Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Big Surprise... McCains Running....LOL

"The Traitorous Scum"
To use John McCain the Traitorous Scums words "We've been in wars more Dangerous than this and have not changed the Geneva Conventions" He said that on This Week with Stephanopolis. Really Senator what war was more dangerous than the one we are in now? WWI, WWII, or Korea? Oh I know Vietnam right Senator. This shows McCains total lack of even being able to wrap what little mind he has around the dangers we now face.

3000 Americans died in the continental US from an enemy attack. That has NOT happened since the revolutionary war. There are over 1000 KNOWN terrorist cells inside the US right now. We have NO idea how many sleeper cells. A single dispersment of a biological weapon by one man could kill 100s of thousands, a dirty bomb or a nuke could kill millions, or lets be more benign how long before Iran activates any of these cells to just strap suicide belts on and go take a ride on the subway. So tell me Senator enlighten the masses what war was more dangerous than the one we are currently fighting?

Not to even mention that we are NOT changing the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court did that when for the first time in history they said that they apply to TERRORISTS!

I call Senator McCain "the traitorous scum" every time I hear his name. I do this for an honest reason. Amendment I... Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Senator betrayed the Constitution by creating a law that violates both the highlited aspects above of the first amendment. He has also said "I would gladly do away with the First Amendment if I thought it would help end corruption in Government" those two things alone make him a traitor to the very document that he has sworn to uphold and protect.

People always qualify any criticism of the Senator with "He is hero for his service in Vietnam, he was a POW". Well lets look at that. Being a failure as a fighter pilot and getting yourself shot down does NOT make you a hero. It makes you a failure and a POW. Then breaking under the torture administered to you by a signature of "The Geneva Conventions" and signing war crimes confessions, also does not make you a hero. It makes you a traitor and a failure as a Soldier in the US Military.

I believe the Senators actions as a prisoner and as a Senator prove that he was not only broken by the Vietnamese but turned. The damage that he has done and is doing to this country is obvious. Whether consciously or subconsciously, he hates the freedoms that he once fought for. The only thing that John McCain cares about is John McCain.Now he is on a crusade to do two things. 1) Give TERRORISTS constitutional rights, 2) Get elected to the office of President. He will NOT achieve either goal.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Lest we forget who our enemies are....

Meshal in Russia: Putin will try to lift PA embargo

By Avi Issacharoff and Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondents

The head of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Meshal, reiterated on Tuesday that his organization was not willing to recognize Israel. Speaking at a joint press conference following a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Meshal said that Israel must end the occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people and "only then will the Palestinians make their position [on recognition] clear."

Other Hamas spokesmen told Haaretz on Tuesday that the Mecca agreement, in which Fatah and Hamas agreed to form a government of national unity, has not altered in any way the Islamist organization's stance on Israel.

The Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Radwan, said that the organization will never negotiate with Israel.

Radwan clarified that Hamas' willingness to agree to a state within the 1967 borders is only one part of the multi-stage solution it envisions.

"We have not given up in any way our position regarding the territory of Palestine," he said.

"We are willing to consider a possibility for a long-term hudna [cease-fire] if the Zionist enemy releases the Palestinian prisoners and the refugees return to their homes.

No more. The Mecca agreement has to do with the government, not Hamas,"
he added.

A different spokesman of the organization in the Gaza Strip, Fauzi Barhum, said that "Hamas has decided to show a political horizon, but our position is clear. All the land of Palestine [from the sea to the river] belongs to the Palestinians and Israel is the enemy. However, our political horizon offers a hudna for 15-20 years, in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, the return of the refugees and the release of the prisoners."

At the Moscow press conference, the Russian foreign minister said Meshal had promised an end to the Qassam rocket attacks against Israel.

Calling on Hamas to use its strength to end the violence against Israel, Lavrov said that "we have received confirmation that such steps will be adopted," referring to an end to the rocket attacks.

The Russian foreign minister also promised that his country would work toward lifting the international embargo on the Palestinian Authority and will support the new unity government.

"Russia supports the understandings reached between Hamas and Fatah over the sharing of power, because they are an expression of reason, wisdom and responsibility toward the Palestinian people,"
he said.

The senior Russian official added that his country was working to ensure that "all the members of the international community will support this process, including efforts to lift the embargo."

Two weeks ago Russian president Vladimir Putin met with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and told him that he hoped the establishment of a unity government would result in ending the embargo on the PA.

Russia is a member of the Quartet  which also comprises the UN, the EU and the United States. The Quartet has conditioned the resumption of ties with the government of the PA and the renewal of aid transfers on Palestinian recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of earlier accords between Israel and the PLO.

France has also hinted recently that it may support lifting the embargo.

On Sunday, French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would recommend to the European Union "to support the Palestinian efforts to establish a new unity government."

Chirac said that he would ask the EU to support the unity government during the March summit of EU leaders, but did not specify what practical steps this support would entail.

Meanwhile, Palestinian sources told Haaretz on Tuesday that in spite of the cease-fire between Hamas and Fatah and the agreement on a unity government, the two sides are preparing for the possibility of renewed fighting.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Al Gore upon hearing he won an Oscar

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "An Inconvenient Truth," the big-screen adaptation of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's slide-show lecture about the perils of global warming, won Academy Awards on Sunday for documentary feature and best song.

Michael Barone gets it completly wrong...

Here's his Opinion
Newt Vs. Hillary
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that in a recent presidential pairing, Hillary Rodham Clinton would beat Newt Gingrich by a 50-to-43 percent margin. That sounds fairly plausible, although it's a little better showing for Gingrich than I would have expected. But take a look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings. Rasmussen's numbers have Clinton's fav/unfav at 50 and 48 percent and Gingrich's fav/unfav at 43 and 48 percent. You're tempted to think that Clinton and Gingrich both got the votes of every respondent who had favorable feelings toward her or him–and not a single vote more.
Of course, that's not quite the case, but it's pretty close. Note that these two politicians–both figures of huge national prominence in the Bill Clinton years–inspire unfavorable feelings in almost half the electorate. I wonder how many are unfavorable to them both. Clinton and Gingrich in different ways have considerable political strengths. But the nomination of either one may be seen as taking us back to the partisanship of the 1990s. Not where all that many of us want to go, I think.
Yes, I know that Clinton's fav/unfavs are better in some other polls and Gingrich's worse. But I think the point still stands.

Now here is why he is wrong. First of all poll numbers can be made to say what ever you want them to say, no matter what side your on. Let alone almost 2 years before an election. At this point in time all the polls are bullshit. What he misses is the big picture.

This is the match up that all of America wants to see and if we are being honest needs to have. Both candidates have their built in rabid followers and their rabid detractors. What they both have that the rest of the field does not is a persona of what they represent.

Hillary represents the true left, a socialist that in another era would have been called a commie.

Newt represents the true conservative right. A capitalist, straight speaking, good ole boy.

Both of their approaches are completly different. One will go out of her way to state a position without actually saying anything, making you feel that she is on the same page as what is really in your heart.

The other will tell you the things you don't really want to hear but you know what he is saying is the damn truth and it scares you that no one has had the balls to tell it straight out and plain.

As for Barones statement about partisanship is he blind or just in denial of the unretractable partisanship of the left. No 2 other candidates will draw the lines between right/left, liberal/conservative, or security/non-security better than these 2 candidates. That is what this country needs. We are at war the enemy is trying to kill us and is going to continue to try and kill us whichever direction we choose to go.

The debate has to be how are we going to confront the threat. Are we going to talk about it, sit down with our enemies and convince them that they are wrong for trying to kill us, and that if they just play nice ande tell us what they expect of us will give it to them and they can stop killing. Thats the lefts belief. Or Are we going to track down the ones that want to kill us and kill them, adapting the adage For every American you kill were are going to kill a 1000 of you. Thats the rights belief. That is the only debate that means anything for the next election.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Happy Blogaversary To Me....

Here are two of my very first posts

Monday, February 21, 2005

Not Really a Blogger
I hope this works I have been trying to post and this d**n thing won't let me.Ahh it worked, OK first of all just to let you know a little about me and how I will conduct this blog. I don't spell and I don't care but never take my lack of appreciation for the rules of written word as a lack of education or a shallowness of depth of thought. People who look at how things are spelled or whether or not the correct punctuation is being applied are usually doing it to ignore or devalue what the person is saying they can not or will not debate the issue at hand instead they attack the technacalities of how something is written. That is just gutless Bullshit.You will find that my tastes and attitudes are varried but always honest. I am a conservative gun toting oppinionated individual, My beliefs are more along the line of a constitutionalist, but before you label me lets discuss the issue of abortion. This issue is one of the biggest red herring bullshit nonissues that has ever been manipulated into a tool to divert attention and controll the sheep. I would hope and pray and yes I said pray that no woman would ever have to suffer through this process yet I have no right to decide for that woman that she can or can not make that choice for herself. it is between her and her God and her consience. I have never met a woman that after having one has not had mental scars from it. Abortion will never be outlawed no matter who is on the supreme court this whole issue is just a tool by the communist democrats used to scare people and controll their voting base.Guns do not kill people, people kill people. everyone should own and carry a pistol.Criminals comit crime because they are criminals not because society has left them no choice. The homeless 95% of the homeless are drug addicts (alcohal is a drug too) and no matter how much you want to help them you can't, an addict can only end their own cycle of self destruction.The Democrat party are anything but democratic they are the communist party of the united states. They want to be the politburo of America read Marx and you will find the democrat platform.Iraq Iraq is part of the war on terror you idiots. No they didn,t attack us on 9-11 but they were state sponser of terrorism. and they were the best country to stage from for the war that we are just beginning. we will be in Iraq for a minnimum of 10 years we have no choice. The only way to fight this war is from the heart of that region of the world. This is going to be a long and bloody war and Iraq was and is just a battle in that war.This is just a sample of my beliefs I hope you have a little taste of what you may find if you come here.

The Troll

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

The True symbol of The US
The true symbol that represents the US is not uncle Sam, or the Eagle. The Flag may be our label but the symbol of the Heart of America is embodied in one of our comic book heros. The Batman. Think about it he is just a man after all yet he fights for what he feels is right. He doesn't fight fair, he scares the hell out of those that he chooses to oppose. No super powers, just determination, an unbreakable will, a lot of really neat high tech gadgets. and the willingness to get bloody in the fight for justice. With an inner heart that truly believes that he can make a differance along with the understanding that he must do what he does because he can. Like him we are viewed as the vigilanti and like him we don't care because the rules weren't made so as to allow evil to get away with evil even though that is how other nations seem to want to apply those rules. So you must sometimes break the rules for what is good and right. the end can justify the means.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Advice from a Bafoon named Richardson

Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A19

The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner. (oh bullshit, this idiot comes from the administration who's "negotiations" gave N Korea the ability and the materials needed to build the bomb. Only the administrations stance on multi-lateral talks have resulted in this small step by the N Koreans. Plus before we give them anything we have verifications in place with them un-like the administration that he came from)

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf. (This man actually wants to be president. It's a shame that we allow socialist appeasers to rise to a position that they have such delusions as this man. But such are the flag bearers and pillers of the Democrat party. This asshole refuses to believe both the physical evidence of Irans involvment with IEDs and the plain commonsensicle evidence of what they have to gain by interfearing in Iraq. He does though without hesitation believe what the Iranians say.)

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations. (Yes it would be a major disaster to stop the mad little persian from establishing a nuclear armed caliphate that will engulf the Middle East, that has the major goal of the destruction of both Israel and the US.)

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks. (excuse me but isn't that what has been going on in the UN for the last 3 years?)

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, (bullshit we forced Germany to renounce Nuclear weapons by destroying thier ability to build them during WWII) but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. (no but they will if we bomb the shit out of their nuclear facilities and their oil fields) They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership. (and 2 aircraft carriers parked off their coast)

Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. (and what did you accomplish? the answer is simple, NOTHING) To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. (all things the administration that Richardson came from lacked) By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.

We need to change course. Iran's nuclear program is a threat to peace, but it also presents an opportunity to start rebuilding America's credibility and leadership, which have been weakened by six years of incompetence.

This is no time for chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship. It is time for alliance-building, direct engagement and tough face-to-face negotiations. For the United States to attack Iran without exhausting all diplomatic options would be a terrible mistake. (ahh yes lets adopt the direct one to one talks that your administration employed so well with the N Koreans that gave them a bomb.)

The writer, a Democrat, is governor of New Mexico and a presidential candidate. (and an ASSHOLE)

Here is more of this ASS parroting the Mad Mullahs in Iran
Iran: U.S. Not in Position to Start War
Feb 24 12:39 PM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran said Saturday the United States was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.
"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers inside America by starting another war in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters. (keep telling yourself that while we move another aircraft carrier off your coast)

Mottaki was responding to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who renewed Washington's warning to Iran earlier Saturday that "all options" were on the table if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment.

"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said, leaving open the possibility of military action.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday that Iran had ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze its uranium enrichment program and had expanded the program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges.

The IAEA report came after Wednesday's deadline of a 60-day grace period for Iran to halt uranium enrichment. Iran has repeatedly refused to halt enrichment as a precondition to negotiations about its program.

Mottaki said negotiations, not threats, were the only way left to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear activities and urged the U.S. and its allies to return to dialogue when they are scheduled to meet in London next week. (yes they need more time to get their bomb production up to speed)

"The only way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks. Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and resume talks with Iran," Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with Bahrain's visiting foreign minister. (they've talked to them for 3 years to no avail, it's time to use the stick which has always been the more productive side of diplomacy)

Bill Richardson, the governor of the U.S. state of New Mexico and 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, on Saturday also urged the Bush administration to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program. (why are the Democrats always saying the same thing as the enemy?)

"Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate," Richardson said in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. "But it is a good way to start a new war." (it's NOT a new war. It is a war that started in the 70s under Jimmie "grtiz for brains" Carter)

A better approach, said Richardson, who served as U.N. ambassador during former U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration, "would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons." (like I said using the Clinton administrations example of what worked so well with N Korea)

Iran, he said, 'will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names." (to repeat, but they will when we bomb their facilities and oil fields)

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel even at the risk of sanctions.

Friday, February 23, 2007

The Obamination Speaks

Obama Ridicules Cheney's Iraq Comments
Feb 23, 6:39 PM (ET)

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ridiculed Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday for saying Britain's decision to pull troops from Iraq is a good sign that fits with the strategy for stabilizing the country.

Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily. (Bullshit first of all it's a drawdown that is going to take place over the next 12mths thats 1 year for the Dems reading this, and will only take place as the areas are turned over to complete Iraqi control. Of course facts like that meen nothing to the Obamination)

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" (well it's obvious you don't understand what he's doing, because I know a scholarly, massivly qualified intelect like yours Barack wouldn't dream of putting out false information or anti-war spin) Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems." (I mean come on Cheyney is the king of Haliburton after all)

Obama's Austin appearance was part of a campaign swing across the country to raise money for his two-week old candidacy and build his reputation nationally. (yes the Great Democrat Hope Obama we all hail, or at least untill the reality of the fact that this stuff shirt may talk well but if you listen to what he says and not how pretty he says it. You come to the glaring fact that this fool doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground. Let alone have the chops to fill the seat of the President. )

While in Texas, Obama raised money in Houston Thursday night, where he said he'd like to see an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics. (yeah he wants all to just submit)

The Obama and Clinton campaigns fired off dueling press releases this week over a top Hollywood donor who was a supporter of Bill Clinton but is backing Obama in this race.

Obama told the Austin crowd that they should try to recruit their friends to support his campaign. "I want you to tell them, 'It's time for you to turn off the TV and stop playing GameBoy,'" Obama said. "We've got work to do." ( yeah the fact that we are in tremendous economic boom and the debt is smaller than it's been since 1970 This git thinks america is just sittin on their ass watching the tube. Sorry to inform form ya Baracko but the average American works his ass off and is doing it now better than any other time in history, but that doesn't match your spin does it?)

Tickets to the rally were free, but Obama asked the attendees to give even $5 or $10. "I don't want to have to raise money in Hollywood all the time," he said. (what a maroon)

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Boo Hoo....

Pelosi Calls Bush to Complain of Cheney's Comments on Democrats' Iraq Strategy

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Cheney Slams Iraq Plan Advocated by Dems

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy."

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

In the interview, Cheney also said Britain's plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq - while the United States adds more troops - was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," the vice president said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Ya gotta love the French

9/11 attacks 'an incident'
21/02/2007 14:58 - (SA)

Paris - French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has dismissed the September 11, 2001 attacks as an "incident", saying the death toll of 3 000 was equal to the number of people killed in Iraq in a month.

Le Pen made the comment in an interview published on Wednesday with the Catholic newspaper La Croix during which he praised Islamic leaders for condemning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

"The September 11 event, or one could say incident, prompted a certain number of people to distance themselves (from Islamic extremism) to avoid falling under the barrage of accusations that was then unleashed," said Le Pen.

Commenting on the death toll from the attacks, Le Pen said: "3 000 dead, that is how many die in Iraq in a month and it's far less than the deaths in the Marseille or Dresden bombings at the end of the Second World War."

The National Front leader said the World War II bombings were "also terrorist acts as they expressly targeted civilians to force military leaders to capitulate".

Le Pen, 78, stunned the nation when he qualified for the second round of voting against Jacques Chirac in the 2002 presidential election with nearly 17% of votes.

He is taking part in his fifth and undoubtedly last presidential campaign ahead of the April-May election.

The far-right leader was convicted of Holocaust denial after he declared in 1987 that the gas chambers used by Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews were a "detail in the history of World War II".

Barack the Obamination

Obama changes his tune toward opposition
WASHINGTON - Although Barack Obama once made allowances for fellow Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, he is now more critical of presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards. (First of all lets make one thing clear that aparently this reporter is to stupid to understand himself, Iraq is part of the War on terror period. None of these fools like Clinton or Edwards has explained how if we don't defeat the enemy we are going to stop them from killing us.)
Obama spoke out sharply against the war as an Illinois state senator in October 2002, just as the U.S. Senate was voting to authorize the conflict. He later adopted a magnanimous attitude toward pro-war Democrats, only to curtail such forbearance upon entering the presidential race. (he was an idiot then and he's an idiot now)

“Now it’s a campaign and, you know, there are differences,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton told The Examiner. “Ones that are worth discussion.” (the only difference between you and the rest of the wack pack on the left is you're black, and being black gives you even more lattitude to be an asshole. No one will dare ask you hard questions because they will be called a racist. )
To that end, Obama last week took a veiled swipe at Clinton and Edwards, both of whom voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the war, only to later backpedal from their votes.

“The decisions we make in Washington have consequences,” the junior U.S. senator from Illinois told reporters in New Hampshire. “Obviously if the senators [had] voted down the authorization, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now.” (yeah that's right where we would be is pulling bodies out of our subways and shopping malls from the suicide bombers and IEDs the terrorists would be using on us here)
Burton went even further, telling the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper: “Only Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start.” (like I said an idiot from the git go)
But in 2004, Obama seemed to hedge a bit when asked by a TV interviewer whether he would have voted for the war if he had been in the Senate. (in other words he stuck his finger in the air and said what he thought people wanted to hear)

“You know, I didn’t have the information that was available to senators,” he replied. “I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.”
Obama was equally charitable two days later, when discussing those who had voted for the war.
“I don’t consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn’t in the position to actually cast a vote on it,” he told National Public Radio. “I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision.” (yes it's a very difficult decision 3000 bodies lay in our streets from an act of war and he thinks it's a difficult decision whether we should respond or not. Now that's what I call someone with a Presidential backbone)
In his 2006 memoir “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama allowed that he was “sympathetic to the pressures Democrats were under,” adding: “I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried.” (that's because you're an idiot, and everyone would tell you that if you weren't a black liberal)
Burton said Obama had not been ambivalent about his opposition to the war.

“He pretty specifically said back then that he wouldn’t have voted for it,” Burton said Tuesday.
(yet you think you are capable of leading the country during a world war when you would have voted to not respond with force after 3000 lay dead in our streets. Barack The Obamination)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

A Liberal that is starting to see the light.

Half of what he says is still through the jaundiced eye of libralism but at least he see's the threat that surrounds us....

The wrong voices are leading the jihadists to victory
By JACK TYMANN, Special to the Daily News

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Every day, in 60,000 Wahabi schools, millions of children hear voices of hate and intolerance. Many wipe their shoes on American and Israeli flags at the entrances. Inside, they learn that jihad, holy war against nonbelievers, is an obligation of every Muslim.

Every eight minutes, a new mosque opens somewhere. Inside, Muslims hear fanatical voices calling Allah the only true God and Muhammad his messenger, declaring that Jews and Christians worship false gods and claiming that Allah has ordered that these infidels be eliminated. All then face Mecca and pray that Sharia Law be imposed worldwide.

In Western schools, children make no mention of their creator. America, once “one nation, under God,” yields to the ACLU, while U.S. churches and synagogues are more empty every weekend. In Western universities, Islamic studies flourish, while some professors condemn their own leaders as terrorists and others declare the Bush administration implicit in 9/11.

Meanwhile, jihadists’ voices are overheard chuckling in their caves, as they become increasingly confident of ultimate victory.

Iran’s president blatantly foretells the destruction of Israel and America, as he chairs a conference denying the Holocaust.

Hamas and Hezbollah leaders inspire thousands of voices to shout “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” and demand that Jews be brought to the marketplace for slaughter.

On thousands of jihadist Web sites and Al-Jazeera TV, countless millions hear the vile voice of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who hides in caves, preparing audiotapes. Muslims also hear voices of U.S. senators and Hollywood personalities, calling President Bush a liar, equating him to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot, and accusing Americans of torturing Muslim prisoners.

These same prisoners demand that their toilets be reoriented to face Mecca while they pray for their captors’ deaths. Their voices result in millions of dollars spent on new commodes, Qurans, special food and prayer rugs.

In U.S. prisons, felons hear voices from the Quran and serve as loyal Muslims once released.

On Western city streets, Muslim extremists cry “death” to their own nations, exercising free-speech rights secured by the blood of fallen soldiers. Other protesters call for the U.S. to leave Iraq, the ultimate goal of every American. No voice is raised for Mideast peace, for all know that our withdrawal will make Darfur, by comparison, seem like a health spa.

Throughout the Western and Muslim worlds, there is deafening silence from those believing jihad must be defeated. By their silence, they are rendered irrelevant.

Jihadists again take delight, envisioning a far-reaching Taliban nation, with the Caliphate resurrected, this time in “Babylon,” with access to weapons of mass destruction, oil, millions of new recruits and all European cities.

Back in America, millions hear negative voices on cable TV, talk radio and via e-mails. They hear senseless, divisive conservatives bashing liberals and vice-versa, and politicians launching venomous assaults against their opponents.

All this counterproductive discourse, broadcast globally, deepens the chasm dividing America, while diverting attention from the real enemy.

How can we preach tolerance globally when we don’t even tolerate each other at home?

It’s long overdue for the silent majority to raise their voices and demand civil discourse on the unprecedented threat of jihad. We cannot even begin to effectively debate ways forward until we first agree on the deadly seriousness of this scourge.

We will never agree on the Iraq war or its part in the struggle. But for the time being, let’s stop being 100 percent consumed by past mistakes. Let’s end the internal investigations and second-guessing and instead unite and focus on today’s problems and tomorrow’s goals.

Let’s agree that global jihad is real, that our oil dependence exacerbates that threat, that jihadist access through our borders is a ticking time bomb and that voices of hate in Muslim schools, mosques and Web sites are at the core of a very long-term challenge.

Instead of racing to instant solutions, let’s first seek and agree on macro, common goals such as a viable energy plan, removing jihadists from our soil and using every conceivable technology to effect more tolerant messaging, leadership and teachings for Muslims worldwide — ultimately sending jihad into the dustbin of history.

These challenges and goals are neither Republican nor Democratic; they are American. Agreement on solutions will be difficult, but possible in a united United States. But first we must stop expecting quick fixes, even before we agree on threat and objectives. Seeking instant Band-Aids for complex generational challenges, without agreed-to common goals, is doomed to failure.

Let’s pray that bold, informed leadership will soon emerge to unite America and the world behind such common goals.

- - -

Jack Tymann, as president of Westinghouse International, led business development in 75 nations, including most Muslim countries. He later founded Homeland Security Partners, focused on counterterrorism technologies.

He served on and chaired the Clinton-Mubarak Presidents’ Council for the Middle East. Today, he serves on the board of AMIDEAST, a Washington-based nonprofit for mutual understanding between Americans and the Arab world through education.

He has founded Voices Against Jihad in Naples; the e-mail address is

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Fools are going to get us all killed

Lets start with some good words from a man who saw a storm coming.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." -- Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

Now lets look at the words and beliefs of those that are running the country and say that what they represent is a "MANDATE" we gave them.

First Henry Nostralitus Waxman
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, "What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable unified liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American ... Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a disabled Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed."

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq. "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced Friday.Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the Jan. 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there. Clinton's bill would require congressional authorization to exceed her proposed cap on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.

What the Vietnamese Thought
Most anti-Communist Vietnamese believe that the United States was right when supporting the Republic of Vietnam with aid and soldiers. However, the American and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) governments have lost the war because Washington was lacking in resolution, while South Vietnamese leaders were relying too much on American support and believed that Washington would never accept the dishonor of a total defeat. Fast forward to today, and Chuck Schumer:
Democrats said Saturday they'll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation "just like in the days of Vietnam."...Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be "relentless." "There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."The Democrats and the media are having a great time reliving their glory days, the Vietnam War. They proved then, very successfully, that it wasn't necessary for the military to lose a war -- that Congress could do it for them.

This time, however, it's a different enemy. What is lost in the debate is that al-Qaida has made this the central front in their war with us. I happen to think that it's best that we fight them there than here. After we leave, and just as Lebanon and Somalia were used by Osama bin Laden as evidence of the "paper tiger" that is the United States, this "defeat", as Henry Waxman and the Democrats have already called it, will be an enormous boost to our enemies, emboldening them even further.

In an interview yesterday with, a Web site for a coalition of anti-war groups, Mr. Murtha, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, explained that by placing conditions on $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would make be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said. "We will set benchmarks for readiness," a top Democratic leadership aide told the nonpartisan Web site, which summarized the Democrats' strategy this way: "If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops in Iraq." Aside from doing severe damage to the war effort in Iraq, the Democrats' political strategy to cripple the war effort by attaching thousands of legislative strings to war funding may also be unconstitutional.

Remember America this is the MANDATE YOU VOTED FOR!

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Lest We Forget, There Are Things Worth Fighting For

By: James G. Wiles, For The Bulletin

What now - as the surge in Iraq begins - to make of the unremitting savagery of the foes we and our allies are facing?
This strikes me because I've been re-reading Michael Kelly's Things Worth Fighting For (2004). Kelly, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Monthly, was the first American journalist to die in the Second Iraq War. The book includes some of his reporting from the First Gulf War in which Kelly describes the war crimes committed by the Iraqis during their occupation of Kuwait.
What strikes a reader in 2007 is how much of the savagery we are combating today is present in Kelly's reporting from 1991. Except for the IEDs, it's all there: the terror, the death squads, the horrible tortures and killing. And, of course, Saddam's defeat in 1991 was followed by his wholesale slaughter of the Shia and the Kurds.
At such times, it is comforting to have the examples of history at hand. First, of course, American soldiers have faced -and defeated - savage foes before.
During the Indian wars in the West, old-timers used to tell new recruits to "save the last bullet for yourself." At the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1875, as in Baghdad today, surrender was not an option for American soldiers. Col. George Armstrong Custer used his last bullet. Some of his troopers did too - all to escape being tortured to death by the victorious Indians.
Their corpses were stripped, scalped and hacked to pieces anyway. You won't find that in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
Second, this use of savage tactics in the name of Islam in the 21st century is a tragedy for Arab Muslims. While the American Indians of the 19th century were aborigines, today's demented killers - not only of us but of each other - are the inheritors of a high civilization.
In A.D. 1007 , London was a raucous, filthy, river town of 30,000 illiterates. Baghdad was the largest and most beautiful city in the world, population 1 million.
The caliph's capital boasted clean streets, fountains, libraries, public buildings, baths and parks, poetry, scholarship, science and music. (This Baghdad was razed in 1258 by the Mongols, probably history's most violent group of illegal immigrants.)
In the Middle Ages, aspiring scholars from all over the wilderness called Europe journeyed to the Muslim universities of al-Andaluz, in today's Spain. Arabic, with Latin,was the language of science, mathematics and philosophy.
Today, if Islamic civilization is going to survive, Muslims are going to have to put down jihadism as Christendom put down fascism in the 20th century.
Third, we need to remember that the tactic of savagery can succeed. The fact is that, not long ago, savage tactics defeated a superpower - and those tactics were used by the very same foes we are fighting now.
Only 20 years ago, in Afghanistan, Soviet soldiers - heirs of a martial tradition no less proud than our own - were saving the last bullet for themselves. They were especially fearful of falling into the hands of the Afghan women. Soviet casualties were sometimes sent home in coffins which had been welded shut so that their relatives could not see what the mujahedeen had done to their loved ones.
The Russians do not stand alone. Three times in the last 25 years, the U.S.has exited a country in the face of Islamic savagery. Our withdrawals from Lebanon,Iran and Somalia have all been cited by Osama bin Laden and the late, unlamented al-Zarqawi as reasons to believe that the current jihad will be successful.
It is true that, in our own history, Americans have been guilty of savage conduct too, not least of all the 300-year genocide against Native Americans. (Extermination of the aborigines was British policy, too, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, sometimes, Africa.) Terrible things were done by American troops in the Philippines only 100 years ago in the prolonged guerrilla war which followed our defeat of Spain in 1898.
But feeling guilty today about what our ancestors did in the past is a luxury for peacetime. Today, we need to learn the lessons of that past. One important lesson is that acts of savagery by an enemy of America can call forth savagery in our own people.
The Pacific theater in World War II was a race war with the Japanese and the Americans each considering the other to be sub-human.
In 1944, Life magazine printed a romanticized photo of an American girl writing a letter to her soldier boyfriend by candlelight. On her writing table is the skull of a Japanese soldier which he had sent her as a present. Savagery had called forth savagery.
Since World War II, we had fallen into the comfortable habit of thinking that the urge to engage in the unlawful killing, torture and mutilation of the enemy is confined to primitive cultures. We've been reminded that it's not. The urge toward what the German army called "frightfulness" is universal in mankind - and must be restrained and punished whenever it appears.
Finally, history is unforgiving toward a superpower which loses its nerve and its martial spirit. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. The Soviet Union, and its empire, lasted only two more years. After 1945, with their youth, their nerve and their finances bled white by two world wars in a 30-year period, the British began liquidating their empire.
Rome's fall took longer. The Western Roman Empire was overwhelmed by waves of illegal immigrants (aka the barbarian hordes) in the fifth century. The Eastern Empire finally succumbed to Muslim invaders (the Turks) in the 14th century.
As a great Philadelphia lawyer, Bernie Borish, used to tell his young assistants:
"Live and learn. But learn."

James G. Wiles is a lawyer and resident of Yardley.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Sudden Jihad Syndrome


Posted 2/16/2007

Terror: It looks like the Muslim teen who opened fire on shoppers in a Salt Lake City mall is yet another case of "sudden jihad syndrome," a condition in which normal-appearing American Muslims abruptly turn violent.

Taken together, this and other cases add up to an invisible jihad inside America. But don't tell that to the FBI. The politically correct bureau does everything it can to avoid recognizing the obvious Islamic factor in these heinous crimes.

Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian Muslim immigrant, was loaded with enough ammo to "inexplicably" kill dozens of victims — and he would have, if an alert off-duty cop hadn't returned fire and stopped him. Talovic still managed to methodically murder five and wound four others with a shotgun.

Witnesses say it was an act of coldblooded violence aimed at random victims — something otherwise known as terrorism. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Talovic attended Friday prayers at a mosque about a block from the mall.

Yet the FBI saw no religious motive, and quickly ruled out terrorism. Nor could it find anything to indicate terrorism in several other Muslim-tied cases since 9/11, including:

• A 30-year-old Muslim man, Naveed Afzal Haq, who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle, announcing "I'm a Muslim-American; I'm angry at Israel."

• An Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot two and wounded three at an Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX.

• A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque.

• A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening (he went to a local mosque afterward).

• The D.C. snipers — John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, both black Muslim converts — who picked off 13 people in the suburbs around the Beltway as part of what Muhammad described as a "prolonged terror campaign against America" around the first anniversary of 9/11, which he had praised.

• Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont, Calif., who police said hit and killed a bicyclist there then took his SUV on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon the Muslim called himself a "terrorist."

• A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, who stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, while repeatedly yelling, "Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill" — all, he said, on orders from "Allah."

• A 22-year-old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to "punish the government of the United States" for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations.

Described by other students as "kind and gentle," Taheri-azar was a student council president and a member of the National Honor Society in high school. He told the judge he was "thankful you're here to learn more about the will of Allah."

He wrote a letter to a TV station citing Quranic verses justifying his attacks and told a detective that Muslims "all over the world are being killed, and now it is the people in the United States' turn to be killed."

This is not terrorism, the FBI said. Just some nutty kid. In all these cases, the feds' first reaction was to shrug. They said the perps were lone individuals who just went ballistic after having a bad day, as if anyone could have done such crimes.

But they weren't just anyone. They were all young Muslim men. Of course, the FBI can't treat all law-abiding young Muslim men as potential killers. But neither should the agency ignore this trend.

We're likely to see more of these seemingly random domestic attacks. They may seem isolated, but all have radical Islam at their nexus. They're not "senseless" or "utterly inexplicable" or "impossible to rationalize," as the media intone. They are purposeful. These men act as conscripts called up for a mission, sick as it is.

Where's the Tar and Feathers?

H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Feb-2007 3:22 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq

These are the names of the scumbag Republicans that want to cut off supplies and reinforcements to our troops in the field. As long as the Republican party support this scum they will never see a dime of my money or support.

They are:
Mike Castle, Delaware
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Davis, Tom, Virginia
Duncan, John, Jr., Tennessee
English, Phil, Pennsylvania
Gilchrest, Wayne, Maryland
Inglis, Bob South Carolina
Johnson, Tim Illinois
Jones, Walter, North Carolina
Keller, Ric, Florida
Kirk, Mark Steven, Illinois
LaTourette, Steven, Ohio
Paul, Ron, Texas
Petri, Tom, Wisconsin
Ramstad, Jim, Minnesota
Upton, Fred, Michigan
Walsh, Jim, New York lazy to vote
REPUBLICAN........17.........180.................. 4
DEMOCRATIC..... 229........... 2..................... 2
TOTALS................ 246..........182................... 6

Mr. President

Saturday, February 10, 2007

And City Council is worried about Trans-Fat...LOL

In Philadelphia, homicides rose 7 percent to a nine-year high of 406 last year, giving it the highest murder rate per 100,000 people among America's 10 biggest cities, according to a survey of police departments by the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper, which keeps runs a tally.
Philadelphia, with a population of about 1.5 million, also has the highest poverty rate -- 25 percent -- among those cities.

Yet what does this Democrat city concern itself with Trans-Fat....

Philadelphia - Philadelphia City Council Thursday joined New York City and a number of other cities around America by unanimously passing legislation to ban the use of trans fats in Philadelphia restaurants and bakeries. Mayor John Street is expected to sign the bill. In a recent radio address he commented, "Philadelphia is at the forefront of the national trend to ban this dangerous fat. This legislation coupled with the recent enactment of the smoking ban will make Philadelphians even healthier."

Yeah as long as you can avoid the random Gun Fire from the Drug Dealers. The death count continues to rise, and in This shining example of a Democrat utopia they worry more about smoking and fat....

A Black Lincoln?

I think not ...LOL

Thursday, February 08, 2007

The Traitorous Times

We can thank the Democrat that leaked it and the N.Y. Times for publishing it. Because of thier hatred for G.W. Bush, Al-Qaeda and Iran are once more free to pay for the death of woman and children at the hands of self exploding Arabs. Not to mention buy any thing they need to put a Nuke or a Biological Bomb in your favorite Mall.

Bank Group Is Told to Halt Flow of Data to U.S. Officials
Published: February 2, 2007
BRUSSELS, Feb. 1 (Agence France-Presse) — The European Central Bank must take action by April to stop the transfer of personal information from Swift, the bank-data consortium, to American authorities for use in antiterrorism investigations, a regulatory agency said Thursday.
The agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, told the bank to come up with measures “to make its payment operations fully compliant with data-protection legislation,” urging it to “take appropriate measures as soon as possible.”

Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.
Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.
The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Politburo 1

Nancy Pelosi wants the equivalent of this jet, a 757, to fly her, her family, and her friends between Washington and San Francisco.

On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”

Hasterts plane sat 12 and had no amenities. Nancy's "Politburo 1" will seat 45 have a state room with a full size bed, and an entertainment center. Mad Dog Murtha (head of Pentagon appropriations) called the Pentagon and told them they would be anti-feminist if they did NOT honor her request. Don't worry though it will only cost $300,000 a trip between D.C. and San Fran. Not to mention the addition to the Global Warming damage she'll be causing.

UPDATE: Murtha's Non-threat... Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort.
But he denied pressuring the Pentagon. "I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do,'' Murtha said. Murtha said he is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking information about the possibility that Pelosi would use large military planes to make her look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them,'' referring to the Pentagon budget. Subtle Huh

Monday, February 05, 2007

Officials: Iran set up 2 uranium-enrichment units underground

By News Agencies
Technicians have assembled two small uranium enrichment units at Iran's underground Natanz complex, diplomats and officials said Monday. The move underscored Tehran's defiance of a United Nations Security Council ban on the program, which can be used to create nuclear arms.News that Iran had linked up two sets of centrifuges - each consisting of 164 machines connected in series - was widely expected.The 328 centrifuges would be the vanguard of 3,000 planned for installation in the coming months.

Iran recently finished installing piping, electrical cables and other equipment needed to begin so-called "industrial-scale" enrichment in the vast subterranean complex, which is fortified and ringed by anti-aircraft guns in the central Iranian desert.Both the Iranian leadership and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency had said recently that Tehran would start assembling the machines this month. Still, with Tehran under UN sanctions because of its refusal to give up the program, it upped the ante in Tehran's confrontation with the international community.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at

Saturday, February 03, 2007

The Idiot in France

Bombing in Paris
Fri. 02 Feb 2007
The Wall Street Journal
February 2, 2007; Page A18

Barring a surprise, Jacques Chirac's 45-year run in politics is likely to end later this year when the French elect a new leader. They're certainly going to miss him in Tehran.

The French president gave a fitting valedictory in an interview published yesterday in the New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur. Speaking Monday, Mr. Chirac reversed years of public rhetoric by proclaiming himself indifferent to a nuclear-armed Iran. "Having one [atomic bomb], maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous," Mr. Chirac said. "Where will [Iran] drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground."

His aides quickly realized their man had committed the gaffe of saying what everyone thought he really believed, and so left out those passages from an official interview transcript. The journalists also got a return call from the president on Tuesday, in which he noted that "I should have paid better attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record."

We can guess they needed no such clarification in Tehran. On or off the record, Mr. Chirac was merely confirming what the mullahs have long believed, which is that the Europeans simply aren't serious about preventing them from going nuclear.

Monsieur le president's version of mutual assured nuclear destruction could also stand some parsing. He seems to think that Tehran would never launch an attack for fear it would be annihilated in return. But assuming Israel were destroyed first, what other country would risk a counterattack itself by nuking millions of Iranian civilians to avenge Israel? France? The same country that wouldn't even let U.S. jets fly over its territory to drop a few conventional bombs on Libya? We doubt many Israelis will share Mr. Chirac's faith in nuclear deterrence against Islamists who prize martyrdom.

Mr. Chirac won't make public his political intentions before March, but in one recent poll only 2% of the French want him on the ballot again. Privately, Chirac aides believe that only a foreign policy crisis -- say, over Iran -- could revive his political career. His remarks this week make it more likely that Iran will become a crisis, but at least we can hope he won't be around to make it any worse.

February 1, 2007
France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.

These tidbits were both out of the Traitorous Times interview with Wack Chirac. This is the leadership that Clinton, Kerry, and Kennedy want to emulate and base how we do things in this country on. The first thing we need to do is expose the French for what they are and what they have been since WWII, The Vichey. They have been duplicit with every nation that has been openly hostile to the west. They have lost every war they have been in in the past two centuries, yet they feel they can rule the world through courts and policies out of Belgium dictated from Paris. The second and more important thing that needs to take place is a tripling of all import taxes on any goods out of the EU. We can call it a Police Tax. Since we have to police the world, and fight the people they are arming we need to make them pay for it.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Dead From the Neck Up

New RNC chief backs bill with guest-worker plan
By Donald Lambro
February 2, 2007

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, the Republican National Committee's new general chairman, wants Congress to pass an immigration bill this year that will include a guest-worker program with "earned citizenship" requirements for illegal aliens.
Mr. Martinez, whose election encountered sharp opposition from some RNC members who think his support for giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship is a thinly veiled form of amnesty, said, "I don't support deporting these people because I don't believe that's a realistic approach." (this is just one more reason NOT to give the RNC our suport)
In an interview with The Washington Times, his first since taking the helm of the RNC, he acknowledged the opposition to his election and his support for the Kennedy-McCain bill that called for a multistep process of earned amnesty for all but the most recent illegals. But he said, "My views on immigration are not well understood." (yes they are, your an ASS)
"I did support Kennedy-McCain. I did vote for that, but I had some amendments to that bill that made it, I think, more conservative. We need border security and strong assimilation. I voted for the 700-mile fence on the border. I'm a strong advocate of these things," he said.
"But I don't wake up every morning worrying about the issue. (well you should, then maybe more Republicans will come out in support of the party) It's an important issue. It needs to be dealt with. But I don't have some agenda here," he said. (yes you do, it's just not the same one as the base)
Asked what he would consider the ideal immigration bill, Mr. Martinez said he was working with Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and other conservative Republicans on a compromise that would call for a temporary-worker system along the lines that President Bush has proposed. "We're trying to see if something can be worked out," he said. (in other words your trying to figure out how to sell AMNESTY)
"I think it is important for people who would like to be American citizens, if they come here illegally, to pay some penalties for breaking the law, to undergo background checks, to see that they pass English proficiency tests and some sort of citizenship lesson, pay back taxes -- all the things that I think would be sensible for someone to earn a path to citizenship but not an immediate citizenship," he said. (NO they need to be ARRESTED and DEPORTED)
Mr. Martinez said he realizes that any earned citizenship plan triggers opposition among many in his party but he hopes that a compromise can be reached around which the party can unite. (there is NO COMPROMISE. What you are doing is assuring a Republican DEFEAT in 08)
"I respect the right of some people to differ on whether I was the right person for the job or not. (this proves you weren't) I was delighted that the opposition was as small as it was. (no it wasn't you asshole. If the leadership had ran on the ILLEGAL issue the party would still control congress. The fact that no one came out in suport of the party is DIRECTLY due to lack of backbone on this issue) I respect them, but then we move on," he said. "My election to the RNC was not about immigration. It's about the president's belief that my voice could help the party win elections." (your stance will LOSE, and has lost the party elections)
Mr. Martinez also said the Republicans' internal political battle over immigration has alienated much of the Hispanic community, but he believes the fast-growing minority voter bloc is "absolutely not a lost cause" in the 2008 elections. (your a fool)
"We've done very well with Hispanic voters in the past. It's about reaching out and explaining our policies and what our party stands for," he said. (all those Hispanics that came here legaly feel betrayed by giving ILLEGALS AMNESTY)
Mr. Martinez -- who fled communist Cuba as a youngster, a story that plays a central role in his political appeal -- outlined an ambitious Hispanic outreach effort that he said he will lead as party chairman over the next two years.
"I'll be speaking to Spanish media on radio and television, webcasts, podcasts and Hispanic groups, as [former RNC Chairman] Ken Mehlman did. We'll reach out very strongly. We're going to organize in the states in a way that will allow Hispanics to play a role in our party's politics," he said. (reaching out to those that support the ILLEGALS will NEVER give us an edge. Those that support ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION are already Democrats ya git)
But the one thing that worries him the most is the residual anger and discontent at the party's base that he says led to the House and Senate losses in November and represents a major challenge for Republicans to overcome in the 2008 elections. (it's only a challenge because YOU and others REFUSE to support the LAW. Thats why they are called ILLEGALS)
"There is some anger out there at our party's grass roots. We have to show them we've heard their message loud and clear and that we understand it," he said. (this article proves that you may have heard the base, but your going to refuse to listen to it. For that you expect us to support you?) "We lost our path, our way. We didn't adhere to the Republican principles that made us very successful. We lost the optimism of Ronald Reagan and the idea of fiscal restraint, and obviously the Iraq war played a part as well." (the Iraq war has NOTHING to do with this issue or the parties loss. It was Spending and THIS ISSUE)
But he said he is under no illusions about Republicans making a comeback in the next elections, noting that the party will have 21 senators up for re-election to only 12 for the Democrats.
"It's going to be a tough cycle, but we'll hold some and pick up some," he said. (This man is an IDIOT! Hearing this man talk spells DOOM for 08. If the party does not get SERIOUS on this issue, and the WAR Hillary is our next President. Reading this mans thoughts scares me more than anything I have heard in a long time. The party leadership continues to prove over and over that they are STUPID. We need to embrace SEALING our Border, Deporting ILLEGALS, Fining companies MILLIONS of dollars for employing them, and Explaining to the people what happens when we retreat in Iraq. If the part leadership continues to keep their heads shoved up their asses, after we lose the 08 elections we need to dismantle the Republican Party)