Little Big Mahdi on Campus

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

When I'm Right, I'm Right: Ahmadinejad "Praised in Iran for Entering Lion's Den"

I hate people who say "See I told you so!" However:

See, I told you so!

Found this Reuters news release on Yahoo.com News this morning:

Ahmadinejad lauded in Iran for "Lion's Den" visit

By Fredrik Dahl
31 minutes ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States by suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home on Wednesday for taking his country's case to "the Lion's Den."

Generally, politicians and media in the Islamic Republic -- even some who have previously criticized the president -- described Ahmadinejad's visit to New York as a triumph and denounced the university president who called him "a petty and cruel dictator."

But one pro-reform newspaper said that, although the president told his U.S. audience he respected academics, that was not always how it seemed at home.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, traveled to the United States at a time of escalating tension between the two foes over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and the war in Iraq.

The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and on Tuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions was "closed" and that military threats and sanctions had failed.

"By fearlessly and courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den' ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim street than before," the daily Iran News wrote.

Sometimes I'm so accurate it's frightening.

Not really, as I stated yesterday, anyone with half a brain (I guess that lets out all you Liberals) could have seen this coming.

This is the perfect example of why the opinions of our Ivory Towered "Intellectuals" in their prestigious universities should have absolutely no voice in how our nation, our economy and our diplomacy are run. By living and working in their isolated, insulated surroundings, into which the realities of the outside world rarely intrude, their view of the outside world becomes skewed and what sounds great intellectually when discussed among their peers in their little enclaves of idealistic fantasy proves over and over again to be utopian, naive and dangerous.

They are trapped forever in the Never, Never Land of sophomoric ideals and naive, shallow concepts. Their absurd assumption that "as academics, they should allow all ideas [except those of Conservative American politics] to be given an equal stage on which they can be presented, discussed, and evaluated" and their complete lack of foresight as to the propaganda value such a prestigious ivitation provides to a despot such as Ahmadinejad is jarring in its naiveté.

There is a reason that they are called Ivory Towered Intellectuals. The repercussions of this poorly thought out invitation to this caricature of a world leader to be given an academic stage from which to present his propaganda have yet to have been realized. The fact that so many at Columbia chose to applaud Ahmadinejad's performance illustrates just how foolish and poorly served the students of these so called bastions of higher education are.

One is forced to ask how shallow does one's thought processes have to be for them to actually believe the words of a man on who's hands the blood of thousands rests. How much irrational hatred of your own nation does it require for one to take the word of a sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and the man responsible for the deaths of so many of our brave troops in Iraq over the words of your own democratically elected government?

That is the problem with these so-called "members of academia." They are so divorced from reality that the absurd becomes reasonable and the unthinkable becomes desirable.

The motives behind Columbia University's President Bollinger's remarks are transparent. On the heels of the criticism he and his university received for allowing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this forum, he was attempting with little real success to deflect criticism from himself and his faculty's poorly thought out choice to make this invitation.

Once again we are given a glimpse into the world of academia and the narrow, shallow thought processes (if they can be called that) which occur in their insular communities.

Ahmadinejad has now "bearded the Lion" in his own den, as far as his political partner are concerned and has been given prestige and power far beyond his merit (kind of remeniscent of Hillary in her run for the White House).

For those keeping score:

The winners in this are the oppressive government of Iran, the terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and of course, Ahmadinejad.

The losers in all of this are the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the coalition of the willing, the American people, our war against the Global Islamic Jihad, and ultimately, Columbia University.

Remember, it was the Ivory Towered Intellectuals who pressed so hard for the Marxist Revolution in Russia. I was also they who were the first to be executed and persecuted once the revolution succeeded. This is fact. This is what history tells us, yet for those who live in that Never, Never Land; those facts have failed to penetrate the arrogance such an isolated enclave of likeminded individuals engenders.

By the way I feel the need to point out that it is these same "broadminded academicians" who so resolutely object to the presence of the ROTC. Truly these are people who believe in the free expression and exchange of ideas (as long as they don't involve Conservatives, the military, or those who voluntarily seek to help maintain the integrity of our borders-the Minute Men).

Liberals truly deserve their proper label of illiberals rather than the euphemism of "progressives."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Ahmadinejad's Columbia Appearance Reveals the Astounding Naivete of Liberals

Well in an unusual act, I am linking this time not to an article in one of the mainstream newspapers, but to one of the diaries of the dailyKos.com "kossacks."

I do this to demonstrate just how naive, myopic, and reactional Liberals tend to be. I only use StevenLeser's diary entry because it is so typical of what passes for deep thought in a Liberal's mind.

September 25, 2007

Ahmadinejad and his Columbia University Visit – All Happened as it Should

By Steven Leser

I think I am the only one pleased with the way Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to this country played out. It seems that those on the political right were mostly upset with the idea he was allowed to speak at Columbia University at all. Those on the political left were unhappy that people protested against him. Jews in general were understandably upset that Ahmadinejad, accused of being a holocaust denier and someone who has been somewhat belligerent towards the state of Israel, was able to be in the country at all.

Anyone with an absolute objection to the idea of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University has a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason why Universities and other institutes of higher learning exist. Even if you believe that Ahmadinejad is one of the most awful despots currently in power, the whole point of a University is to afford attendees the widest and deepest learning experience possible. Even at religious universities, students learn about evil and darkness as well as learning about those things that are good and pure. That does not mean you provide an evil person a platform all to himself or herself. I have an objection to the appearance by Christopher Hitchens at an upcoming FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) conference because he will have a forum all to himself. Columbia set up an event for Ahmadinejad where he and his beliefs would be challenged by someone competent to do so, in this case, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. I can think of no better way to teach people to recognize and deal with evil than to do so in a way like that which Columbia University did.

In some ways Mr. Leser is correct. It is a tradition for universities to allow disparate views to be expressed (unless one is a conservative American political pundit) so that students receive the broadest and best understanding of the world in general, and to trust their reasoning ability to discern the true from the false and the good from the bad.

It is in fact a necessity that all Americans be allowed to see such a monster unclothed so that they fully understand the innate deceptive nature of the enemies we face and the reason that America stands as a beacon, "that Shining City on the Hill" as the late President Reagan described us.

Where Mr. Leser, and apparently all (or the preponderance of) Liberals thought processes fail is in their jarringly insular view of the stage President Ahmadinejad was given. He and those like him have given little or no thought to the opportunity and prestige such a stage gives this despot in his own nation and on the world stage, where his appearance will not be broadcast in its entirety, but filtered by state run media outlets and foreign (and largely anti-American, anti-Israel) press organizations.

It is all well and good for academics to discuss and debate issue in the narrow confines of the university environment (would that they were as broad-minded and tolerant of conservative American political views), but there is a vast difference in the perceptions of those who live in America and enjoy the innate freedoms and liberties we take for granted. In other nations, the glimpses their populations will have of this terrorist's performance will be filtered by whatever the dictates of that nation's particular news outlet's biases seek to present.

Mr. Leser presumes, in a pathetically naive manner, that the words of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, which he so roundly praises, will be heard by those throughout the world, thus allowing them to objectively evaluate Ahmadinejad's appearance and his response to both President Lee Bollinger's opening CYA salvo, and the Q&A session which followed.

Yet anyone mature enough to see what occurred at Columbia University, without the inherent blinders of one with an unvarnished hatred of President Bush and his administration's policies, will also be aware of the nature of censorship which exists in those nations with whom we are engaged in war, both ideologically and physically.

There are a number of synonyms for the word insular, such as parochial, or narrow but my personal favorite is "illiberal." A particularly useful word for those self-descrbed "Liberals" who make light of the war against the Global Islamic Jihad.

Leser's diary is very illustrative of the generally sophomoric logic used by those on the Left. Concepts which, on the surface, appear to be ideal and wise are not examined in depth. Their thinking is on a most superficial level and little thought is given beyond their emotional "knee-jerk" reaction of "What a great idea!"

Others on the Left have a much more malevolent and deceptive intent. Individuals like Mr. Juan Cole, who allows his anti-Bush, anti-American agenda to affect his every thought, goes so far as to accept the words of Ahmadinejad at face value; making no effort to judge his words by his actions.

Here is an excerpt from Juan Cole's article which appeared in Salon Magazine yesterday:

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1

Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.

By Juan Cole
Sep. 24, 2007

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.

The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.

Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.

There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.

No Mr. Cole, we do not suffer from a "deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo." We fear what may happen in the Middle East should such a terrorist be allowed to grow in power and influence. We fear that he may further expand his already vigorous exportation of terrorism and violence throughout the region.

That Mr. Ahmadinejad supports Hamas and is sending both weapons and special ops troops into Iraq to kill American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in hopes of further disrupting the Iraqi's attempts to create a unified nation cannot be denied.

That Mr. Ahmadinejad is supplying both arms and support to Hamas in their attacks against Israel cannot be denied.

That Mr. Ahmadinejad sent Iranian weapons and support via his surrogates in Hezbollah to destabilize Lebanon cannot be denied.

Those are the facts Mr. Cole, not the bile you spew forth in your despicable attacks against our president and our nation.

In Mr. Cole we have a skilled propagandist whose aim is not to objectively evaluate President Ahmadinejad's presence in the United States, or his appearance before the Columbia University audience of students and faculty, but to castigate the American right.

Mr. Cole has already made up his mind about America and knows that America is planning to go to war with Iran. He has no proof. His sort of purveyor of misinformation doesn't require any proof, his opinion is sufficient for him. He is one of those arrogant Liberals for whom opinion trumps fact and myth substitutes for truth.

Ahmadinejad denies that he is an anti-Semite and that he has never called for the killing of Israeli Jews (this in spite of Ahmadinejad's repeated refusal to answer the question, directly put to him, as to whether he desires the elimination of the state of Israel) thus, in Mr. Cole's view, that must be the truth. No effort is expended in critical analysis; simply take Ahmadinejad at his word. Such dishonesty requires no thought, only, to quote Hillary, Mrs William J. Clinton, "a willing suspension of disbelief."

Yet Mr. Cole intentionally ignores that which IRIB News (the Iranian state News Organization) freely reported in 2005:

Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map

Tehran, Oct 26 - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.

Mr. Cole would have us take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word that the Iranian state is pursuing nuclear capabilities solely for peaceful energy purposes. Perhaps Mr. Cole should take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word.

An honest broker of information would at least express some skepticism at the words of a proven liar, an exporter of terrorism, and an oppressor of his own people.

Mr. Cole stands out among those who equate the actions of our troops in Iraq and the policies of the Bush Administration to the actions of Ahmadinejad and Hitler. He claims moral equivalency between what is happening in Iraq today with the actions of murderous despots, both past and present.

This "moral equivalency" stems from the Left's irrational hatred of President Bush. Yet we know hatred stems from ignorance and fear, not from logic or reason. These same people who so readily equate President Bush to those two despots have suffered none of the oppression the citizens and victims of despotic regimes routinely suffer. The very fact that individuals like Mr. Cole and Leser can write those words and do so without fear of reprisal, imprisonment, torture or death gives proof of the lies they tell.

They cannot cite a single example of such oppression within our nation. They have no facts with which to back up any of their claims, only assumption, innuendo, and hatred of all things American.

Don't take my word for the claim of censorship in Iran; we can already see some of those filters in active propaganda mode, again from IRIB News, today.

IRI enjoys good relations with world nations

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "America did not take proper advantage of good Iraq negotiations opportunity due to Iran's appropriate proposals."

Ahmadinejad made the comment in an interview with Channel 13, 60 Minutes anchorman Charlie Rose, aired on Monday hours before addressing at New York's Colombia University.

Reacting to a question on his viewpoint on authenticity of America's accusations against Iran's involvement in insurgencies in Iraq, Ahmadinejad said, "The Iraqi Shiis and Sunnis are all our brethren in faith, and we enjoy good relations both with the Iraqi people and with their popular government. Why then should we foment crises in Iraq?"

He emphasized that the American politicians are not ready for hearing logical arguments, adding, "We enjoy good relations with entire world nations, including with the American nation, but believe there is a partisan dictatorship ruling in America, not permitting any candidate outside the two big parties to take the lead on behalf of the people."

The President added, "America claims it is observing freedom of expression. Why then are they raising so much hue and cry over Colombia University's inviting of the IRI President to give an address and answer the students' questions?"

Ahmadinejad pointed out that before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and during the American backed regime of the ousted Shah, the country was entangled with poverty, its prisons were overcrowded with political prisoners, who were tortured brutally.

He added, "Today, our nation is present at all the scenes and news on the Iranian nation's advancement are broadcast in the world every day."

I guess I missed the part where IRIB News included the pre-rebuttal of Columbia University President Bollinger, or the question and answer portion of President Pipsqueaks appearance.

Sorry Mr. Leser, Mr. Cole, go peddle your lies somewhere else...Oh! Come to think of it you are. The audiences you are addressing are true believers already. They practice "a willing suspension of disbelief" in their everyday lives.

Long winded I know, but I just couldn't let this one go.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hillary Talks...and Talks, and Talks, and Talks; Says Little

Well this is refreshing, I have little to add to Anne E. Kornblut's coverage of the Hillary blitz in today's Washington Post. Anne pretty much tells it like it is.

Kudos Anne, for telling it straight.

Hitting All the Sunday Talk Shows, Clinton Says a Lot but Reveals Little

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 24, 2007; Page A04

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on all five talk shows yesterday morning and demonstrated a particularly senatorial skill: the art of the filibuster.

Asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether she would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq during a first term as president, Clinton (D-N.Y.) gave a simple answer: She did not know.

But she used more than 225 words to say so. "You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit, George. I don't know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region. How much more aggressive will Iran have become?" Clinton said. "What will be happening in the Middle East? How much more of an influence will the chaos in Iraq have in terms of what's going on in the greater region? Will we have pushed al-Qaeda in Iraq out of their strongholds with our new partnership with some of the tribal sheiks or will they have regrouped and retrenched?"

She continued: "I don't know, and I think it's not appropriate to be speculating. I can tell you my general principles and my goal. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to do so carefully, responsibly, with the withdrawal of our troops, also, with the withdrawal of a lot of our civilian employees, the contractors who are there, and the Iraqis who have sided with us.

"We have a huge humanitarian refugee crisis on our hands. We have millions of Iraqis who have been displaced, some internally, some into other countries. The problems we're going to face because of the failed policies and the poor decision-making of this administration are rather extraordinary and difficult, and I don't want to speculate about how we're going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions."

I must say, seeing this kind of candor in the Washington Post is very refreshing. Truly Anne, you hit this one out of the park.

Hillary said a whole lot without saying much at all.

Well, I guess even a blind pig can find an acorn every now and then (Um, sorry Anne I'm not comparing you to a pig, only your usually predictably biased employer). I sincerely hope that Ms. Kornblut doesn't lose her job because of her accuracy and candor in reporting Hillary's totally unspectacular performance.

Maybe there's hope still.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hillary Clinton Makes the Sunday Talk Show Circuit (Circus?)

Have you seen Disney's newest Animatronics doll? I believe I have. Apparently Hillary, Mrs. William J. Clinton was so busy with her campaign that she was unable to take time to sit down with the talk show hosts this Sunday Morning, so her handlers were clever enough to get the engineers at the Walt Disney Company to cobble together a most life-like facsimile of her.

At times I swear it seemed as though the talk show hosts were speaking to an real person. No, really the robot was that life-like. Isn't it amazing how far the Animatronics technology has advanced?

That's what occurred to me after watching her (it's) performance on all five of the morning talk-shows Sunday.

Hillary, Mrs. William J. Clinton, sat there with her eyes wide open and a smile frozen on her face as she deflected and danced around the questions being posed to her by each of the Sunday morning talk show hosts. Even her blink-rate was controlled to an amazing extent.

There were only a couple of occasions in which her carefully crafted facade cracked and we got a very brief glimpse of what lies beneath this highly camouflaged dedicated Marxist. Only a few moments in which the smile became a little smaller and more tight-lipped. Only a few questions in which her infamous temper seemed near bursting forth, but of course robots don't really have emotions, so we never managed to see the real Hillary.

It's too bad she was unable to make the appearances herself. I am reminded of the late actor Robert Shaw's description of a shark's eyes in his role as shark hunter "Quint" in the movie "Jaws."

"Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'."

That's what struck me during her five interviews, how lifeless and terribly scripted she appeared. That and how shallow her responses were.

But then, we must never forget that we are speaking of a genuine sociopath, not a normal sane human being. This is a woman driven by ambition more than any person running for President of the United States.

This is a truly frightening lady. She is as hardcore a socialist as Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels could ever have hoped for. When she lies, she lies with the practiced ease that a only a lifetime of deceit could engender.

Where John Edwards' eyes would be fluttering like the wings of a bat (an event which occurs so frequently when he speaks that for anyone to be deceived by him they really have to be oblivious to body language), Hillary's complete absence of anything remotely resembling a conscience, and her dedication to Marxist ideals...she is a true believer...allows her to speak absent those tell-tale alterations in her blink-rate and furtive movements of the eyes which normally and subconciously occur when one is lying. Only on rare occasions, when the questions put before her caught her off guard, did she suffer a momentary lapse in her generaly controlled preformance.

No Hollywood actor could have done a better job of behaving like a warm, caring, genuine human being. At times she appeared almost jovial in her countenance.

Yep it was quite a performance. The set was carefully chosen, the ever present black pearl necklace was in its place the hair was carefully coiffured, the wardrobe specially selected, the expression almost unchanging, the laughter meticulously timed to appear disarming and express her charm.

Heck, even Brit Hume said she came off "very presidential." Overall Hillary's Sunday morning talk show gambit must be considered a success for those to whom appearance is the most important aspect of selecting a president.

My reaction? Well you've already read it. There is no there, there. Know hint of knowledge beyond what she has been told to say. There were no unscripted moments, no off the cuff remarks. When she was asked an "inconvenient question," she merely deflected it and returned to her script.

That script was repeated with dazzling consistency on each of the morning shows. It became obvious what her campaign's plans were from her first answers to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday; speak for as much time as you can, use up as much time as you can, limit the number of questions the host is able to ask.

Highlights: Hillary Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday, September 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, took several jabs at President Bush on Sunday while at the same time suggesting that she was working to move America beyond partisanship and toward the center.

The New York senator then went on to say that she wants to discuss the substance of issues —like her latest health care plan — rather than just attack the other candidates.

"I think people are ready to start acting like Americans again. They want to roll up their sleeves. They want to tackle these tough problems, and I believe we can. And I'm confident and optimistic that we can make progress together again starting January 20th, 2009," she said.

She also noted that during her re-election in 2006, she won over a lot of the same voters who re-elected Bush in 2004 because she was able to find common ground with Republicans and independents.

"You know, I'm not intimidated by all of the efforts to try to undermine what I think is right for the country or to come after me or Democrats personally, because I think we need to try to get back to the center," she said.

"Center?" The center Hillary? Hillary Clinton hasn't seen the center since she was a freshman at Wellesley. She wouldn't recognize it if she walked "right" into it. For Hillary, Karl Marx was a centrist.

This strategy, for the most part, prevented the unexpected questions. With time so limited, everyone knows there were only a limited number of questions the host is definitely going to ask, so by speaking as long and as circuitously as she could, she was able to limit the number of unexpected questions to about one per television show host.

This juggernaut of the Democrat Party appears ready to to waltz into the Democrat nominee without being touched. All she has to do is avoid screwing up and the nomination is hers. With so-called journalists being so decidedly deferential to her royal highness, it is difficult to envision any occasion in which her feathers will be ruffled and Americans will get a glimpse of the shrill harpy that lurks beneath her facade.

The most glaringly absent question for me was the follow up to asking her about her failure to immediately distance herself from the MoveOn.org advertisement accusing General Petaeus of being "General Betray Us. In a single response she compared the reprehensible personal attack against one of our generals in the field serving his nation to the sort of attacks which one regularly see (and which were for the most part factual in John Kerry's and Max Cleland) in a political campaign.

Drawing moral equivalence between two disparate and unrelated events seems to be a routine tactic of the Left. Hillary's response was to say that she supported a bill which would condemn "all such attacks." Never once did she directly attack MoveOn.org for their advertisement and never once was she asked to explain her direct attack on General Petraeus' integrity when she said the believing his report requires a "willing suspension of disbelief."

That phrase, used originally by J.R.R. Tolkien in describing the atmosphere one must create for the reading audience when spinning a "faery tale" was every bit as mean spirited and insulting as anything MoveOn.org said in their infamous New York Times advertisement, and so far, only Rudy Giuliani has called her to task for that attack.

To be certain, none of the Sunday morning talk-show hosts did so.

It is a sad state of affairs that someone so completely devoid of experience, knowledge, and ability has the very real possibility of becoming our next president.

Hillary Clinton is an empty suit. Her mind is as devoid of original thought and her suit as empty as is that of her opponent Barrack Obama-sama. One continues to hear Hillary spoken of as the most experienced and prepared person running for the Democrat Presidential nomination. If that is the case, then the Democrats are in big trouble, because she is a unprepared and dangerously naive as anyone currently running.

Like most Liberals, her ideology is shallow, poorly thought out, naive in its grasp of human nature, and as dangerous as anything offered up by Stalin or Mao. She is the ultimate elitist Liberal, and she has made it abundantly clear that she sees the Constitution of the United States as an impediment to her ultimate aims.

She has accomplished nothing in her life except as a result of being the wife of a very inept and careless president and a darling of the feminist Left. Her brief career as the Junior Senator from New York has been remarkable only in its lack of remark ability. She has led the fight for no legislation, routinely been among the last or been the last to cast her vote on every controversial issue, and she has remained safely in the background avoiding the limelight whenever decisiveness or character has been called for; yet she is by default, the front-runner in the race for nominee of the Democrat campaign for President.

Yep folks, that Disney Animatronics stuff is really amazing; so amazing that we may actually have an Animatronics robot serving in the White House as our next President.

Now that's a decidedly frightening thought.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

That Which We Call A "Hate Crime" Would By Any Other Name Be Just As Foul

Now let me get this straight. You Liberals consider burning the American flag, a flag that millions have spilled their blood to protect and defend, an acceptable if not laudable form of "freedom of speech." Well okay, since the courts have so ruled, I will allow that, even if I find it reprehensible and would consider it reason enough to imprison those who do so for incitement to riot if nothing else.

The main point is, burning an American flag in protest is freedom of speech. Okay, so that must mean that someone hanging a noose on the limb of a tree is also freedom of speech, right? No, according to Liberals, that comes under the heading of a hate crime. Why, because it is associated with hatred of black people and the horrible acts of some few in the past. Therefore it's a hate crime, right?

Well what if someone associated burning the American flag a act of hatred-as it usually is-wouldn't that make flag burning a hate crime as well? Oh yeah the answer to that is no, we've already said that flag burning is "free speech." Then I guess that makes noose hanging a form of free speech as well right? No, we've already determined that it falls under the heading of "hate crime."

That is what passes for logic in the mind of a Liberal. If they approve of it, no matter how offensive it is, like, for instance, calling a highly decorated and virtually universally lauded General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," in a cute little Liberal sort of twist of words, that's free speech. If a Black Panther member throws his clinched fist in the air in a symbol of "Black Power," that's "free speech."

If on the otherhand it offends the sensibilities of the Left, like placing a noose on a tree which was generally considered a gathering place for white students after some black student sat under it, or some guy driving a pick-up truck with a Confederate Flag on the back, or even a noose dangling from the bumper; that's hate speech.

So yesterday...and today we have the small Louisiana town of Jena overun by protestors black and white decrying the "injustice" shown to six poor little old black students simply because they chose to gang up on and beat to unconsciousness a whole bunch of one white boy by arresting them and charging them with attempted murder.

Judge Denies Request to Free Jena Teen
Associated Press
9/21/2007 6:30 PM

JENA, La. (AP) — A judge on Friday denied a request to release a teenager whose arrest in the beating of a white classmate sparked this week's civil rights protest in Louisiana. Mychal Bell's request to be freed while an appeal is being reviewed was rejected at a juvenile court hearing, effectively denying him any chance at immediate bail, a person familiar with the case told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because juvenile court proceedings are closed.

Earlier, Bell's mother emerged from the hearing in tears, refusing to comment.

Bell, 17, was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery, which could have led to 15 years in prison. But his conviction was thrown out by a state appeals court that said he could not be tried on the charge as an adult because he was 16 at the time of the beating.

"This is why we did not cancel the march," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, an organizer of Thursday's rally along with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. "When they overturned Mychal's conviction, everyone said we won."

Jackson said in an interview Friday that federal intervention is needed to protect Bell's rights. Sharpton said he has scheduled meetings in Washington with congressional leaders to discuss the Jena Six case.

How dare the system indict those unfortunate and misunderstood youths who were just out having a little revenge beating on a smart-alecky white boy. The fact is he probably deserved to get his butt kicked, but six on one is hardly a fair fight, it is by its very nature a "hate crime."

Sorry Liberals, but down here we have a saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It is a little difficult for me to comprehend the Liberal thought process, or for that matter the black communities thought process in which had the numbers been reversed and it had been six white kids beating up a black kid, Liberals would be calling for life imprisonment and describing what occurred as a hate crime.

What is most revealed here is the complete irrationality of the concept of "hate crimes" and the complete inconsistency of Liberal thinking. Burning flag-the symbol of our nation and that for which it stands-"free speech." Noose hanging from a tree-limb-"hate crime."

There is as much if not more racism within the Black Community against whites as there is within the White Community against blacks. That is the ugly secret that no Liberal is willing to admit.

Racism, prejudice, and bigotry, are all evidence of what any objective naturalist or behavioral scientist has observed in the wild for an eternity. Reduced to its most basic description; "Birds of a feather flock together." Any and all who attempt to deny this basic law of nature are not willing to see the truth before them. Even in the most tightly racially integrated environments, black people subconsciously seek out other black people with whom to associate, white people subconsciously seek out other white people with whom to associate, hispanics will do the same, as will Asians and any other racially or socially described group.

This is not some arcane bizarre statement; it is an observation anyone can and has if they are objective in any social environment. One can see it in school lunch rooms, on playgrounds, in restaurants, in night clubs in virtually any social gathering.

Short of some external influence, say a boss at work, a teacher at school, or any forced situation which overrides those natural tendencies such as the need for mutual survival, human beings, just like every other species on the planet are by their very biology, inclined to associate in groups with whom they hold the most in common. Anyone straying outside of those boundaries does so at their own risk.

When the need to overcome those tendencies arises, as in the response to the attacks of 9/11 or in the response to a natural disaster such as Katrina, those natural impulses are immediately and unconsciously laid aside, but as soon as those external influences are removed. Human beings return to those natural tendencies.

We have seen the result of those tendencies only recently in the Duke Non-rape Case, in which blacks, completely unfamiliar with the circumstances, the individuals, or the societal setting, immediately and unapologetically set out to have the innocent victims of this hate crime...the unjust and unethical arrest, indictment and jailing of three white students, found guilty without the need of a trial.

To this day black activist and New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz has refused to apologize for his reprehensible actions and statements against those young white men, even when all evidence against them was proven to be false and the now disgraced white district attorney hid exculpatory evidence from the defense for political reasons, pandering to the anti-white feelings of those in the black community of Durham.

The March on Jena was just another example, as was the general celebration within the Black Community upon the "Not Guilty" verdict of O.J. Simpson, a decade ago of the perceived and actual disconnect which exists between whites and blacks in America.

There are, of course a great many exceptions to this trend, but taken as a whole, it is an accurate portrayal of race relations in America and why enforced integration, as noble as the motives were and are, has been and remains a failure.

These six youths committed a gross act of violence and in most communities any 16 year old who commits such a crime is tried not as a child but as an adult. The same should apply in the Jena crime.

Lady Justice is alway protrayed as being blind folded for a reason. Justice should be meted out equally regardless of external and unrelated events. If these six blacks committed this beating, they need to be sent to prison. If the situation was reversed, there would be no question that such would be the result of any trial.

Equal Justice for all means exactly that.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Harry Reid and Russ Feingold Bill Resoundingly Defeated in Bipartisan Smackdown

This is just to funny for words. I love the way the Associated Press (Associated means associated with the Democrat Party) described the voting results.

Senate Rejects Legislation to Cut Money for Troops in Iraq
Thursday, September 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Senate blocked legislation Thursday that would have cut off money for combat in Iraq by June. It was a predictable defeat for Democrats struggling to pass less divisive anti-war measures.

The 28-70 vote was 32 short of the 60 needed to cut off a GOP filibuster. The legislation, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, was indicative of the Democratic leadership's new hardline strategy.

"Over and over, we have heard members of Congress saying we should wait until September before finally changing course in Iraq. Now, the president, and some members here in Congress, still want to keep a large number of our brave troops bogged down in Iraq indefinitely, while Al Qaeda continues to strengthen and regenerate itself in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The American people are as determined as ever to end this disastrous war," Feingold, D-Wis., said before the vote.

Unable to attract enough Republican support on less contentious proposals, Reid has sought votes on strong anti-war measures intended to force a withdrawal of troops.

So the 28-70 vote and the AP describes this as a "predictable defeat for Democrats" and that the "vote was 32 short of the 60 needed" Now thats funny. In the first place, I had no idea that there were so few "Democrats" in the Senate. In fact, I thought that the Democrats were in the majority...silly me.

In the second place, I can only respond with..."only 32 votes short?" Why it was a "near run thing." The Republican barely escaped with a victory.

Excuse me AP, by my count, it would appear that it was a stinging defeat for the extremist in the Democrat Party. A sound rejection by nearly half of their own members of Harry "the Sniveler" Reid, Russ "Soupy Sales" Feingold, and Hillary "the Madame" Clinton and their lose at any cost cadre of cowardly quiters.


-----Sniveling Harry Reid---------------------------------Russ and Soupy-Separated at Birth?

Sorry AP. Sorry Harry this was not a "predictable defeat for Democrats." This was a WWF smackdown, a NCLS 4-game sweep, a stinging rebuke of the heavy handed tactics being used by the extreme Left-wing element in the Democrat Party.

If this had been a little league baseball game it would have been called at the end of the first inning.

AP's take on this is nothing short of surreal...of course I come to expect the surreal from the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party some people still insist on calling the mainstream media.

BAMM!! Take that Snivelly Whiplash and Soupy Sales.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Houston students benefit from district’s embrace of competition

Despite its overwhelming track record of success, competition is becoming a dirty word in America -- especially in the field of education. Grade inflation, the dilution of extracurricular activities, and the over-the-top attacks against supporters of school choice all reflect a hostility to the notion that competition is healthy.

However, Jamie Story shows in this week's commentary how the state's largest school district has embraced the challenge of competition and how their students are better off for it.

---

Houston students benefit from district’s embrace of competition

By Jamie Story

While the public school lobby has traditionally opposed any introduction of competition into the education system, the state’s largest school district seems to have embraced it.

\In Houston, 80 state-authorized charter schools enroll approximately 20,000 students. That’s one charter student for every 10 students in the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Few school districts in the country face this degree of competition—and even fewer have risen to the challenge like HISD.

At a recent forum hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, HISD Chief Academic Officer Dr. Karen Soehnge emphasized that “we fundamentally, as an organization, embrace choice.” That’s not something you typically hear from a public school administrator. But HISD has responded to competition by maximizing choice within the public school system.

In HISD, students can choose to attend any school where space is available. Campus funding is based on enrollment – if a school doesn’t compete to keep students, it loses the dollars that go with them. And students have a wide variety of learning environments from which to choose, since HISD has created specialized magnet schools and virtual courses that maximize student flexibility.

HISD has also responded by establishing a network of district-authorized charter schools. Today, 29 district charters enroll approximately 11,000 students. By comparison, the state as a whole only contains 54 district charters, meaning more than half of the state’s district charters are in HISD.

What are the results of this movement toward choice? In 2005, HISD had 31 campuses rated unacceptable, and only six rated exemplary. In 2007, the district had 15 of each. For its size, Houston has half as many unacceptable schools as either Fort Worth or Dallas, and fewer even than Austin, a property-rich district.

A study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that traditional public schools facing competition from charters outperform those public schools that do not face competition. HISD provides concrete proof to support this unsurprising finding.

It is no coincidence that HISD, with its significant charter competition, is one of the most innovative urban districts in the country. If charter schools were allowed to expand more freely throughout the state, other Texas districts might be motivated to undertake similar reforms in response to competition from charters. Unfortunately, a legislative limit on the number of state-authorized charters has hampered the effects of competition.

But despite this limitation, school districts are still within their power to increase student choice. Charters authorized by school districts and universities do not fall under the state mandated cap, so district charters can proliferate elsewhere like they have in Houston.

Even more importantly, parents have the power to demand choice within their children’s districts. According to a little-known portion of the education code, the majority of parents and teachers of an existing public school may petition their school board to grant a charter to the campus. While the school board is not required to honor the petition, they are not allowed to arbitrarily deny the request either. To date, this authorization option has not been utilized by parents and teachers, but it holds great promise for increasing parental choice within the public school system.

“We are not threatened at all by competition,” Dr. Soehnge said at the TPPF forum. When more Texas school districts adopt that same attitude and embrace choice, parent satisfaction and student performance will soar.

Jamie Story is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

What's Good for the Goose...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF to host Policy Primer in Houston

The Texas Public Policy Foundation Announces

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

General Petraeus is now General Betray Us?

I know that Democrats are mentally challenged, especially when it comes to remembering their own action and words, but this new pre-emptive attack strategy by Democrats is beneath contempt. Once again, Democrats are proving themselves to be duplicitous by nature, incapable of telling the truth or of staying the course they themselves have set.

In January of this year, in spite of some misgivings on their part, General Petraeus was approved on a bipartisan vote of 81-0. That's right folks, not a single Democrat had the guts to oppose this new strategy. Even though Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and could easily have blocked General Peteaus' appointment. They didn't. Why? Because they are gutless, spineless opportunists who are more concerned with their public image than they are with the nation's security or with doing what is right.

From USinfo.State.gov comes the following:

President Bush, at the White House, praised the swift Senate action in confirming Petraeus, who will be promoted to general with this appointment.

"The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote," Bush said. "My instructions to the general [are] ‘Get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.’"

Petraeus, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, also holds a doctorate from Princeton University. He commanded the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 and served as commander of the training program for the Iraqi army in 2004 and 2005. Most recently, while stationed at Fort Leavenworth, he helped write the latest counterinsurgency manual for U.S. ground forces.

Those same folks who are impugning General Patraeus' objectivity and ability are the same folks who, given plenty of time to examine him chose to either sit in silence, refusing to vote (this is usually described as cowardice), or chose to vote to approve both his appointment and his plan.

I heard none of these same people who are now preemptively attacking General Patraeus' reputation object to the praise they gracelessly received from the President. They are cowards who, like the arrogant Liberals they are, were certain that the troop surge would be a failure, but failed to openly oppose the surge out of fear of a public backlash. Thus proving once again that the Democrats were pursuing a political strategy, not a strategy based upon national interests. Of course that is what has always been the attitude of the Democrat Party over the past six decades, how can we win the election, not how can we win the war?

Now, as general Petraeus' report is about to be made, and clear military progress (and some small political progress) is being made due to the shift in strategy, the Democrats are scurrying to revise their strategy to counter what is certain to be a mixed, but ultimately positive, report.

Now this general, who was given solid support from both sides of the aisle, is now being attacked as a generally partisan hack who will say whatever President Bush tells him to say. As usual, when Liberals are losing the argument, they resort to personal attack.

Even worse than this duplicity, is the flip-flop of some of those who, after going over to Iraq and seen the progress being made in places like Anbar Province-and so stating in no uncertain terms-are now, strictly out of political motivation altering their assessments.

One of these weasels comes immediately to mind; Senator Dick "Dastardly" Durbin. While Dick Dastardly was in Iraq mugging for the cameras and lying to the troops about how much he cares about them, both Durbin and Casey stated that they had seen clear progress on the ground and that our troops are now in areas in which they had never been before. Let's hear them say so from their own mouths:


Now, lest I be charged by such an august bastion of objectivity as Media Matters (the George Soros funded, Hillary Clinton started Democrat shill operation) of attempting to misrepresent what Durbin said, I will quote from their own transcript on their own webpage:

DURBIN: There are two important parts to this story: the military part -- as Senator Casey said, where men and women are doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that for -- in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time that we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda. But I have to tell you there's another side to this story that the Brookings Institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is very discouraging. We have seen this al-Maliki government, which was once branded a government of national unity, coming apart. We see Shias leaving, Sunnis walking out. It's not the kind of promise that we want in terms of bringing stability to this country.

Well Dick, that's great to hear. You know there is an old saying: "Everything you say after 'but' is BS."

So in effect what Dick Dastardly is saying is "Yes we're seeing real measurable progress here in what the military is accomplishing, unprecedented progress, real and certain not- what we were hoping to find, but that isn't what we want you to focus on. We want to assure you that, just like we told you, this surge has been a complete failure."

But now that he is back from Iraq and General Patraeus is about to report, he has changed his tune:

September 7, 2007
Durbin: Iraq report 'manipulated'
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Days before Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress on the progress of the troop "surge" in Iraq, the Senate's number two Democrat is accusing the administration of manipulating information in its highly anticipated Iraq report that will be released next week.

"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," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said at a Washington think tank.

Durbin, a war critic, said that for a long period of time he has exchanged e-mail with civilian employees who were gathering data for the report and writing draft portions of the findings.

"Some of them I correspond with almost on a daily basis. And when they sent a discouraging report about things that were happening in Baghdad, they were reminded by their superiors that's unacceptable; we need a positive report. They were sent back for editing changes. Now that's a fact," Durbin said.

No Dick, that's hearsay, not fact. Fact is when you have some physical proof, not simply letters of complaint by disaffected employees who were caught attempting to insert their opinions into the reports (and who are also probably Democrat party sympathizers). So if you don't mind Dicky, stick to the facts, as you know them. You remember just like the "fact" that the surge is succeeding...hint: see your above interview on CNN.

The fact remains that we are experiencing unprecedented successes on the ground, militarily. We have Sunnis who were once fighting with al Qaeda, now fighting alongside our troops and providing them with valuable intelligence. Is everything perfect? No, and I wouldn't have expected it to be. Just as I don't expect truth from the lips of a Democrat political hack like you.

The entire concept behind the troop surge was to provide the Maliki government "breathing room" so that they could begin to take control. The entire compliment of troops which comprised the surge weren't even in theater until the end of June, yet they have made phenomenal progress on the ground.

What you and your "Robo-Democrats" fear most is that we will now begin to see some real political progress because the members of the government have been able to visit their constituents and hear what they are saying...kind of like what you in the United States Congress did this August.

For the first time the people of Anbar province and other areas in Iraq are beginning to have a taste of what life without fear is like, and that is the Democrat's worst nightmare.

As for maintaining a presence in Iraq at least until the next spring, something that you lying, weasely, Democrats just can't stand, let me simply repeat a simple statement...no promise; promise which was made to the American people some time ago by another President. That President promised the American people that we would maintain our deployment "no longer than six months." That promise was then amended to, "Our troops will be out by December." Those statements promises were made by President William J. "Bubba" Clinton in 1994 as he began sending our troops into Bosnia.

Yet mysteriously the troops were still there in 2004 as the Washington Post famously reported in this article:

U.S. Troops Mark End Of Mission In Bosnia
Associated Press
Thursday, November 25, 2004; Page A19

TUZLA, Bosnia, Nov. 24 -- U.S. troops marked the end of their nine-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia on Wednesday as NATO prepared to hand over the task to the European Union in December.

A small number of U.S. troops will stay in Bosnia to hunt war crime suspects and help the country reform its military.

"This ceremony officially marks mission complete and mission accomplished," Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Army, Europe, said in a ceremony at Eagle Base in Tuzla, where most of the U.S. troops in Bosnia have been based.

Even more embarrassing to Democrats is the fact that the "small number of troops" that stayed in Bosnia are still there making their "six month" stay now about twelve years. Oops! I guess you Democrat hacks forgot they were even there (those pesky little details, you know, they can really be a problem).

Though the Democrat liars (yeah I know that's redundant) would have you believe that we have been in Iraq for decades, the invasion began in March of 2003. We are just now marking the four and one-half year mark in our presence in Iraq. I guess that means that Harry "Sniveling Whiplash" Reid, Barbara Boxenstein, and Dick "Dastardly" Durbin owe the American people another four and one-half years of full presence in Iraq before we "officially announce" our end of mission, and then an indefinitely remaining presence of a "small contingent of forces."

Isn't it odd how rarely we hear the remaining presence of our troops in Bosnia from the mainstream press or from the mouths of these Democrats who seem so concerned with our continued deployment in Iraq?

President Clinton knowingly lied to the American people when he promised that our troops would be out of Bosnia in "six months" ( I know it must come as a shock to you readers out there that President Clinton would lie to the American people...depending, of course, on what the meaning of is, is).

By contrast, President Bush has never made any effort to deceive the American people. Before the war in Iraq began he warned us over and over again that this would be a very long and protracted conflict. He warned us that the war against global terrorism would be a matter of decades, not of months.

The infamously distorted celebration which took place on the deck of the Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. Lincoln was not, as the liars in the Democrat propaganda machine have stated, a declaration of victory in Iraq. Far from it, President Bush was celebrating what was the truth, the successful end of the Lincoln's deployment (mission) and while overly optimistic in his later declaration of "the end of major combat operations" (also technically true, as Baghdad had fallen to our control), it was not a declaration of victory.

The President was quite clear in what he meant in his later speech made from the deck of the Lincoln:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

Nowhere did he declare that we had finished the job. President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were guilty of underestimating the aftermath of major combat operations and the ensuing chaos. They were also guilty of underestimating the manpower necessary to maintain and subdue a restless population which had not known freedom in more than a generation. What they are not guilty of is misleading the American people in either the mission as it was planned, or the reasons for our going to Iraq in the first place.

None of this is difficult to find out, all one has to do is be willing to examine the facts rather than rely on the propaganda being put out by the Bush-haters and the Democrat Party machine. Opinions never replace facts and unfortunately Liberals are very good at believing their opinions over the facts.

MoveOn.org is now calling General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," in anticipation of his report to Congress due tomorrow. They do this not because they have any facts to back their accusations up, they do it because they do not want to hear what they fear they will hear, an honest, objective, and mixed but positive report that real progress is being made in Iraq and that any move now to withdraw the troops would be premature.

Democrats (and that includes the so-called non-partisan MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, and all the other Democrat shill groups) cannot afford for America to win this war. They have invested their entire political capital on Iraq being a failure. They are doing their utmost to make sure that it is a failure, including compromising our troops morale and safety for their shallow political ambitions.

I am not particularly inclined to be charitable toward the Democrat Party Leadership because I see them for what they are, un-patriotic, subversive, and enemy sympathizers. I see their words being thrown back at the American people in propaganda tapes recorded by our enemies. I hear their plaintive cries for surrender, and I hear their hateful, dishonest denigration of our troops' capabilities and our general's integrity.

Those weasels, who defame General Petraeus as a Bush patsy, or Bush's man, haven't the guts to say it to his face. Instead they impugn his reputation obliquely and through their proxies in the press and the NGO's like those sham "non-partisan" organizations mentioned before.

Why don't some of those who accuse the good general of being Bush's "best boy" go down to the local parking lot and tell him that to his face...on second thought probably wouldn't be a good idea, the MSM would rewrite the whole incident to show that General Petraeus was a loose cannon and shouldn't be trusted...but it would be a wonderful sight to see, some of those gutless low-life Hollywood types who like to play big hero types in movies and then snipe from behind the protection of the First Amendment, getting their tails kicked by the real deal.

One is allowed to daydream on occassion.

For most of the Democrats in Congress this appearance on the Hill tomorrow is pretty much scripted from the get go. They have already decided that they will not take "yes" for an answer. If Patraeus' report says what many expect it to say, namely that we should continue to stay the course at least until late spring of next year, expect the Democrat traitors to attack the good General in every way they can, with all the cunning they can muster so as not to be seen a being disrespectful while they are being disrespectful, insulting while they are insulting him, and twisting his words as they proceed to twist his words.

The Democrats have detected the change in momentum toward the President's side as far as the public's expectations in this war. The truth is beginning to get out and people are beginning to question the Liberal dogma which has been passing for truth over the past several months.

I expect tomorrow's appearance to be very entertaining...and quite irritating as we watch the Democrats and RINO's ask their insincere and patronizing questions while mugging for the cameras.

Politics makes for great entertainment.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Al Gore rides; er, flies again!

Time to tarmac and feather the snake oil salesman

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Osama Confirms His Support for the Democrat Party

In a statement that one could just as easily find on the websites dailyKos.com or democraticunderground.com...or from Chucky Schumer's big mouth, the statement just released today and currently being scrutinized by U.S. Intelligence to determine it's authenticity, Bin Laden confirms that he supports the Democrat Party's agenda.

Paraphrasing here from the report of Jim Miklaszewski on MSNBC since I don't have a copy of the transcript, Osama says:

He blames Bush and the neoconservatives like Cheney, Richard Pearl, and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the war. He then says since:

"the vast majority of you want it stopped thus you electied the Democrat Party for this purpose but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions of dollars for the war."

He goes on the blame corporate America and the dollars being spent on electing US political officials and that is why John F. Kennedy couldn't stop the Viet Nam war and why the Democrats can't stop the Iraq war. He says the way to end the war is to:

"continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you this is our duty and our brothers are carrying this out."

"Bush claims to be working with the al Maliki and his government in Bhagdad but he is working with the leaders of one sect against another in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor."

He gives praise to the 19 hijackers who flew the planes into the world trade center and the pentagon six years ago and then says:

"The US officials claiming to be innocent is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on 9/11 were I to claim such a thing."

You know I can't tell you how many times I have read these same words on the Left-wing moonbat blogs.

These are the same arguments that all of the candidates for Democrat Presidential candidate are making with the notable exception of Joe Biden and even he is pushing for a withdrawal.

We conservatives have been saying again and again that the talking points of our enemies are coming straight from the mouths of the leaders of the Democrat Party, and once again, we are provided direct proof of that truth.

The best friends that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have are the Liberal Democrats and RINO's in Congress and around the nation. The much pressed for withdrawal (surrender) of our troops from Iraq being pursued by the likes of Harry "Snively Whiplash" Reid, Nancy "the Wicked Witch of the Left" Pelosi, Ted "the Chauffeur" Kennedy and of course Chucky Schumer, is Osama's greatest desire.

Bin Laden knows that he is beginning to lose influence and power in Iraq and he is very concerned about it. There is desperation in this tape, and it shows through strongly...unless of course you are a Democrat.

The Democrat Platform is the fondest wish of bin Laden.

Patriots? The Democrat Party Leadership? Don't be ridiculous. They are subversives in this war against the Global Islamic Jihad.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Brits are discovering the truth to "As ye sow, so shall ye reap"

Well, those wonderful liberal immigration policies which the British Government has pursued for so long are now beginning to turn on them. The TimesOnLine is reporting:

"September 7, 2007

Hardline takeover of British mosques

Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.

The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.

Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.

Seventeen of Britain’s 26 Islamic seminaries are run by Deobandis and they produce 80 per cent of home-trained Muslim clerics. Many had their studies funded by local education authority grants. The sect, which has significant representation on the Muslim Council of Britain, is at its strongest in the towns and cities of the Midlands and northern England."

Hmmm...kinda makes you wonder who's running the 50+ Mahjids (mosques) in Houston. I wonder how many of those "peace loving" Muslims are in America right now preaching this same kind of "love and tolerance" our Democrat Terrorism apologists keep speaking of.

I guess this is why the tin-hat club members...from both sides of the aisle keep telling us that we need to use diplomacy in dealing with the Iranians, the Syrians and Hugo Chavez, rather than shoving a nice tactical nuke up their posteriors.

What the Times is reporting is simply a snapshot of America's own future if we continue to follow the lead of the ACLU (an organization dedicated to defeding terrorists and telling lies), CAIR (an organization dedicated to defending terrorists and telling lies), and the Democrat Party (an organization dedicated to defending terrorists, slandering our troops, and telling lies.

A dystopian future is well within our grasp unless the American people wake up. We do not need Sharia law in America, and we do not need radical Islamics in positions of power. I do not want to live under a Caliphate, benign or otherwise.

What we need is a strong homeland security policy in which the FBI, the CIA, and local authorities are tightly integrated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. All illegal aliens guilty of a crime, even jay-walking, should be immediately placed in custody...maybe in Sheriff Arpaio's tent cities down in Maricopa County, Arizona. So called Sanctuary Cities should immediately have all federal funds cut off and "The Fence" needs to be constructed now.

All foreigners need to be documented with biologically unique identity cards which are for all intents and purposes cannot be forged. All businesses and their senior officers, employing illegal aliens need to be severely penalized and since all you Liberals out there are so concerned about "anchor babies" being left without parents, then there is an easy answer. They can go back to their parent's country with their illegally present parents, or you as compassionate Liberals can adopt them; problem solved.

Besides, there is some question as to the applicability and constitutionality of the policy of granting immediate and automatic citizen status to any child born on American soil, when the parents are knowingly breaking the law in coming to our nation. It is a question which needs to be settled by the SCOTUS. Is the child of an illegally present alien covered under the Constitution's guarantee of citizenship? Does that legitimately follow the original intent of the framers of our Constitution?

Operation "Wetback" worked for Ike Eisenhower in the fifties, and it held until Lyndon Johnson-a Democrat-became our president. It was he who reversed the policies which had held illegal immigration in check for a decade. It is time for another operation Wetback.

The only people who claim that it is impossible to remove the 12-20 million illegals from our Sovereign Nation's soil are those who have no real desire to do so. Where there is a will, there is a way and that way is to enforce the laws currently on the books.

I support the "Patriot Act" for as long as it is necessary. I support the use of telephone monitoring when and where it is necessary to protect the American people from a very real and growing threat. I do not live in fear, I live in disgust at our nation's politicians increasingly inability to do that which is good for the nation rather than that which is good for their Party. Both Republicans and Democrats have proven themselves duplicitous in their actions regarding illegal immigration.

It is time to get tough. This is my country, not the alien's. This is our national sovereignty that is at risk, not some pitiful game of pitch and toss.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below