectivity. Editor John Tarleton stated, “…we shouldn’t forget that power tends to corrupt and that those who hold power and wealth will often abuse it while trying to conceal or spin their activities. What we’re striving to do is tell the story of the world around us from the bottom-up instead of with the usual top-down perspective of the giant media corporations.” Interesting enough, earlier in the linked article Tarleton had also cited ‘open-mindedness’ as another important aspect of journalism, but judging from the previous comment he has already made up his mind about what to write before starting any story. ‘Open-mindedness’ in this case is complete agreement with his activism against the alleged conspiracies of a conniving upper class.

The leading intellectual of this school of thought is Noam Chomsky. His idea of media bias was the accusation that the Cambodian dictatorship of Pol Pot was unfairly criticized due to the alleged anti-Communist sentiment of the media. The opposite was true. Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge because of his anti-American bias. Under Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge exterminated an estimated one to three million Cambodians. So in recent times it is not surprising that he is also a leading critic of the Iraqi reconstruction. He consistently takes the side of America’s enemies no matter how reprehensible they may be.

The prevalence of such a strong leftwing bias against the US government led to a hysterical reaction to Zarqawi’s death. Take Michael Berg for example. He is the father of Nicholas Berg, an American civilian who was believed to have been personally beheaded by Zarqawi. Although his son was killed by Al Qaeda, Michael Berg blamed President Bush for his son’s death.

Even before his son’s killer finally paid for his crimes Michael Berg displayed a bizarre sympathy towards Al Qaeda that was akin to something like Stockholm Syndrome. In the wake of his son’s death he said, “I am sure that he (Nicholas Berg) only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life. They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend.” Such cloudy reasoning could have been attributed to Michael Berg’s grief, but it is also consistent with his statements made years later after he had time to reflect.

During this time Michael Berg rarely condemned Zarqawi, instead he reserved almost all of his bitterness towards our President, who he insisted was as bad as or worse than Zarqawi. This was his reaction to Zarqawi’s death in an interview video taped by CNN’s Mary Snow;

“I think it is a tragedy when any human being dies, but Zarqawi’s doubly because Zarqawi, aside from being someone’s son who is now going to suffer what my family suffered, he is also a political figure. And he and George Bush are involved in this cycle of revenge and revenge begets revenge… I think that one is cowardly. The man in the oval office doesn’t look at his victims when he kills them…”

When challenged if he thought that the murder of his son by Zarqawi was a brave act Michael Berg responded, “No I’m not saying that Zarqawi committed a brave act, I abhor what he did, I’m just saying that he looked into Nick’s eyes when he killed him.”

Wow! ... There is a serious lack of context in Michael Berg’s reasoning here. Whether he intends to or not he gives credit to Zarqawi for not being a ‘coward’, as he accuses President Bush of. He also gives Zarqawi a small measure of legitimacy by saying that he was “a political figure”. Did Zarqawi run for election? How can a terrorist be elevated to an equal or even higher level than an elected official that is the legal representative of his people?

This derangement is the result of a propaganda echo chamber that elevates the hatred of our President into a fever pitch. Michael Berg tortures himself with his political activism and this is no way to mourn such a loss. The whole situation is actually a best case scenario for his son’s killers and it is no mystery as to why they chose the tactics that they do. For the most part, terrorism increases because these tactics are so effective against its target audience, Western Liberals. That’s why in victory or defeat Al Qaeda could count on their message to be echoed by Western Liberals and filtered out to the media.

Let’s take another look at Michael Berg’s reaction to Zarqawi’s death. He added, “…My feelings this morning are feelings of sorrow for the loss of yet another human being. I know he’s the one that is supposed to have killed my son, but I have learned to forgive a long time ago and I regret mostly that his death will bring about another wave of revenge from his cohorts in Al Qaeda.”

Why does Michael Berg continually forgive the terrorist who killed his son and yet refuse to forgive President Bush who did not commit the murder? Pacifism and loving forgiveness are some of the highest human traits that makes us a more advanced species than any other creature on this planet. However, there is no love in this forgiveness, only spite for President Bush. I understand that leftwing activists believe the President to be a “liar” and a “warmonger”, but is beheading an innocent civilian the measure of honesty or bravery? Zarqawi was a terrorist before Bush became president, why does he deserve forgiveness and Bush doesn’t?

Anyways, we’ve examined how the Washington Post, The Indypendent and Michael Berg have exhausted every argument to convince the public that Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t make a difference or could actually benefit Al Qaeda. … But is there any truth to these claims?

Iraq is certainly as violent as ever so in one crucial aspect it could be said that maybe they are right… However, there have been some dramatic developments over the year and the death of Zarqawi was an essential ingredient that enabled an important shift in the composition of the counterinsurgency.

Up until Zarqawi’s death the terrorist mastermind was consolidating the insurgency under his leadership. Even in the wake of his worst defeat, the Battle of Fallujah, two Iraqi insurgent groups joined forces with Zarqawi, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Islamic Army in Iraq. Through his adept hand at using the latest technology to promote his propaganda, his fearsome brutality, his ability to elude capture and the perception that he crafted of an effortless transfer of his terrorist operations to Ramadi - Zarqawi pervaded a superhuman aura that magnetized the insurgency around him.

A year before his death U.S. military intelligence revealed that Zarqawi commanded thousands of fighters from various rival groups and dominated the smaller resistance groups in the pivotal city of Ramadi. A resident of the city related the following; “His men announced through leaflets that all Shia should leave Ramadi or face ‘the iron fist’. At first local Sunnis didn’t want anything to do with it, but they know how powerful Zarqawi’s group is, that it doesn’t hesitate to kill and is not afraid to die. They control Ramadi now. They have the best weapons and the most money, and more and more men. They walk openly on the streets when the Americans aren’t around. So the Shias left, by their thousands.”

In order to counter Zarqawi’s hold on Ramadi American commanders held meetings with local Sheiks in November of 2005. Although the Sheiks were enthusiastic about American proposals for cooperation, Zarqawi squashed the potential alliance in a fit of violence.

However, in the aftermath of Zarqawi’s death Al Qaeda lost its momentum. There was a short spike in violence, but something was dramatically different. Al Qaeda in Iraq seemed directionless. A website frequently used by Islamic militants announced that a little known terrorist named Sheikh Abu Hamza al Muhajir was appointed as Zarqawi’s replacement. This led to a stir of confusion by terrorist experts. The U.S. military came to the conclusion that al Muhajir was actually an alias for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an experienced associate of Zarqawi who based his operations in Iraq even before the ouster of Saddam in 2003. Egyptian lawyer, Muntasir al-Zayyat, claims that the person identified as al-Masri is really a fellow Egyptian named Yusif al-Dardiri.

Whatever the identity of al Muhajir may be, Al Qaeda could not handle the disarray that they added to the mix when a video by a spokesman of its Islamic State of Iraq announced that al Muhajir was only the Minister of War in the “cabinet” of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Al-Masri then pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi in a muddy succession that failed to impress anyone. Clearly both parties are not as strong willed as Zarqawi and cannot live up to the legacy of their predecessor. This demonstrates that Al Qaeda in Iraq has lost much of its flair for propaganda. Most Americans don’t even know the name of any Al Qaeda operative in the country anymore. Despite claims that al-Masri was killed early this spring, the terrorist has failed to personally issue a message of denial. While it looks like the claim might have been false, it is telling that while Al Qaeda has denied his death they were only able to scrounge up an old audio tape of al-Masri which denies that there is infighting between the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, but doesn’t even mention claims of his death. It is an uncharacteristic for Al Qaeda to be so defensive and not to seize upon an opportunity to drum up some valuable press by releasing a mocking video or audio tape that the Western media would have fallen over themselves to cover. The authoritative guidance of Zarqawi is clearly missing and it shows. Iraqi Sunnis have taken notice.

[The announcement of Al Qaeda’s “Islamic State of Iraq” was a comically pathetic attempt to look sophisticated. Even the well funded terrorist organization could have afforded a lot more than just an empty desk and a flat screen monitor with speakers…]

Earlier I mentioned that Zarqawi had scored some successes in Ramadi. He kicked out a large portion of the Shiite population and dominated the local Iraqi police force. If it wasn’t for the presence of American troops he would have seized complete control over the city just like he did in Fallujah. However, since his death things have dramatically changed.

In response to Zarqawi’s brutal campaign in Ramadi U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland began to implement aggressive new tactics in the city. He started to establish combat outposts deep in Al Qaeda strongholds. These outposts were so strongly defended that Al Qaeda couldn’t remove them, putting a serious dent in their over-inflated reputation. The new stations enabled our troops to directly support our Sunni allies where they needed it. So when Al Qaeda’s attacks against these outposts failed they focused their attacks once again on pro-American Iraqis. In an attempt to replicate the decisiveness of Zarqawi’s thuggery his successors made a huge mistake by killing a Ramadi Sheik and not allowing the family to bury him for four days. This event was the catalyst of a sustained Sunni revolt against Al Qaeda. The formation of the Anbar Salvation Council went mostly unnoticed when it began operations against Al Qaeda only a few months after the death of Zarqawi (in September of 2006).

The organization is headquartered in Ramadi and was founded by a prominent Sunni Sheik, Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi. He was a former member of the secular neo-Baathist insurgent group Al-Awda and had actually been imprisoned several times by the Americans. The Anbar Salvation Council has since pushed Al Qaeda out of Ramadi and most of the Anbar province. To prevent Al Qaeda from re-entering the city Ramadi police have had to set up a screen of checkpoints on its outskirts because the terrorists have been retaliating by sending suicide bombers from their remaining pockets in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. In Western Ramadi U.S. troops haven’t experienced a single death in four months and have had only one serious injury during that time. Only the eastern portion of the city has a few insurgent holdouts.

By May of 2006 the whole city of Ramadi had 254 attacks total, but during the same months in 2007 there have only been 30 (and U.S. troops didn’t win control over the city until March). For all of 2006 only 1,000 Iraqis volunteered for the Iraqi Security Forces in the entire Anbar Province, however, since the beginning of 2007 over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered. These developments were significant because the 2004 U.S. victory in Fallujah created an exodus of fighters to Ramadi and the city became the new capital of the insurgency. The loss of another base of operations is a major blow to Al Qaeda.

The stakes are high so any American success story is guaranteed a chorus of naysayers. Last year Common Dreams featured an article about Ramadi that was originally published by the L.A. Times. They reported, “The death last week of Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi may have dealt a psychological blow to the Iraq insurgency, but it is not expected to dent the destabilizing power of anti-American guerrillas in Al Anbar.”

Such activists found the Holy Grail in a classified intelligence report entitled, “State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar”. It was partially leaked in late 2006. This was only a few months before the unraveling of Al Qaeda in the Anbar province and just in time for the November elections. Although the details of the report were not publicly revealed because the report was top secret, the media and “antiwar” movement seized upon it as evidence of the failure of American policy in Iraq.

Here is an excerpt of the report printed by the Washington Post; “Al-Qaeda itself, now an ‘integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq’, has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option ‘for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization’, the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June ‘had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda’, especially in Anbar province.”

Incredibly, an NBC News correspondent (Jim Miklaszewski) used the report to chase a reporter’s pipedream to be the first to announce a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (or at least a partial withdrawal). Miklaszewski creatively added his own interpretation of the situation by stating, “The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday there has been some military and economic progress in Anbar, but for the first time, it appears the U.S. military is preparing to concede a large piece of Iraq to the enemy and leave it entirely to the Iraqis to eventually sort it out.” If you look at the source of the quote you will see that it was made by Marine Major General Richard C. Zilmer, who was a regional commander in the province and not the top commander in Iraq as Miklaszewski erroneously states. It should also be pointed out that Zilmer never mentioned any preparation to evacuate his command so the second half of the sentence is a complete fabrication. As General Zilmer said earlier in the article, “Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation”. The NBC article shows that the general was being too generous in his assessment.

In the linked Washington Post article above there is also a video interview with Thomas Ricks, a reporter for the Post who sums up what he claims to be the Pentagon’s views on the state of Iraq. Basically his news brief is on par with what you would expect from a junior high school social studies report. I would be extremely disturbed if Ricks did not misrepresent the Pentagon by either quoting those that are not in a position to represent the agency or if he merely used his own artistic license to craft their words into his own. I can grudgingly live with activist journalists, but our military leaders should be free from this kind of political maneuvering.

When asked if the Pentagon agrees with President Bush’s assessment that Al Qaeda has fomented the sectarian violence in Iraq through their brutal attacks against the Shiites, Ricks goes off the board. He concludes that, “the Pentagon analysis definitely says that the roadside bombs which are the main killer of American troops are not an Al Qaeda operation and tend to be Iraqi insurgents”. What the hell does roadside bombs that target Americans have to do with sectarian violence in Iraq? This is clearly an argument built upon political activism. If we were talking about sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims then Ricks (or whoever he is quoting, if he didn’t take their stance out of context) would at least have some evidence that is almost relevant to justify such a stance. The reality is that insurgent IED Attacks on American troops do not contribute in any appreciable manner to the sectarian violence that is plaguing the Sunnis and Shiites. This is just shoddy reporting.

The news brief just gets worse from here. Ricks is then asked if the Pentagon has a strategy for dealing with the problematic Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. So he launches into a rant about how powerful the Pentagon believes that Al-Sadr is becoming. Ricks went as far as to say that, “He (Al-Sadr) now has an armed force of between 40 to 60,000 which makes him probably a much more effective military force than the Iraqi government itself...”

In times of war most intelligent military leaders typically attempt to intimidate their enemies and motivate their support base by exaggerating the capabilities of their forces. In modern times America’s enemies are relieved of such pursuits because the American media will invariably engage in such propaganda on their behalf.

At the time of Rick’s report there were about 319,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces (now there are about 350,000). While the quality of these recruits can legitimately be challenged, the performance of Al Sadr’s militia has proven them to be of the lowest quality. The Mahdi Army draws its recruits from Iraq’s poorest slums and in many cases their militia members have been sent into battle barefooted and under equipped. Most importantly they have failed in every major military objective. Al Sadr’s militia has only been able to score any success when they have significantly outnumbered their enemies. In any case, having almost 300,000 less fighters than the government hardly gives the militia military superiority over the Iraqi government. (Which is also allied to the powerful Coalition forces. That’s another 100,000+ troops with heavy armor and airpower.) This analysis reeks of the biased ignorance that could be expected from a journalist with an agenda. Actually I can’t see how such an incorrect evaluation could be labeled as an analysis. It is clearly nothing but propaganda.

Anyways, the NBC reporter that was interviewing Ricks had to interrupt him because he was not addressing the question. So he rephrased it by saying, “Its one thing for the Pentagon to have an assessment about the capability of Muqtada al-Sadr, but do they have a plan for dealing with it?” You just have to watch the video to believe Ricks’ answer.

He said;

“I don’t think that they really do. Their plan is… the political people should come up with a political compromise that takes care of Muqtada al-Sadr. But I think there’s kind of a despair of that they don’t see that happening and so I was really surprised when I was doing this interview at the Pentagon that what was said was WE PROBABLY SHOULD ABANDON THE POLICY OF RECONCILIATION, of trying to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to sit down together and really throw in our lot with the Shiites and the feeling was that’s the way we might diffuse Muqtada al-Sadr and make him more of a political act and less than a military one.”

Ricks claimed that this statement came from a top Pentagon official. He continued by saying this official insisted that, “We tried reconciliation now for several years, it hasn’t worked, we should tell the Shiites OK you have the country you’re in control. He said yes, the Sunnis will probably walk out at that point and we are going to have to pay that price and just say OK it didn’t work. The Shiites are now in control of this country and then he said double the size of the Iraqi army and police and hire every Shiite you can find and create a Shiite Kurdish military. He said this is a prospect the Sunnis aren’t going to like, but this is a situation the Sunnis have now created.”

I would love to know who this mysterious top Pentagon official is. When such buffoons look at Iraq they don’t see anything except President Bush. As a high ranking defense official this person has access to more detailed data on Iraq than anyone else on the planet, yet he or she has lost the ability to interpret this information rationally (if this person actually exists).

The biggest problem the U.S. has had in the Sunni provinces of Iraq is the extreme difficulty to set up effective police forces. In areas with active insurgents Sunnis are reluctant to volunteer so Shiites and Kurds fill in. As outsiders they are resented by the local population and they are not familiar with the people or territory they patrol. To add to the mix, Shiite policemen have been accused of sectarian violence against Sunnis. The premise that the complete subjugation of the Sunni is the only way to subdue the insurgency is laughable. This short-sided fix is a recipe for a permanent insurgency with no hope for reconciliation. Well… it’s actually against reconciliation! This is typical of the wisdom of those who think they have a better plan.

While Ricks is cautious and claims that he is only the messenger, I have seen him use this ploy before. He clearly sees this as a more desirable strategy than reconciliation because he said, “I think they’re both (the Pentagon and the ISG) looking at that kind of radical changes in our posture in Iraq to try to do one last best chance at getting this right”. As he finishes that sentence the screen ominously flashes a text message saying that, “Sunnis Comprise the Overwhelming Majority of the Muslim World”. Due to the fact that the ISG Report or any Pentagon Report that I’ve seen hasn’t released such a drastic recommendation like the scenario Ricks produced I am all the more curious about Ricks’ unidentified source.

Such activist journalism has ensured that the legacy of Zarqawi’s death is not fully appreciated by the general public. I do not make this point to prove that the U.S. has won the war, but that the death of Zarqawi was a legitimate U.S. victory.

This must be pointed out because there is an established pattern here. Every notable U.S. victory like the referendum on a new Iraqi Constitution, the election of Iraq’s first truly democratic government, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi and military successes like Fallujah, Najaf and Ramadi are all undermined as much as possible. This is not only true about radical activists and the Democrats, but in the media as well.

On the flipside U.S. setbacks are exaggerated through fabrications and misinformation. Data is continually held out of context. Body counts are repeated over and over and artificial milestones are proclaimed as much as possible. Yet figures like these are virtually ignored…

Pentagon Press Brief May 31, 2007

(Operational Results in Iraq since January 15th, 2007)

29 Car/Truck bomb factories neutralized

6 IED Cells dismantled

17,946 Detained

3,184 Enemy killed (A figure that is higher than the total number of U.S. military personnel Killed in Action since March 2003. As of June 8, 2007 the total of U.S. soldiers KIA was at 2,864. The other 627 died of other causes.)

Over 1,700 High Value Targets (291 killed, 1,499 detained)

2,493 Caches found and cleared

The naysayers said that nothing good would come from Zarqawi’s death, but back in Ramadi Colonel Sean MacFarland knew otherwise. He said that, “When a tribe ‘flipped’, attacks on U.S. soldiers and Marines in that area dropped to zero almost immediately”. This was not possible when Zarqawi was alive.

Under Zarqawi’s Mujahideen Shura Council the Anbar Province was dominated by Al Qaeda. With his death their aura of invincibility was cracked and the tribes rebelled. The Abu Risha tribe was the first to reject Al Qaeda’s self proclaimed sovereignty over its self declared Islamic State. The resentment of these foreigners declaring their own country in Iraq was enough to jump start the dissent. Al Qaeda’s harsh reaction to this dissent led to outright warfare not only with the tribes, but with Sunni insurgent groups as well.

A slow trickle of infighting has led to full scale war. Sunni insurgent groups like Jaysh Mohammed, 1920 Revolution Brigade, Iraqi Armed Forces, The Al-Awda Party and The Islamic Army have turned against Al Qaeda in bitter fighting (a truce between The Islamic Army and Al Qaeda was recently declared, but it is unclear if it is holding.). Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, tried his hand at getting Sunni insurgent groups to cooperate against Al Qaeda last year, but had no success. We have finally been able to win some cooperation now that Zarqawi is gone. Without his leadership Al Qaeda has made some major mistakes like the declaration of its own state and its inability to continue their brutal treatment of civilians, just as Zarqawi was able to do, without completely alienating a large block of their Sunni supporters.

Not long ago it was unthinkable to imagine Sunni insurgents joining forces with U.S. soldiers. Yet they have banding together to wrestle control of the Sunni neighborhood of Amiriyah in Baghdad. Fighters from the 1920 Revolution Brigade and the Islamic Army in Iraq have waged all out warfare against Al Qaeda. They are being supplied by the Americans and are actually patrolling side by side with them as well. Even just as important was the fact that at least two Imams who were previously against the American presence in Iraq have agreed to cooperate with U.S. forces. Such clerics are crucial for winning local support of the population and chipping away at the terrorists’ support base.

It has been called by some a bargain with the devil or a gamble that could backfire. I have even heard some say that the U.S. is just creating new militias when that is the last thing we need. However, if these ‘militiamen’ are currently organized into insurgent groups that kill Americans, isn’t it better to turn them into pro-American militias instead?

Throughout this post I have torn into the press coverage of Iraq, but I must admit that we need the media. It is a complex situation. On one hand their inaccuracies and biased reporting must be addressed. Then again it is a mistake to needlessly alienate the press. That’s why the use of the terms like MSM and Old Media has always disturbed me. Not that it is morally wrong or anything of the sort. It’s just that I feel that if you denounce the press you should use specific examples of why you feel that way. Showing such hostility doesn’t do any good since we can’t compete with the sensational headlines that Al Qaeda’s brutal terrorism creates.

Civilization could fall before such tactics unless we can win the battle of perception. We need to check our own perceptions first…

There are some who say that there are no moderate Muslims in these days of Jihad. They should look to President Bush’s trip to Albania. He went there looking for Muslim allies and got mobbed by adoring crowds. When the President called for the independence of Kosovo he got out the message that America is not against Muslims.

In Iraq our policy of reconciliation is finally showing some signs of success. The secular nature of their society is rejecting Al Qaeda’s fundamentalism. Christian America needs to embrace the idea of working with Muslim Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, Turkmen and the neighboring Kuwaitis… If a working relationship is not nurtured with them then it will spell disaster for all of us.

The Traitor Who Would Be King

2007-04-17T02:23:00.000-07:00

Why aren’t the Shiite provinces in Iraq enjoying a similar prosperity as the Kurds in the north? The answer is simple, there is no insurgency in Iraqi Kurdistan. The stability of these provinces has led to a huge economic boom for the Kurds.

In an interview with 60 Minutes U.S. Major General Benjamin Mixon, the Commanding Officer for Northern Iraq and Kurdistan said, “If the Iraqis simply would look north and see what the possibilities are and they do not align themselves with the extremists they could see the great potential that this country has to be a prosperous nation.”

The Shiites suffered under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship almost as much as the Kurds did. They are the largest religious denomination in Iraq and have the largest oil reserves as well. So the Shiites had the most to gain from the fall of the Sunni regime.

Under these circumstances the Shiites have strongly pushed for the same autonomy that Kurdistan enjoys, but have not been able to reap the same rewards. Instead the southern provinces on the Iranian border have been plagued with instability. The source of which comes from Iran.

Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran also has a proxy army in Iraq. Due to the strong anti-Western stance of Iraqi cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, his Mahdi Army has received significant Iranian backing. In April of 2004 an Iranian intelligence agent who defected to England, Haj Sa’idi, revealed that the Mahdi Army received extensive training from Iran.

The Middle East Media Research Institute cited an article in which Sa’idi “estimated that about 800 - 1,200 young supporters of Al-Sadr have received military training including guerilla warfare, the production of bombs and explosives, the use of small arms, reconnoitering and espionage. The three camps were located in Qasr Shireen, ‘Ilam, and Hamid, bordering southern Iraq which is inhabited largely by Shi’a Muslims.”

Sa’idi also estimated that the financial support to Al-Sadr in the months leading up to the press release exceeded $80 million, in addition to the cost of training, equipment and clothing for the Mahdi Army.

His lust for power and the corruption of Iranian influence led Muqtada al-Sadr to betray his country. It is clear from America’s benevolent stance towards Kurdistan and the Shiite provinces where Al-Sadr has little influence, that all of the Iraqi Shiite provinces could have benefited from the U.S. financed reconstruction effort (and still can).

Al-Sadr took the Shiite majority provinces down a dark path that they didn’t need to follow. He started his aggression almost immediately after the fall of the Baathist regime. In April of 2003 pro-American Shiite cleric Majeed Al-Khoei was murdered by a mob and an arrest warrant was issued connecting Al-Sadr to the murder (the warrant was later dropped in exchange for Al-Sadr’s withdrawal from the city of Najaf).

After the Al-Khoei murder the Sadrists launched a sustained campaign to seize power from their fellow Shia through the use of force. The house of the highest ranking Shiite cleric in Iraq, the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani, was surrounded by Al-Sadr’s henchmen. They demanded that he leave the country within 48 hours or they would resort to violence. This was a particularly brazen act because Al-Sadr is only a midlevel cleric with little formal religious standing to interpret the Koran. He has to rely on a cleric living in Iran for religious authority (Ayatollah Kazem Al-Haeri). Luckily Al-Sistani was rescued by loyal tribesmen, but that was not the end of Al-Sadr’s attacks on his fellow Shiites.

The crisis deepened when he attempted to seize holy sites controlled by Al-Sistani in Karbala. Al-Sadr was decisively repulsed by the combination of U.S. firepower and the peaceful protests of the Grand Ayatollah’s supporters. Despite this defeat a couple of months later Al-Sadr attempted a more ambitious military assault to seize the seat of Shia religious authority in Najaf as well as other strategic cities. This was done while the Grand Ayatollah was out of the country for medical treatment. The attempt failed miserably and the Mahdi Army was forced to retreat back to Sadr City.

Since Iran shares a border with Iraq, the Iranians haven’t been content to sit back and let their proxy army do all of their dirty work. If you can connect the dots then the current events in Iraq can give you a hot flash of deja vu. Last year Hezbollah violated the borders of Israel to seize two hostages. Iran followed suit a couple of weeks ago with a similar operation. Iraqi waters were violated and 15 British sailors were seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The similarities between the tactics of these two kidnapping assaults are too close to dismiss.

There are many other similarities between Iranian adventurism in Lebanon and Iraq.

– In Lebanon Hezbollah has held protests to promote the goals of its masters and in Iraq similar protests by Al-Sadr’s supporters were attempted last week, but failed to rally a sizable amount of protesters like the Beirut demonstrations.

– In Lebanon a bombing campaign is being conducted to destabilize the country and Iran’s closest ally, Syria, has been implicated in the UN’s investigation of these attacks. Iran and Syria have worked together in the past to train and equip its Lebanese proxies to conduct bombing campaigns. The most notable was the 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. In Iraq there is another bombing campaign that is also supplied and trained by Iran.

As I mentioned earlier Iran is providing Shiite militias with funding, weapons, ammunition and training. Even more disturbing is the fact that Iran is giving aid to Sunni insurgents who are killing Shiite civilians. The betrayal of their fellow Shia is a horrible example of how far the Iranian Mullahs would go to achieve their selfish goals.

The capture of two very high ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the al-Quds Brigade has also highlighted the seriousness of the situation. The Brigade is responsible for arming, training and funding militant movements across the Middle East. In a separate raid five other Iranian intelligence agents were captured in the effort to break up these Iranian networks that are supporting the insurgency. Iran is committing considerable resources into destabilizing its neighbor.

With the current U.S. troop surge gaining strength circumstances have changed. Al-Sadr has gone underground and the U.S. believes that he is hiding in Iran. In response his supporters have shown that they are paying attention to current events in Washington D.C.

Taking their cue from the Democratic Party, Sadr’s supporters demanded that the Iraqi government issue a deadline for a U.S. withdrawal. Sadr is always seeking to land a decisive blow by coordinating his actions to coincide with attacks by others. In 2004 he launched his assault on Najaf at the same time that U.S. troops were engaging insurgents in Fallujah, giving the appearance of a coordinated campaign (and to a certain limited extent it was). That gamble failed and it looks like he has overextended himself once again.

Sadr loyalists warned that if a deadline for a U.S. withdrawal was not set they would quit the government. Prime Minister Al-Maliki did not budge so they followed through with their threat.

It now turns out that the Sadrist Movement is not as critical to the Prime Minister’s government as analysts have been predicting for some time. Al-Maliki responded by thanking Al-Sadr for instructing his ministers to resign so that competent independents could be appointed in their place. In one blow Sadr has lost six ministries. Agriculture, Education, Health, Transport and Tourism/Antiquities.

Analysts are warning that this could mean that Al-Sadr is planning to resume full hostilities. With the U.S. troop surge ramping up, the Iraqi security forces at their highest strength ever and no major campaigns like Fallujah as a distraction – such a move by Al-Sadr would not be wise.

There has also been a mood change in the Iraqi Prime Minister. Early in his term he held back both the U.S. and Al-Sadr from escalating tension with each other. Both sides were equally frustrated by this behavior, but there is a noticeable difference between the two. Al-Sadr continued his transgressions, while the U.S. reluctantly held back as Al-Maliki asked. Our government has proven to be a more reliable partner and the recent revelations of Iranian subterfuge has no doubt disturbed the Iraqi government.

Al-Maliki has been silently defying the Iranian government. In the months before Iran set off a huge crisis by seizing 15 British hostages the Iranians had been demanding that Al-Maliki end the UN maritime-inspection mission that was being conducted by those sailors. He refused and Iran took those hostages. It was a serious escalation that Maliki and the Coalition patiently weathered, but did not give in to Iran’s crude shakedown attempt.

To secure their borders the Iraqi government has re-imposed visas for Iranians in direct response to the infiltration of Iranian agents who have hidden among the thousands of pilgrims that travel to Iraq every day. This was sure to ruffle some feathers in Tehran.

Most importantly Al-Maliki approved the seizure of Iranian agents by U.S. forces and allowed the U.S. to clamp down on the Shiite militias.

So the Prime Minister and his government have shown their independence from Iran and the Shiite militias. If Al-Sadr wants to escalate the crisis he may find himself up against an Iraqi government that is finally tired of his brinksmanship once and for all.

Back in 2004 when the U.S. first wanted to retake the city of Fallujah the Iraqi Governing Council demanded that the U.S. halt the operation. Months later as nationwide elections approached the Council changed its mind because they realized the urgent need to secure the city for the elections. It appears that the new Iraqi government is turning a similar corner in regards to the Sadrists.

The elimination of Al-Sadr could be the answer that everyone is looking for. It will get rid of a constant irritant that has shown aggression towards every major player that he has come into contact with. That includes the U.S., fellow Shiites, the Iraqi government and the Sunni. Al-Sadr’s demise would be warmly welcomed by the Sunnis who feel that the Iraqi government is too biased in favor of the Shiites, but Al-Sadr’s fellow Shia wont miss him either.

Everybody in Iraq has something to gain from Al-Sadr’s defeat!!!

The Long Bloody Road

2007-04-04T19:39:00.000-07:00

“The Road to Damascus is a road of peace.”

Nancy Pelosi - April 2007

This is Getting Too Easy

2007-04-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

Photo Opportunity of the Year

With President Bush fighting to fund our troops who are engaged in a combat and impeded by a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party - it wasn’t a good idea for the House Speaker to have this picture taken during her visit to Syria today.

Meanwhile the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has already threatened to cut off funding to our troops that are currently in combat. It is bad enough to play politics with our war effort, but to go against the wishes of the President and visit the capitol of a belligerent country like Syria is bizarre.

So what would possess an intelligent politician to pose for a photo-op like the picture above? We are in the middle of a war in which our enemies use the Islamic religion as a weapon and the Democratic Party is being accused of not being patriotic. Yet Pelosi poses with a scarf worn in modest Islamic fashion in the capitol of a regime that is hostile to the United States and has been accused of aiding our enemies.

Pelosi has been so swept up with the Democratic Party’s recent electoral victory that she has lost her common sense. Our new Prime Minister thinks that she will come back with Peace in Our Time!!!!!!!!!!

Link to Amboy Times Post

Link to TJs Anti-Contrarian Post

Link to Crank Files Post

Link to Its Curtains for You Post

Link to Mikes America Post

Head in the Sand Syndrome

2007-03-29T16:55:00.000-07:00

The Democrats have to completely destroy Iraq before the 2008 elections.

It will help their election effort and in the wake of a withdrawal they can blame the fall of the Iraqi government on a Republican president.

Otherwise, if we keep our troops in Iraq and the Iraqi government continues to grow stronger, their window of opportunity will close. Think about it. If they win the 2008 election, a president from the Democratic Party will face intensive pressure from his or her constituents to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Such a president will be forced to comply and pay dearly for it.

With control over Congress and the presidency - the Baathist triumph which would result from the withdrawal that they propose will be rightfully blamed on the Democratic Party. From their point of view they cant take any chances and must force a withdrawal during the Bush Administration.

THAT IS THE REAL REASON BEHIND THE URGENCY TO SET A DEADLINE in 2008.

The Democrats dont have a real plan for Iraq because they only want to destroy the Iraqi government. Beyond that they have no concrete plan for the future. That is why they spend as little time as possible speaking about a post-U.S. Iraq. With the fall of Iraq they would have already gotten what they wanted and would have to wait and see where the pieces fall in order to formulate future strategy.

Ask your Democratic Party representative what his or her plan is for Iraq after a withdrawal.

Dont be fooled, the Democrats are absolutely desperate...

Exclusive Saddam Interview

2007-03-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers,

In the most sensational interview of the year, I had the opportunity to speak with Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq. This coup was made possible by his attendance at a local “antiwar” rally in San Diego, California on March 17th. I couldn’t believe my luck when Saddam agreed to the interview. Since I was completely unprepared I had to dash over to Office Depot and purchase a digital voice recorder for the occasion.

You would think that being executed and sentenced to eternal damnation would bring him down, but Saddam was very upbeat during the interview. He actually appeared to be just a bit giggly after sharing a joint with some protesters. However, the seriousness of his situation should have overpowered the intoxicating effects of the drug. Instead he presided over the protest like a ringmaster without a care in the world. It was an awe inspiring moment.

FN: Saddam Hussein thank you for agreeing to this interview. It’s been a long time since your last media appearance so I am honored that you chose Freedom Now for this exclusive. What brings you to this protest today?

SH: It’s good to be here with my loyal minions. I came here today to meet my good friend Ramsey Clark and all of my friends at the National Lawyers Guild. They have worked tirelessly on my behalf and now they are holding this protest in order to free all political prisoners that are currently being held captive in hell. Bless their bleeding hearts!

FN: Last I heard you were hanged by the neck until dead and condemned to eternal damnation. How did you get out of hell?

SH: My dark master Lucifer let me out on a special furlough to recruit more souls. I had to deal with a lot of bureaucracy and paper work to get out just for one day, but there are many souls to harvest here.

FN: Saddam these are peace loving hippies that you are talking about. Why would they be damned to hell?

SH: Oh no, you don’t understand. They can all go to hell.

Our entire middle management in the underworld is comprised of liberals and socialists. Many people are under the old misconception that physical torture is used as punishment in hell, but it hasn’t been this way in over a hundred years. No, we torture the damned through litigation and bureaucracy.

Lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU have taken over the reigns of the Ministry of Torture to increase the suffering of hell’s inmates. In addition we have recently built the Lynne Stewart University of Malpractice which will be the cornerstone of Satan’s program to produce a ratio of five lawyers for each condemned soul.

FN: That’s terrible! But I think physical torture would still be worse.

SH: Don’t doubt the diabolical schemes of our infernal master. In hell there are no double jeopardy rules and you are forced to appeal every court case or lawsuit. Litigation never ends. There are cases that have lasted for over a hundred years. The only way to raise your status as a demon and protect yourself from frivolous litigation is to recruit legions of lawyers. I was lucky enough to have the support of all of them.

Over-regulation and excessive-taxation are also instruments of torture. Pesticides and GM foods are banned, while excessive tariffs and subsidies kill free trade. This means that our third world inmates suffer from massive amounts of starvation. In hell you can starve, but you can’t die!

Our Dark Lord is a genius. As the dictator of Iraq I never thought of such a diabolical scheme. Lord Satan had me recruit activists from Greenpeace and the Earth Liberation Front to run the Ministry of Starvation and they have made impressive gains to increase the suffering, while lowering carbon emissions by .001%.

FN: I see what you mean. That is particularly disturbing. Do you think that you will have any luck recruiting “peace” activists today?

SH: Oh I already have. These people have served me faithfully as human shields and have even represented me in court. Whenever I have needed them they have protested on my behalf because they love me. Today I have been handing out my delicious Yellowcake Cupcakes made with a special uranium recipe that I got from Niger. So you can see that I have them eating out of my hands.

Not only do protesters like anti-American dictators, but they love their recipes too.

FN: Many people at this protest believe that the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. What are your thoughts about this?

SH: I absolutely agree. The illegal invasion and occupation over my beloved Iraq should be reversed so my loyal Baath Party members can seize control. Then President Bush needs to be impeached and sent to hell in my place.

You Americans missed a good chance for peace and to set me free when you failed to elect John Kerry. Now it is necessary to let the bloody purges begin.

FN: It turns out that John Kerry is washed up these days. Since he pretty much dedicated his rhetoric to undermining the U.S. presence in Iraq, he almost brought down the United States with him. Do you think that he helped your cause?

SH: Kerry is a great American patriot so I took the example of Communist Vietnam and honored him. After Kerry helped the Communists seize South Vietnam they placed a picture of him in a museum for anti-war protesters in Ho Chi Min City. So when my master promoted me to Lucifer’s Minion First Class I began construction on my own museum to honor those antiwar protesters that have supported me so faithfully. I had it painted pink and hired Che Guevara as my curator. Please visit when you are in town. It’s hard to miss because it is right next to Disney’s Lake of Fire Amusement Park.

FN: Over the years you issued several orders to hunt down and kill American civilians, but now you are honoring them. Do you regret issuing such statements?

SH: There is nothing that I could say or do that would cause the antiwar movement to dump me. President Bush is our common enemy so I could run free and kill anyone that I want, but your protesters would still support me. When my insurgents kill women and children do these protesters blame me? No they blame Bush. Your people do not hate me, they hate Bush. I came so close to defeating America and that’s why the CIA killed me.

FN: Saddam - You invaded Kuwait, your troops got routed, your government fell and you were captured and executed… Do you think that you made a bigger mistake than President Bush?

SH: Bush should have minded his own business because now he will have to answer to the anger of the American people who rally behind my sovereign nation. Don’t forget that even though I am dead, I am still the President of Iraq!!!

Even in death I was made to be a martyr by my supporters here in the United States. My Baathist legions and the Democratic Party stand united to end the unjust American occupation. All the bombs and RPGs in the world cannot stop the American military, but we don’t need to… you can defeat yourself. Ha haa haaaaa haaaaa.

FN: President Hussein we have run out of time, but I’d like to say that you strike me as a thoughtful and sensitive leader and I am sure that we will get you out of prison. Please have faith in the American people.

SH: I do have faith, but you should forget all about the people that I killed and the people that I was going to kill. It’s all about Bush, blame him for my violence! Remember that the only path to get elected to public office in the United States is through support for my cause. Just leave the Iraqi people alone so that my henchmen can kill them quietly. Thank you for this wonderful protest.

Saddam Interview.m...

A special audio excerpt of the interview with Saddam is included here, followed by an official press release by the demon Belial, Hell’s Minister of Information.

Weekend Protests in San Diego

2007-03-19T05:38:00.000-07:00

This weekend marked the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. Leftwing protesters were particularly angry at the lack of progress in their efforts to hand over that country to the Baathist Party and Al Qaeda. In downtown San Diego they held a rally with hundreds of protesters and only about a dozen Protest Warriors came to oppose them. We didn’t know it at the time, but in Washington DC our Gathering of Eagles counter-protest was faring much better than we were doing here in San Diego. The moonbats seriously miscalculated by holding their protest at the Veterans Memorial in DC. Thousands of patriots were inspired to protect the monument from being hijacked by these protesters, the majority of whom smear our veterans that have served in Iraq.

We would have been encouraged to know about what was happening in DC, but it didn’t matter because our spirits were really high due to our sense of humor and the inspiration that comes from the ignorance of many of our opponents. We had a small contingent of Marines that joined us and it is ironic that after serving multiple tours in Iraq they now found themselves under attack by American insurgents. Yet they seemed to love the attention. We wound up being the last people to leave the rally site just so we could hang out and socialize for awhile. It was great fun.

The only differences between last year and this year’s protest is that the rally was held in a new location and there were fewer protesters this time around. Otherwise, it was the same old thing. As a matter of fact this demonstration seemed to be stuck in 2004. For some reason they set up a voter registration booth and handed out John Kerry for President bumper stickers. Perhaps they thought that it was better than being stuck in the sixties.

As always the protest was a great opportunity to recruit new members for the International Socialist Organization and make some money selling trashy books. “Peace” protesters have become adept at showcasing “antiwar” veterans and their relatives in order to hide the fact that it is leftwing radicals who really drive the movement.

In spite of the fact that the keffiyeh scarf is an icon of Palestinian terrorism, it has become the most favored fashion accessory for those protesting against “terrorism” by the U.S. government. I was a bit disappointed that this year there was no booth set up exclusively to sell terrorist scarves like there was last time.

At least there was plenty of beautifully packaged Communist propaganda for our consumption. If you need books on Marxist ideology, fragging U.S. soldiers or stories of rabble rousers looking to cash in on their activism - it was all for sale here at the ISO booth. Those Communists sure are aggressive entrepreneurs. (If you don’t know what fragging is, its the act of a soldier killing one of his fellow soldiers on the battlefield. That’s how some “peace” activists believe we should support our troops. )

For those of you who really like the truth and I mean really, really like the truth - you will be glad to know that the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth were on hand to expose the government’s lies about those attacks. There are millions of conspirators that are keeping silent in order to protect President Bush and this plot seems to get more and more insidious as 9/11 fades into memory. The 911 Truth Movement was actually inspired by the research of Dr. Albert Hofmann, the creator of LSD.

In 1943 he conducted research on himself to test the drug’s hallucinogenic properties. He stated;

“Everything in the room spun around, and the familiar objects and pieces of furniture assumed grotesque, threatening forms. They were in continuous motion, animated, as if driven by an inner restlessness.

The lady next door, whom I scarcely recognized, brought me milk in the course of the evening and I drank more than two liters. She was no longer Mrs. R., but rather a malevolent, insidious witch with a colored mask. Even worse than the demonic transformations of the outer world, were the alterations that I perceived in myself, in my inner being. Every exertion of my will, every attempt to put an end to the disintegration of the outer world and the dissolution of my ego, seemed to be wasted effort.

A demon had invaded me, had taken possession of my body, mind, and soul. I jumped up and screamed, trying to free myself from him, but then sank down again and lay helpless on the sofa.”

Hofmann’s LSD experience is recreated every time someone visits a display booth set up by the Truthers at an “anti-war” protest. Such mass hysteria is well suited for the “peace” movement. On their website there is a quote from an anonymous 9/11 Truth member that really sums things up, “The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth.” …After .25 mg of lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate it’s no small wonder why this activist can’t grasp the truth.

As you can imagine there were quite a few speakers at the event who bashed the U.S. at every opportunity. In comparison the Baathists and Al Qaeda were barely mentioned and you could have forgotten that they even existed.

In addition to the speakers there were entertainers as well and I was amused by a particularly energetic duo that performed some rap poetry in the vein of Gil Scott Heron or the Last Poets. They dished out some hardcore paranoia at a pace that was too rapid for me to jot down on paper. My attempt to keep up with their tourettes session led me to regret not bringing a voice recorder and finally give up transcribing their words.

I only caught pieces of what was said, but if I transcribe all of it into one poem it makes about as much sense as their fully composed pieces…

Revolution is the solution.
Revolution is the solution.
For this fucked up system

We are stuck in the barrios
They feed us chemicals to our brains

We are the seeds of resistance
AmeriKKKa, AmeriKKKa

A common theme at this event was that our liberties are being stolen and our government is led by a fascist dictatorship. When I challenged a protester who expressed these views he just walked away. The man couldn’t be bothered to describe how the Bush Administration is taking away our rights.

Typically, a repressive regime bans the freedom of expression that ironically these protesters have been exercising.

A fascist dictatorship allows no other political parties except for its own. However, in November of 2006 the Democratic Party won a majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. There weren’t any notable accusations of a stolen election because conservatives are all grown up now.

Speaking of which, I have some pictures of Protest Warriors that were present at the protest to counter the Leftwing/Islamist propaganda machine.

Eric was the glue that kept us focused.

Once again Bob took the long drive from Temecula to pitch in.

Ryan enjoyed going solo behind enemy lines.

Osama bin Laden campaigned for his favorite candidate. You can see where some moonbat protesters tore the sign.

The presence of Protest Warriors is always guaranteed to provoke the peaceniks so there was plenty of arguing and debating.

Surrounded by protesters our Marines stood strong.

Gloria Davidson from Veterans for Peace doesn’t like it when other veterans don’t hate President Bush and the Iraqi reconstruction the way she claims they do.

A long, drawn out debate that ended in a handshake.

A leftwing activist finally finds the guts to confront Osama bin Laden.

After a hard day of fighting the power a Socialist protester shows off some butt crack and retires for the evening.

Stay tuned for the next part of this weekend’s protest coverage. I will be posting a Freedom Now exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein. You haven’t heard the last of that genocidal dictator…

The Ingeborg Barz Commando

2007-02-20T22:39:00.000-08:00

Reveling in Terrorist Chic

Last week Germany announced that the Red Army Faction (RAF) terrorist, Brigitte Mohnhaupt, will be given a parole after completing her minimum required sentence of 24 years in prison. The families of the nine people that she was convicted of murdering are upset because she was sentenced to a maximum of five life terms, but she is being let go at the earliest possible time. Widespread criticism of this generous parole centers on the fact that Mohnhaupt is too proud to show remorse. Through her lawyer she justified her stance by saying, “I think it would be inappropriate to say now, ‘I regret my crimes’. It would come over as rather insulting to the families of the victims.” However, the widow of one of her victims, Hanns-Martin Schleyer, publicly criticized Mohnhaupt for remaining silent on this issue. She stated, “We have not heard a single word of apology from her. She remains unrepentant.”

Lying shouldn’t prevent a criminal from being paroled, but a lack of remorse is a key indicator that such a criminal could be prone to commit more crimes. The last time Mohnhaupt was released from prison she immediately went underground. Less than six months later a banker, Jurgen Ponto, came to his door to find a smiling couple that was there waiting for him with flowers. When he turned to get a vase Brigitte Mohnhaupt and fellow terrorist Christian Klar killed him in a hail of bullets.

It is unsurprising that leftwing activists have been clamoring for the early release of this cold blooded murderer. During the entire existence of the Red Army Faction, the members of the terrorist organization have received much more sympathy from the Left than what was given to their victims (I will address this point later). Antje Vollmer, a prominent member of the German Parliament, justified Mohnhaupt’s parole by stating, “Both (Mohnhaupt and Klar) have been in jail longer than any person who committed Nazi crimes”.

This questionable statement ignores the fact that a substantial number of Nazis were executed for their crimes. Its not as if Mohnhaupt was treated worse than hanged Nazi war criminals like Wilhelm Keitel or Joachim von Ribbentrop (Keitel suffered from a terribly botched hanging which took 27 minutes to strangle him).

Besides, I don’t know how Vollmer could overlook the extremely long incarceration of Rudolph Hess, who was imprisoned for 46 years until he committed suicide at the age of 93.

Such a silly argument should not be unexpected from a politician who is most well known for her accusation that the U.S. Catholic pedophilia scandal from a couple of years ago was really a plot to undermine former Pope John Paul II. This was alleged to be in retaliation for the Polish Pope’s opposition to the liberation of Iraq. She also claimed that the plot was further advanced by giving Poland a prominent role in occupation of Iraq. It’s amazing that rabid activists can directly associate everything from a pedophile scandal to the Katrina hurricane and pin them to the conduct of the Iraq war. While these leftists struggle to connect wildly unrelated circumstances to their pet conspiracies, they simultaneously make as many excuses as possible for unrepentant leftwing and Islamist criminals.

It is particularly disturbing that Vollmer is not just some isolated basket case, but a very prominent German politician who has served as the vice-president of the country’s parliament. This indicates how mainstream extremist ideologies have become over the last 30 years.

My disgust with the widespread sympathy shown for the RAF has led me to name this post in honor of Ingeborg Barz. She is a former member of the Red Army Faction that disappeared shortly after calling her mother to say she was quitting the terrorist group and wanted to come back home. While it will probably never be conclusively proven that Barz was killed by the gang, the murder is widely believed to have occurred. The unwillingness of most RAF members to come clean about their crimes has prevented the truth from being fully disclosed. Thanks to them her family may never recover her body and obtain any sense of closure. The lack of remorse by former RAF terrorists is echoed in their ominous silence about her fate.

When executing missions the RAF liked to name terrorist units after members of the group that were killed, incarcerated or committed suicide.

On April 24th, 1975 the RAF seized the West German embassy in Stockholm, mined it with TNT and held the staff hostage. When the RAF demands were not met, they announced that they would kill a hostage every hour until West Germany capitulated. Dr. Heinz Hillegard was forced to stand in front of a window and was shot. His lifeless body was callously left to hang from the window. All told, there were two innocents and two terrorists killed (one died about two weeks later from his injuries). Most of those in the embassy (including the terrorists) suffered bad burn wounds when the explosives were accidentally set off due to the incompetence of the bomb makers.

The Siegfried Hausner Commando was named to honor a gang member that was killed in the embassy attack. This “retaliatory” mission resulted in the kidnapping of businessman, Hanns-Martin Schleyer. In the process of committing this crime three police officers were killed along with Schleyer’s chauffeur. After a number of setbacks for the RAF, Schleyer’s body was discovered in the trunk of an Audi. He had been shot three times in the head. The terrorist group boasted, “His death is of no significance in our pain and rage at the slaughter of Mogadishu and Stammheim.” The reference to Mogadishu relates to a failed hijacking of a West German plane that Palestinian terrorists planned to exchange for imprisoned Red Army leaders. One hostage was executed before West German commandos stormed the plane killing three of the terrorists and wounding one other. All of the remaining passengers survived and the commandos came home to a hero’s welcome. Stammheim was the prison where the RAF leadership committed suicide because of their lost chance for freedom that resulted from the failure of the Moghdishu hijackers.

By naming their operations after terrorists that met their downfall, the RAF attempted to promote the same propaganda that most terrorist groups strive to disseminate even today. “Martyrs” are created to perpetuate a myth of invulnerability and to cultivate sympathy for their cause. The objective is to cower their victims into believing that such terrorist organizations cannot be stopped because when their members are killed or captured, their comrades will only be inspired to retaliate with even more acts of violence. Ideally this will create the impression of an unbreakable circle of violence that will render its victims too demoralized to fight back against such suicidal maniacs.

Now that the RAF has been defeated for over a decade, we can look back to see how leftwing sympathizers assisted these terrorists to spread their message.

On July 15th, 1971 Petra Schelm became the RAF’s first “martyr”. She was a very young and beautiful woman who was caught in a stolen BMW. As she and her accomplice fled from the car they opened fire on the police who were pursuing them. This led to a running shoot out in which Schelm was killed. The public was so horrified at the death of the young terrorist that a national poll taken shortly after the shooting determined that as much as 20% of the Germans interviewed felt some sympathy for the Red Army.

While pictures of the wholesome looking girl even elicited some of my own sympathy, the ugly truth is that she was caught in the act of committing a crime and tried to murder the police officers attempting to stop her. Schelm was a ticking time bomb who received several months of military training in a PLO terrorist camp. She was very eager to put that training to use.

Police officers often don’t get much respect for the risks that they place on their life because many people take it for granted that it is a part of their job. On the other hand, terrorism was Petra Schelm’s “job” and over the years the RAF went on to kill many police officers who were only performing their duty to protect the public. She doesn’t deserve much sympathy for anything other than the fact that she made too many bad choices in her short life. Her actions were decided by her own free will.

Schelm’s death forged a template for the justification of the Red Army’s violence. In May of 1972 the RAF claimed responsibility for a terrorist bombing on a US army base in Frankfurt. The statement was signed by the “Petra Schelm Commando”. One person was killed and thirteen were wounded. West Germany would be gripped by fear for two decades.

Despite a ruthless campaign of bombings, bank robberies, kidnappings and murders the RAF continued to command sympathy from Europe’s students and leftwing activists.

When the high profile terrorist, Ulrike Meinhof, committed suicide in her prison cell – fellow RAF member, Jan-Carl Raspe, used a courtroom as his soapbox to say, “We believe that Ulrike was executed”. This lie spread like wild fire and massive demonstrations were held throughout West Germany to protest Meinhof’s alleged “execution”. Bombs were set off in Nice, Paris and once again at the American air base in Frankfurt.

There never was any proof that Meinhof was murdered. Red Army propaganda was accepted without question by the thousands of mourners and activists who showed up at her funeral. This was despite the fact that two post-mortem examinations were held and both ruled that all the evidence was consistent with a suicide by strangulation. The second examination was requested by the Meinhof family and the RAF defense team. Medical examiner Dr. Werner Janssen concluded, “To judge by the usable findings of the second post-mortem, Frau Meinhof suffered death by hanging. The findings of the examination so far available give no grounds for suspecting any extraneous factors.” In addition to her imprisonment and alienation from her fellow terrorists, Meinhof was distraught because she had given up her two precious daughters to join the RAF. Facing the possibility of life in prison, she killed herself on Mother’s Day.

After the suicides of the remaining RAF leadership, the Left went berserk. Of course they claimed that the government killed the terrorists again. This pretext was used to justify even more “commando” missions. According to Time Magazine things got a little crazy in the aftermath of these suicides.

“The terrorists presumably hoped that in death they would become instant martyrs for their radical cause. Outside Germany, news of their suicides sparked scattered but ugly protests. In the Italian cities of Turin, Bologna and Leghorn, bombs were tossed into showrooms displaying German cars. Two unoccupied German tourist buses were set aflame in Paris. In Rome, police used tear gas to disburse some 800 youths, armed with Molotov cocktails, who were marching toward the German embassy and the Lufthansa ticket office. Leftists also demonstrated in Athens and Vienna; in London, protesters chanted Murder! Murder! outside the German embassy.”

Throughout the RAF terror campaign of over twenty years there were many public demonstrations held in support of the gang. Yet these leftwing activists showed little public support for the victims of the RAF. All of the Journalists, chauffeurs, librarians, bank tellers, diplomats, businessmen, policemen, attorneys, judges and their families who suffered from Red Army terrorism didn’t warrant as much sympathy as their tormentors did. Meanwhile government buildings were surrounded by barbwire and sandbagged gun emplacements. West Germany was living in a state of fear that was not created by the government, it was the offspring of the RAF.

The Birth of Terrorist Chic

That fear is now just a faded memory and Germans are starting to look back at the Red Army Faction with nostalgia. Two years ago an art exhibit at the KW Institute for Contemporary Art in Berlin featured the RAF as its theme. The families of RAF victims created such an uproar that it delayed the opening of the show for over a year. An application for substantial federal funds was abandoned due to these protests so the organizers held an eBay auction to raise capital.

When the exhibit finally opened there was a panel discussion that caught my eye. It was called, “Political Modernity in Germany – Susceptible to the Lure of Totalitarianism?”

“Has the lure of totalitarianism been present throughout the era of political modernity in Germany? Social scientists have repeatedly pointed out the existence of a connection between the society and culture of modernity on the one hand and the formation of a specific type of ‘bourgeois coldness’ (Adorno) on the other.”

The guiding doctrine of the Red Army Faction was based on such a scenario. Theodor Adorno was a Marxist philosopher whose theories helped to give birth to the radical student movement that the RAF sprang from. However, Adorno condemned his Frankenstein creation and became ridiculed by his students. In reality many of the exhibitors and staff at the KW Institute strove to revive the Marxist ideals that motivated the RAF and used the notoriety of the terrorist group to generate publicity at the expense of the victims’ families.

The exhibition scored a rather questionable victory by securing the services of Felix Ensslin as a curator. He was the abandoned son of Red Army terrorist leader, Gudrun Ensslin, who jumped on the opportunity to cash in on his mother’s name. SF Gate related that Ensslin believes that the media’s coverage of the RAF was somehow wrong. He said, “The art on view allows viewers to think about the painful events of the past with something of a sense of distance from the mass-media ‘reality’ that has shaped the public’s understanding of the RAF years.” What exactly did the media get wrong about the serial murdering terrorist group?

Bruce LaBruce, a columnist at Eye Weekly, gave us some insight about the true motives of the exhibition when he related the following;

“I suppose the reason I’m waxing nostalgic about terrorist organizations is that I’m here in Germany working on a project that revolves around the Baader-Meinhof, aka the Red Army Faction, the extreme left-wing terrorist group from ‘70s Germany. Considering the resurgence of anti-American sentiment here as a reaction against the new imperialist policies of the Bush administration, it’s not surprising that art and culture have picked up on the subject of the RAF. In fact, my friend Klaus Biesenbach, the director of Kunst-Werke, the Berlin Institute of Contemporary Art, is curating with his colleagues an exhibition of work related to the RAF in November, to which I will be contributing. To this end, Klaus recently arranged a dinner at which I was seated beside Felix Ensslin, the son of Gudrun Ensslin, one of the four main members of the RAF who committed suicide in prison (some still claim they were murdered by the authorities) in 1977. As Felix is also involved in curating the exhibition, it was my delicate task to explain my project to him, a quasi-porn movie that features a woman who names and patterns herself after Gudrun Ensslin and forces her male acolytes to have sex with each other in order to free themselves from the shackles of heterosexual bourgeois normalcy.

This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds: radical post-Freudian psychoanalytic thinkers such as Reich and Marcuse likely would have supported such a notion. Felix, who is well versed in revolutionary theory and who has stayed true to his mother’s leftist ideals by working for the Green Party in German parliament, was charmed by the idea, much to my relief.”

There really isn’t much room for doubt in LaBruce’s statement.

On the subject of Green Party politicians; Antje Vollmer, who passionately supported Mohnhaupt’s release from prison, recently became a member of the Board of Directors for the KW Institute. Such unsavory characters tend to gravitate towards one another and love nothing more than to be funded by taxpayers (if possible). Wunderbar!

…And then there is Astrid Proll. She is a former RAF terrorist who freely admits to be profiting from her sordid past. In an interview in the British newspaper The Observer she stated, “I earn my money from the RAF, so why not keep it up?” Now … I recognize that everyone is in one way or another a hypocrite because the vast complexities of life do not allow us to maintain complete consistency to our ideals, but this woman is a real piece of work.

After serving a lenient prison sentence Proll edited a book of photographs about the RAF called “Baader-Meinhof: Pictures on the Run 67 – 77”. Only a few of the photos in the book highlight the brutality of the gang and most portray the RAF in a sympathetic light (especially as victims). To advance her “career” Proll makes appearances to speak about the RAF and was even invited to the exhibition at the KW Institute. Yet she addressed her popularity among modern day radicals in this light, “I haven’t put it behind me, it will keep coming up - but it’s not me who finds it difficult to forget, its other people.” …Nothing is ever Proll’s fault. The government was to blame for overreacting to RAF terrorism and her fans made her cash in on her notoriety. Only an indulgent culture of leftwing radicalism could cushion her so that she doesn’t have to fully apologize for her past and her exploitation of it.

I also find it unsettling that Proll used her ill-gotten popularity to somehow forge links with the German Green Party. She has at least enough influence to give Felix Ensslin a job with them. He sought her out to learn more about his mother, the terrorist who abandoned him as a child. Proll has befriended other children of RAF terrorists as well and has spread the message of the group to another generation.

To further illustrate how she has become a cause celebre for terrorist sympathizers, there is even a popular Puerto Rican band that named themselves “Astrid Proll” in her honor. I’ll let them describe their feelings about the Red Army.

“The band takes its name from one of the survivors of the Red Army Faction, also known as the Baader-Meinhof gang, a German student protest movement of the 1970’s that declared war on a fascist government with ex-Nazi Party members in Parliament. This movement took radical action against social conformity and state-sponsored oppression. Astrid Proll, the band, shares that revolutionary ideal regarding individual action, channeled through music and multimedia art.”

Although the RAF was inspired by the student movement, most of them were not students. Besides not even knowing the history of the terrorist group that they revere, I am appalled by their reference to “radical action”. Do they honestly believe that kidnapping, murder, bank robbery and terrorist bombings are radical actions that they should glorify?

Such terrorist chic is exemplified by the exploitation fashion trend, “Prada-Meinhof”. It is mainly a European phenomenon. Shirts glorifying the RAF began to appear all over the continent, much like Che Guevara shirts have done worldwide over the last decade. Two events spurred this wave of nostalgia. October of 1997 marked the 20th anniversary of the “German Autumn”, which was the peak of RAF notoriety, –and– the 1998 announcement of the formal dissolution of the terrorist group. This meant that Revisionists could now remake the image of the terrorist group with much less opposition.

UrbanDictionary.com has seen fit to include the term in its online slang dictionary.

1. Prada Meinhof

Descriptive of those participating in political causes or campaigns who see marches or demonstrations as an alternative fashion show with themself as the main model.

Example: I see one of those globalization campaigners is wearing Jimmy Choo shoes. How very Prada Meinhof.

These days the art scene consists of nothing but intellectually lazy, upper middle class, parasitic Marxist “artisans” seeking to redistribute the wealth that is produced by the working class so they can get a piece of it.

If you’re a blogger please name your next post;

The Dr. Heinz Hillegard Commando

– or –

The Jurgen Ponto Commando.

Show sympathy to someone who really deserves it.

John McCain

2007-02-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

Up until recently I have had no preference for any presidential candidate in the upcoming 2008 election. However, things are becoming a bit clearer for me now that the Democrats are pushing for a resolution to condemn Bush’s plan for a troop surge in Iraq. A plan that is designed to match the surge in violence between the Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad.

Senator Chuck Hagel, who has rose to prominence simply because he is a Republican that criticizes the Bush Administration, has become locked in a fierce debate with fellow Republican Senator John McCain. The disagreement between the two is centered around a resolution proposed by McCain to support the troop surge.

Hagel’s stance, which dictates that we should not get involved in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, makes sense if you don’t really care about the fate of the Iraqi people. Since the US is in the middle of transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqi government it can be argued that we have a moral responsibility to do something about this terrible violence. On Saturday a truck bomb killed about 130 civilians. The attack devastated a popular market in a Shiite Baghdad neighborhood. Since the bombing was aimed at civilians it is quite clear that the objective of this attack was to incite the Shiites into retaliating and further escalating the violence.

Yet Hagel wants US troops redeployed to the borders of Iraq and remove them from the cities where they are most needed to combat this sort of atrocity. He has also demanded that there be consequences for the Iraqi government if they don’t meet benchmarks laid out by McCain’s proposal. While I agree that the Iraqi political leadership could do more to stem the violence, the withdrawal of support for their fledgling government would be fatal. Hagel is actually trying to destabilize the Iraqi government and that leads me to believe that he is not particularly interested in helping them. Typically, when fighting a common enemy, you support your allies and attack your enemy. Hagel is actually doing the reverse.

Citing the Iraq Study Group Report, he wants to turn to Iran and Syria for help.

Iran had a leading role in inciting the failed Shiite rebellion against Saddam in 1991 and ever since they have continued to exert their influence among Iraqi Shiites. The Mahdi Army, which fought many battles with US troops and is behind much of the escalation in sectarian violence, has been trained and armed by Iran. While the political arm of the Mahdi army has participated in the electoral process - its leader, Muqtada al-Sadr has shown more loyalty to Iran than his own country. When Sadr visited Tehran early last year he declared that he would defend Iran if it is attacked. This is a very disturbing statement coming from a man that has spent much of the last couple of years fighting his own countrymen. During this time Iran has continued their intrigue on many other levels. Agents of the Iranian government are believed to be distributing sophisticated IED devices that were made in Iran to Iraqi insurgents. In addition, terrorists that recently conducted an attack on Americans dressed in US uniforms are believed to have been trained in Iran.

Syria has a long history of supporting terrorism in neighboring countries and has become a safe haven for Saddam Hussein loyalists who finance and organize the Iraqi insurgency. Although relations between Syria and Saddam’s regime had been quite icy in the past, they began to work together in the last years of Saddam’s reign. In 2005 Congress determined that Syria helped funnel $3 billion dollars in money and weapons to Saddam Hussein during the period of the scandal-plagued UN Oil-for-Food program.

Despite these facts, Hagel still thinks that we can work with these countries. He said, “There is going to be no peace in Iraq, there will be no peace in the Middle East unless all the regional partners are brought in to a framework of a political agreement.” What kind of concessions would the Iraqis have to give in order to win the support of Syria and Iran? Syria will not support a Shiite led government that is friendly towards to the US and Iran will not accept anything less than a Shiite theocracy that is hostile to the US. Inviting further influence by regimes that are behind the violence in Iraq is a folly worse than giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. Instead of looking for easy solutions that don’t work, critics of the Bush Administration should start looking for answers that do. Abandoning Iraq to anarchy is not a strategy. Its amazing that they can foist their lack of strategy as a concrete plan, while Bush’s strategy has resulted in the defeat of a terrible regime and the formation of Iraq’s first truly representative democracy in its history.

Senator McCain has spent a great deal of time criticizing our policy in Iraq, but he has also remained committed to defeating our enemies. Instead of running a safe campaign that sells out our troops, McCain is remaining true to his convictions.

Politicians like Hagel who voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq didn’t do so because they believed it was the right thing to do, they voted for the resolution because they felt that it was the popular thing to do. They can blame Bush or the CIA or whoever they want, but the truth is that they never seriously considered what they were getting themselves into. That is why they lack the conviction to follow through with the commitment that they made to the Iraqi people.

I prefer a candidate that is more concerned about the best interests of the American and Iraqi people, not his own self-interest.