Category: War on Terrorism

A Great Article by Devvy Kidd

Posted on

This is a great article, I recommend you go read it all…

Quote:

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” George W. Bush, September 13, 2001. “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

The move to impeach President George W. Bush has been around for years. A large number of Americans actually thought that by voting in Democrats and “taking back” Congress in 2006, not only would America withdraw from this heinous, unconstitutional war in Iraq (and Afghanistan), they could also expect the incompetent, Nancy Pelosi, to spear head the impeachment of Bush. Of course, these duped Americans were played, again. There was never any doubt in my mind that there would be no impeachment. – The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By Devvy Kidd (via NewsWithViews.com)

The most important point that Mrs. Kidd makes in this article is:

1. It is not our duty or obligation to remove any dictator from any foreign country by invading and killing anyone in our way. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823

2. It is not our responsibility to invade a foreign country to promote the evil of democracy. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823

3 – It is not our responsibility to invade any foreign country to allegedly protect a neighboring country to settle squabbling, religious or tribal differences between them that have lasted decades or a thousand years. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823

4. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the American people to be robbed using borrowed money to fund wars based on lies and what is known as nation building. Our military is for our defense, period. We have the right to defend if attacked.

5. Bush has acknowledged the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.

6. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

7. Iraq was NOT any kind of threat to these united States of America.

8. Bush and his co conspirators planned the invasion of Iraq long before September 11, 2001, because it is the agenda being pursued for world government and every country who doesn’t fall lock step into line will be invaded and occupied until the desired results are achieved. That agenda includes making sure control of the world’s oil supply is in the hands of the power brokers who own the U.S. Congress.

Paid mouth pieces and party hacks on the stupid tube shout that any American questioning Bush’s motives during a time of war and and the invasions of two non threatening countries are somehow aiding and abetting the enemy. “Soft on terrorism.” Classic propaganda. It is our duty to question the motives and policies of those allegedly elected to public office on any issue – especially war.

…..and this woman is a Conservative…. Wow. 😮

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Happy Birthday America!

Posted on

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

[….}

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

It was on this day, 232 years ago. That men decided that freedom was the only way. This post is for them.

A few videos:

A video that tells the story of our National Anthem and how it came to be:

A singing of our National Anthem, that I think is the closest thing to Heavenly Angels singing that we’ll ever get here on Earth:

Another American Classic:

Another one, done, only the way, this man could do it:

Even John Wayne knows:

I posted this, not for some stupid political ploy, not to be clever, but to remind everyone, no matter what your political stripe or conviction or feeling, You are, We are, all Americans. This is our land, and we should, at least once a year, stop and reflect on our freedoms. The freedom to write, the freedom to Pray to whatever God we wish or the freedom to not pray, at all.  The freedom to agree, the freedom of dissent or to disagree, the freedom to assemble or simply the freedom to do nothing at all.

As Always, We remember our soldiers, especially those who have fallen:

One of my favorite songs:

Update: I could not remember the name of this song last night, I remembered the name this morning:

I cannot listen to this without tearing up… it’s tough, even for a guy:

God Bless the United States of America and God Bless and Keep our Soldiers.

More of the Shame of America…

Posted on1 Comment

There is a bunch that one could say about this. From what I have read this was covered in a book. But it does strike me as shocking that a Presidential Administration would allow something like this to happen.

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.- An Expert Reveals Chinese Origins of Interrogation Techniques at Guantánamo – NYTimes.com

I just have to wonder aloud, I wonder if Neo-Con Michelle Malkin and her stooge Capt. Ed. will try and spin this one and act like there’s nothing wrong with it? When do you finally say, “This is wrong” and disassociate yourself with a Political Party? What does it take? It is to truly wonder.

Others: The Moderate Voice, Firedoglake, KIKO’S HOUSE, The Agitator, The Carpetbagger Report, The Seminal, the talking dog, Matthew Yglesias, cab drollery, On Deadline, Amygdala, The Daily Dish, Balkinization, Washington Monthly, Prairie Weather, LewRockwell.com Blog, Unfogged, The Mahablog, Balloon Juice, Shakesville, ATTACKERMAN and The Political Carnival

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Bush insiders prove to be hostile witnesses

Posted on

As if the country needed any further proof that the Bush Administration engaged in unconstitutional, not to mention unlawful, behavior, this little fine nugget of information drops today in the media.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports that the hearing yesterday failed to produce any substantive information, but rather exposed the parties involved for the heartless, condescending, disdainful people that these men really are.

Consider a couple snippets:

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I’m not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of," Addington growled. Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? "That’s irrelevant," he barked. Would it be legal to torture a detainee’s child? "I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee," he snarled. "You do have attorneys of your own."

[…]

He had the grace of Gollum as he quarreled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman’s questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself. When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: "Is there a question pending, ma’am?" Finally, at the end of the hearing, Addington was asked whether he would meet privately to discuss classified matters. "You have my number," he said. "If you issue a subpoena, we’ll go through this again.

[…]

However, that was just a warm up of things to come, It also become very testy as the hearing went forward:

He sat slouched in his chair, scratching his mustache, as Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about "the unaccountable monarchy" before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds — most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler’s introduction.

"Is that the entirety of your statement?" the chairman asked.

"Yes, thank you," Addington replied. "I’m ready to answer your questions."

He sure was. When John Conyers (D-Mich.) inquired about Addington’s pet legal concept, a "unitary executive theory" that confers extreme powers on the president, Addington dished out disdain.

"I frankly don’t know what you mean by unitary theory," Addington replied.

"Have you ever heard of that theory before?"

"I see it in the newspapers all the time," Addington replied.

"Do you support it?"

"I don’t know what it is."

The usually mild Conyers was angry. "You’re telling me you don’t know what the unitary theory means?"

"I don’t know what you mean by it," Addington answered.

"Do you know what you mean by it?"

"I know exactly what I mean by it."

[….]

Addington’s insolence appeared to embolden another witness, his former administration colleague John Yoo. Yoo took Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on a semantic spin when asked about whether a torture memo was implemented.

"What do you mean by ‘implemented’?" Yoo asked.

"Mr. Yoo," Ellison pressed, "are you denying knowledge of what the word ‘implement’ means?"

"You’re asking me to define what you mean by the word?"

"No, I’m asking you to define what you mean by the word ‘implement,’ " the exasperated lawmaker clarified.

"It can mean a wide number of things," Yoo demurred.

After several such dances around the questions (whether, for example, the president could order somebody buried alive), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) offered his grudging respect: "You guys are great on ‘Beat the Clock,’ " he said.

"I don’t play basketball," replied the 41-year-old Yoo.

"That was a game show," Cohen explained.

As you can see, convicting these guys on charges that they broke the law, and violated the Constitution is not going to be an easy task. Because obviously, these guys are not going to cooperate with Congress or with any other sort of criminal investigation. Lew Rockwell, a fellow Libertarian minded person, says, “Maybe now they’ll impeach them”.  Lew, I respect your work and writings, but I highly doubt that the impeachment or any sort of criminal hearings will take place, until after the November election and until the next President is in office.

Blogs 4 Borders Video Blogburst for June 09, 2008

Posted on

In this weeks edition…

Jobs Americans Won’t Do? Are American kids being screwed out of summer jobs by greedy and unethical employers? We investigate.

100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders. When will the madness end?

Why We Do What We Do.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0XO81iccKw&hl=en]

Download for your iPod here.

This weeks show proudly brought to you NO ILLEGAL ALIENS…

Bringing you the reality of the illegal immigration invasion from the frontlines of Southeastern Florida. Make sure to check them out, they are doing great work!

Click on image

If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Things are changing in Iraq

Posted on

I apologize for the stoppage of Blogging. But the Tim Russert story kind of jarred me quite a bit. in fact, I had to turn the TV to CNN, I just couldn’t not bear watching the stuff at MSNBC anymore. (Yeah, I know, I fired up John Cole for what he said, there’s a difference between me saying I had to change the channel, and taking a nasty swipe at a dead man.)

However, the world, the news, and life does go on, while I will miss Tim Russert’s show and his style of punditry, I must move on….

It seems that things are changing in Iraq.

The Report from the Washington Post:

The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had "reached a dead end." While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.

The moves by two of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders underscore how the presence of U.S. troops has become a central issue for Iraqi politicians as they position themselves for provincial elections later this year. Iraqis across the political spectrum have grown intolerant of the U.S. presence, but the dominant Shiite parties — including Maliki’s Dawa party — are especially fearful of an electoral challenge from new, grass-roots groups.

CNN’s Michael Ware, who is in Iraq offers this interesting perspective:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo54NhiyQig&hl=en]

If Ware is even correct and these talks continue to stall, I look for Bush to just pull our troops out and let Iraq go at it alone. I just do not think that Bush is going to dump the Iraq War into the laps of the Democrats. I just do not think that he wants that on his legacy. I could be wrong, but if this is case, I got a sneaking suspicion you will see a unilateral withdrawal of our troops out of Iraq, before Bush leaves office.

More via Memeorandum

Special Comment by Keith Olbermann: McCain should know better

Posted on

Transcript: (H/T K.O’s NewsHole)

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Senator John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.

Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger.

For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.

This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything.

Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.

"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."

"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.

"If it’s now working, Senator," Matt continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.

"That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw.

"General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory – not in defeat,  which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize it."

And there is the context of what Senator McCain said.

Well… not quite, Senator.

The full context, is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination.

This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir.

This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Yes, sir.

You.

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, quote, "I believe that success will be fairly easy."

John McCain… September 24th… 2002.

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."

John McCain… September 29th… 2002.

Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists:

"There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."

John McCain… March 24th… 2003.

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, quote, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"

"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence."

John McCain… March 18th… 2004.

You were asked about the troops, and the future.

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with

their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.

And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."

John McCain… January 31st… 2005

When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.

"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me…"

John McCain… January 3rd… 2008.

And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won."

John McCain… May 15th… 2008.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

And that, Senator McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though… they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is… not… that… important.

—

Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces" agreement with Iraq — a treaty …which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.

The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U-S military bases in Iraq — from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.

Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases – staff them, in Mr. McCain’s M-C Escher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.

And when they come home, is not… that… important.

—

Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars… to shoot him in the knee.

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.

In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.

And when they come home — or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back — when they come home, is not… that… important.

You’ve sold them all out, Senator.

You.

You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.

You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars… or be maimed… or be held prisoner… or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.

You… who should know better.

—

Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."

Where is he, Sir?

Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?

Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades — yesterday.

The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator — they are your comrades, too.

And you are condemning them to die.

To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies — for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.

That, Senator, that is context.

It is an easy thing to dismiss Senator McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.

Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Senator Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark – or trying to.

Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.

Senator McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."

It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Senator McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution — not after the last seven years.

It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."

It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Senator McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.

"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.

And then one remembers Senator McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al-Qaeda for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.

And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark…

"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No."

No?

The surge is working and even that still tells Senator McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?

Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?

If we cannot tell — if McCain cannot even guess — doesn’t that, by definition, mean… the surge isn’t working?

—

And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not… too… important" remark, in its full context:

The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions — and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."

Your tragedy, Senator McCain?

No. I’m sorry.

This tragedy… is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach.

It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A.

The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas.

It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.

And who are they, Senator?

They are ten Americans…. who have died in Iraq… since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.

And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men… will never know any of it.

Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…

They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."

Good night, and good luck.

SCOTUS says that Guantanamo Bay detainees have habeas corpus rights….

Posted on

Yes I do know about the big story.

The right is howling about the this ruling being the end of America as we know it. The left is hailing it as a major victory. Bush said he disagreed on the ruling.

I have mixed feelings on it, I seriously doubt that this rule will affect much with the terrorists, which the United States has a watertight case against.

It will affect one’s that the United States does not have a watertight case against.  The United States will not be able to hold anyone, who is merely suspected of terrorism any longer.

Either way, I believe this debate will be raging long after the little man, who started this whole mess, is out of office.

From the “WTF?!?!?!?!?!?” File……

Posted on

This is seriously messed up…

Muslim Extremist’s Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Charlotte, N.C. (via FOXNews.com)

 

The Video:

 

In a quiet, upscale neighborhood in Charlotte, N.C., rows of custom-style homes and neatly landscaped lawns represent the American dream.

But one local resident has shattered that image, calling for the death of American troops in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda through his Web site, which he reportedly runs from his parents’ home.

Samir Khan is the man behind Revolution.Muslimpad.com — a radical Islamic site that praises Usama bin Laden and asks for Allah to “curse more American soldiers.”

The site posts videos of U.S. Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq. It aims to inspire young Muslims to wage war against the West.

Terrorism experts say the Web site, written in English, is one of the premiere sites for Western audiences to get access to radical Islamist propaganda.

Khan, 22, declined requests for an interview, even when approached outside his home with cameras rolling. When asked if the messages on his site represent Islam, Khan would say only that “they represent Muslims.”

In an e-mail sent to FOX News, Khan lashed out at the "arrogance" of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam. "When you go down in to the earth six feet deep, nothing will matter except what Religion you died upon," he wrote.

Following a FOXNews.com report last month profiling his Web site, Khan railed against "the Kuffaar" — non-believers — who wrote the article and affirmed his belief that jihad is "an Islaamic obligation" rooted in Muslim texts.

Words like those stir mixed emotions in Charlotte, among the general public and among the 8,000 Muslims who live there.

Imam Khalil Akbar, a religious leader in Charlotte, condemned Khan’s site, saying its views do not reflect “mainstream Islamic thinking” and do not represent the Muslim community at large.

“I would reject categorically those kinds of encouragements to look up to people like bin Laden,” Akbar said.

Neighbors described Khan — who immigrated to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia when he was 7 years old — as “friendly” and “reserved.” They said he launched his Web site while taking classes at Central Piedmont Community College and selling Cutco knives.

Abdullah Mahmud, an acquaintance of Khan’s who attends the same mosque, the Islamic Center of Greater Charlotte, defended Khan’s viewpoints, saying his anger stems from the United States’ foreign policy and occupation of Iraq.

Mahmoud said the blood-drenched videos Khan shows of U.S. soldiers injured in combat “serve the purpose of making the reality of the Iraqi scene visible to people.”

“Those videos are not much different than videos involving American soldiers targeting Iraqi civilians,” he said. “You have to look at both sides here.”

One of Khan’s neighbors, Ron Williams, also defended Khan’s right to free speech.

“Our actions (in Iraq) were interpreted broadly in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam,” Williams said, “I defend his right to speak out.”

But Jarret Brachman, director of research at West Point’s Center for Combatting Terrorism, said Khan’s call for violence takes his anti-American views one step further.

“To be unhappy with U.S. foreign policy is one thing, but to advocate violence by promoting Al Qaeda is another,” he said.

“This is the most sophisticated and aggressive Web site in English that really puts out bin Laden’s ideology and the message that’s promoted by Al Qaeda,” he added.

Brachman said Khan’s site "raises the threshold for what it means to be a good, pro-Al Qaeda Web site" and is "the best in English."

A graphic prominently displayed on the site shows a picture of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent Al Qaeda spokesman whom Brachman calls “Bin Laden 2.0.”

“He’s the guy poised to take over the movement after bin Laden fades away,” Brachman said. “The fact that Khan would display him like he does means he’s trying not only to show he’s an insider, but also to model himself after him.”

The exact dangers his site poses are difficult to assess, experts said.

“It doesn’t necessarily move someone to action immediately, but it primes the pump,” Brachman said. “It gets somebody motivated to think more about Al Qaeda and so over the long term this is a very threatening message that he’s promoting.”

This is so screwed up, it’s not even funny.I know what I’m thinking, but because I don’t want to go to jail. I shall refrain from posting it here…

A telling story about this war

Posted on

You know, I have always been a Independent voice in the Blogging world. I don’t answer to either side. But there is one thing, even as a Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist, or in just plain terms, a center right type of person. I cannot and will not gloss over this kind of a story.

This my friends, is Bush’s true legacy:

Seven months after Sergeant Christopher LeJeune started scouting Baghdad’s dangerous roads — acting as bait to lure insurgents into the open so his Army unit could kill them — he found himself growing increasingly despondent. "We’d been doing some heavy missions, and things were starting to bother me," LeJeune says. His unit had been protecting Iraqi police stations targeted by rocket-propelled grenades, hunting down mortars hidden in dark Baghdad basements and cleaning up its own messes. He recalls the order his unit got after a nighttime firefight to roll back out and collect the enemy dead. When LeJeune and his buddies arrived, they discovered that some of the bodies were still alive. "You don’t always know who the bad guys are," he says. "When you search someone’s house, you have it built up in your mind that these guys are terrorists, but when you go in, there’s little bitty tiny shoes and toys on the floor — things like that started affecting me a lot more than I thought they would." – America’s Medicated Army – (via TIME Magazine)

All that, because Bush acted on some very admittedly now, false intelligence and did not properly prepare for it. Unlike many of the Iraq War’s planning, these guys have to live with the scars, both mental and physical.  

This extremely sad story continues:

"In a Total Daze"
And yet the battlefield seems an imperfect environment for widespread prescription of these medicines. LeJeune, who spent 15 months in Iraq before returning home in May 2004, says many more troops need help — pharmaceutical or otherwise — but don’t get it because of fears that it will hurt their chance for promotion. "They don’t want to destroy their career or make everybody go in a convoy to pick up your prescription," says LeJeune, now 34 and living in Utah. "In the civilian world, when you have a problem, you go to the doctor, and you have therapy followed up by some medication. In Iraq, you see the doctor only once or twice, but you continue to get drugs constantly." LeJeune says the medications — combined with the war’s other stressors — created unfit soldiers. "There were more than a few convoys going out in a total daze."

About a third of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq say they can’t see a mental-health professional when they need to. When the number of troops in Iraq surged by 30,000 last year, the number of Army mental-health workers remained the same — about 200 — making counseling and care even tougher to get.

"Burnout and compassion fatigue" are rising among such personnel, and there have been "recent psychiatric evacuations" of Army mental-health workers from Iraq, the 2007 survey says. Soldiers are often stationed at outposts so isolated that follow-up visits with counselors are difficult. "In a perfect world," admits Nash, who has just retired from the Navy, "you would not want to rely on medications as your first-line treatment, but in deployed settings, that is often all you have."

And just as more troops are taking these drugs, there are new doubts about the drugs’ effectiveness. A pair of recent reports from Rand and the federal Institute of Medicine (iom) raise doubts about just how much the new medicines can do to alleviate PTSD. The Rand study, released in April, says the "overall effects for SSRIs, even in the largest clinical trials, are modest." Last October the iom concluded, "The evidence is inadequate to determine the efficacy of SSRIs in the treatment of PTSD."

Chris LeJeune could have told them that. When he returned home in May 2004, he remained on clonazepam and other drugs. He became one of 300,000 Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffer from PTSD or depression. "But PTSD isn’t fixed by taking pills — it’s just numbed," he claims now. "And I felt like I was drugged all the time." So a year ago, he simply stopped taking them. "I just started trying to fight my demons myself," he says, with help from VA counseling. He laughs when asked how he’s doing. "I’d like to think," he says, "that I’m really damn close back to normal."

That which I just quoted, is President George W. Bush’s true legacy. How that man sleeps at night, knowing full well, that he has caused this, is beyond me.

I just truly hope, that the Republican Party has learned it’s lesson. I thought that they would have after Nixon. I guess, that I was wrong.

God Bless our suffering troops and those still in actions overseas now.

Others: VetVoice

From the Dept of “Ya Think?”

Posted on

Senate Panel accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations.

Go read the story, and the go read the right wing spin, like from Jack Moss and the rest of Bush Cheerleaders.

The problem all that up there? Bush’s own Administration admitted that there were mistakes made. 

Reality bites, so bad for some, that they would rather live in some altered state of reality. It is truly a sad thing to watch, really. Some people just cannot admit, that their fearless, chickenhawk leader screwed up.

Blogs 4 Borders for Week of June 3, 2008

Posted on

In this weeks edition…

Fisking Media Matters!

100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders, when will the madness end?

And you’ve been deputized!

Download for your iPod here.

 

Click on image

If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, deportation, vlog, podcast, open borders, paul waldman, media matters, fisking, rape, drunk driving, propaganda, lies, la raza, janet murgia

Cross-Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service

A perfect example of why the Democrats lost in 2004.

Posted on

Is found right here….:

Quote:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn’t declared war," The Hill’s Sam Youngman reports.

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."

Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts." – (via The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room)

Lawhawk over at A Blog for all, rightly calls Kerry on this rather stupid comment…:

Senator Kerry, would that be before 8:43AM ET? Or after the first plane slammed into the WTC?

Maybe an hour earlier when those planes were being boarded by the 19 hijackers?

The sad fact is that al Qaeda declared war on the US well before the USS Cole or 9/11, and were already killing Americans around the world and attacking US interests. Fatwas issued by al Qaeda spelled out their goals, and sought to defeat the US and its interests around the world.

For example, the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200 people. There was the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, which killed several dozen Americans.

On 9/11, the war launched by al Qaeda was driven home in the most gruesome and violent manner – attacking the US and its financial and military centers – the Pentagon and WTC.

That the US failed to respond to this war well before 9/11 is the fault of those in power to that point. That includes President Clinton who was Commander in Chief as the Cole was bombed, the embassies bombed, and even the first WTC bombing, which was carried out by the forerunners and kindred spirits to al Qaeda’s Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, as well as President Bush, who came into office just months before the attacks and was still in the process of figuring out the extent of the threat and what to do about it.

The Clinton Administration clearly didn’t understand the nature of the threat, and its ongoing response to terrorist activities was anything but a vigorous defense of US interests.

Now, we have Sen. Kerry issuing statements that only continue to show just how out of touch Congressional Democrats are to the threats facing the country – past, present and future, as Kerry is a major supporter of the Obama campaign and would be seen as a player in any such administration.

I do not think that I could have put it better myself. Unless Democrats get their collective "heads out of their asses" on the war on terror, this Nation will not be, as hard as it is for Liberals to believe, a safer place.

Neo-Conservative navel grazing….

Posted on

This is about as close as I’ve seen the Neo-Conservatives saying, "We screwed up".

In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.

President Bush no longer stressed Saddam’s record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president’s credibility that had already been caused by the CIA’s errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power. "How Bush Sold the War" (via WSJ.com)

The problem was, they never found the WMD’s. They actually admit that, in this piece.

Feith goes on:

But the most damaging effect of this communications strategy was that it changed the definition of success. Before the war, administration officials said that success would mean an Iraq that no longer threatened important U.S. interests – that did not support terrorism, aspire to WMD, threaten its neighbors, or conduct mass murder. But from the fall of 2003 on, the president defined success as stable democracy in Iraq.

This was a public affairs decision that has had enormous strategic consequences for American support for the war. The new formula fails to connect the Iraq war directly to U.S. interests. It causes many Americans to question why we should be investing so much blood and treasure for Iraqis. And many Americans doubt that the new aim is realistic – that stable democracy can be achieved in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

To fight a long war, the president has to ensure he can preserve public and congressional support for the effort. It is not an overstatement to say that the president’s shift in rhetoric nearly cost the U.S. the war. Victory or defeat can hinge on the president’s words as much as on the military plans of his generals or the actions of their troops on the ground.

The sad part about all this is, The Neo-Conservatives have so badly damaged the Conservative movement, that it will take years, if not decades to fix the damage done. All because of a single piece of flawed CIA intelligence. All because Bush, in his blind arrogance, did not follow the simple Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." There is even talk, among some circles that Bush even went as far to attempt to smear or destroy those who dared to challenge him. Valerie Plame is a good example of this. Although, there are those who dispute her story with varying degrees of vibrato.

Others: via Memeorandum 

Iraq violence falls to four-year low

Posted on

This is a good thing….But!

Quote:

The U.S. military said Sunday that the number of attacks by militants in the last week dropped to a level not seen in Iraq since March 2004.

About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to a chart provided by the military. – via LA TIMES

This is not a time to gloat, but rather a time to pray for the stability of that country. Because, quite frankly, it could all come ripping apart at any time. Not to sound like a critic or a negative person.  But the security of that country is hanging by a thread.

I have seen the comments on the left, and yes, they have some valid points, but at least give it a chance. It is all those people in Iraq have.

I think everyone that believes in God should utter a prayer this week for the country of Iraq and our Brave men fighting there.

Ouch.

Posted on

You know, stuff like this right here, makes me quite sad. Sad

Yes, that’s a harsh headline for this piece.

But I’ll ask you to forgive me because, as a Veteran, there isn’t a day on the calendar that causes my hatred — and I do indeed mean hatred — of George W. Bush to bubble over the top more than Memorial Day.

"On Memorial Day, we honor the heroes who have laid down their lives in the cause of freedom, resolve that they will forever be remembered by a grateful Nation, and pray that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made," reads Bush’s official Memorial Day proclamation, issued by the White House on Thursday.

The Chickenhawk-in Chief says a lot of things that make this Vet’s blood boil but stuff like saying that he prays "…that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made" is almost vomit inducing. – Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed- (Via The Huffington Post)

Now unlike Jack Moss, AKA Macsmind, I won’t skewer this guy. I can see his anger and outrage over this War. The fact is, The United States did go into Iraq on bad intelligence. The United States was absolutely wrong as how the war would go. People like Bob have every right to be angry. Only people that feel that he doesn’t have a right to be angry or would say he is wrong are the Bush and Republican Party apologists, like Jack Moss.

I will be honest with you all, this type of seething anger is what is tearing this Nation apart. I do not believe that it has been this bad since Vietnam.

What America needs right now, is someone that will bring the American people back together, because whether you’re a Liberal, Conservative or a Libertarian/Constitutionalist like me, you are still an American. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all in this together. The quicker we all figure that out, the better that this Nation will be for it.

Other Opinions at Memeorandum

Iraq’s The Grand Ayatollah tells the United States, no deal….

Posted on2 Comments

This is of interest…’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’ (via press TV)

The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.

The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.

While the mainstream media keep mum about the accord, critics say the agreement would virtually put Iraq under the US tutelage and violate the country’s sovereignty.

The source added Ayatollah Sistani, however, backed PM al-Maliki’s government and its efforts and that of the nation to establish security in the country.

The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki’s government is under US pressure to sign ‘a mutual security agreement’ which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq.

Washington’s plan has so far faced fierce protests by religious figures including Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Haeri, another senior Shia cleric, and it is expected that other religious figures join the efforts to prevent the deal.

The US has signed similar agreements with countries like Japan and South Korea and thousands of US troops are now stationed in the countries.

While he is alive. You know there, Mr. Camel Jockey, that can be arranged. Devil Nothing a hellfire missile and come spy work wouldn’t cure. Of course, the defeatist, Military and America hating Liberals will run with this and try and say, "See they don’t want us there!, We need to pull out tomorrow!" Which is so typical of the bastards. But this is one man, and truth me known, HE is the one that is telling these terrorists in Baghdad to blow themselves up.

This is further reason why I think we should have never went in there in the first darn place, because now, we’ll have to contend with idiots like this. Should be interesting.

Update: Gateway Pundit is reporting that this story was bogus and was generated by Iran PSY-OPS. Only reason I grabbed it, was because it was on Memeorandum. (H/T to reader Ken)

Chuck Baldwin officially launches his campaign website….

Posted on

I received some great news this morning in my e-mail inbox. Dancing

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has officially launched his Campaign website.  

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he more represents the American values that I, as a Christian, as a Libertarian and as a Constitutionalist, hold very dear.

He might not win, but I will know that my vote went for someone who still believes in the old Paleo-conservative values that I hold dear. I will also know, that my vote did not go to a third term of George W. Bush, a Neo-Conservative, Globalist, Shill or a Socialist, Marxist, Liberal. 

This notion that if you don’t vote for John McCain, that your vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama is the biggest lie and the great travesty ever heaped upon this Nation. Heaped upon it by warmongering bastards who want to send this Nation into a pit that it will never get itself out of.

I ask you today, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Republican, wake up and realize that this Nations only hope, is found in this man.

Check out his Website, Forum  and go to his "Money Bomb" page.

Let’s get American back on the right track, vote for Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin Says: OPEN BORDERS PROVE "WAR ON TERROR" IS SUPERFICIAL

Posted on

Taken from Here:

The American people were led to believe that America’s fine men and women in uniform were sent halfway around the world to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a "war on terror." Of course, everyone now knows that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I am sure that most everyone also remembers that the vast majority of the terrorists who participated in those attacks were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Yet, Saudi leaders continue to enjoy the coziest of relationships–and, dare I say, friendships–with President George W. Bush.

Does anyone besides me remember when Bush said that countries had to decide whether they would be friends with either terrorists or the United States, but that they could not be friends with both? Well, Saudi Arabia has probably financed, supported, and befriended more terrorists in the Middle East than any other nation in the world (except perhaps Red China), yet they continue to be "friends" with the United States.

Another glaring inconsistency regarding the "war on terror" is the fact that for some seven years since the 9/11 attacks, our nation’s borders and ports are as open and porous as ever. These open borders make the argument that "we are fighting them over there, so we won’t have to fight them over here" look absolutely disingenuous–even laughable.

If foreign terrorists want to bring the fight to America’s streets again, they still have plenty of opportunity to do so. In fact, we have no idea how many potential terrorists have already slipped across our borders and are right now living among us. Furthermore, we have no idea how many potential terrorists continue to pour through these wide open sieves that we call borders.

How can this administration look the American people in the eye with a straight face and claim that it is fighting a "war on terror," while it does almost nothing to secure our borders and ports? As Marcellus said in Shakespeare’s Act 1 of Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Amen. Something is also rotten in Washington, D.C.

Besides, why should al Qaeda attack us now? The U.S. occupation of Iraq is the best recruiting tool they ever had. Do the American people not realize (I think most of them actually do) that, thanks to our protracted occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda might actually be stronger now than it was when we invaded that country in 2003.

f the Bush administration was serious about fighting a war on terror, it would absolutely, resolutely, and immediately seal our borders and ports. It is nothing short of lunacy to send our National Guard forces to Iraq for the purpose of protecting that country’s borders, while leaving America’s borders wide open!

Not only does the Bush administration not secure our borders and ports, it wants to provide a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. It allows tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, and medical care. It offers birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. And it prosecutes and imprisons Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting (but not seriously enough to prevent his escape back into Mexico) a known illegal alien and drug trafficker.

No wonder the flood of illegal aliens has skyrocketed since George W. Bush became President of the United States.

And is there anyone who does not understand that a John McCain Presidency will be more of the McSame? A McCain White House promises a 100-year occupation of Iraq along with continued open borders and ports. Plus, McCain will also push forward with his plans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

In addition, when it comes to illegal immigration, amnesty, etc., there will be no relief from an Obama White House. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are pro-open borders, pro-amnesty twins.

Instead of fighting a "war on terror," the Bush administration (and numerous administrations before it) is allowing our troops to be used as the personal militia of the United Nations and for the commercial benefit of international corporations.

Remember, soon after our troops invaded Iraq, President Bush explicitly reported that the reason for the invasion was to defend "the credibility of the United Nations." But this has been the pattern of White House behavior ever since the U.N. was created back in 1945. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly injected U.S. troops into copious conflicts and wars, all for the purpose of enforcing and augmenting the policies of the United Nations.

In fact, the last constitutional conflict that the U.S. military fought was World War II. Virtually every war since has been a U.N. manufactured and manipulated conflict. The war in Iraq is no different.

I ask the reader, If you were President, and you sincerely believed that you were fighting a war on terror, and that you had to take the drastic action of sending other men’s sons and daughters to fight and die in order to wage this war (not to mention the prospect of potentially bankrupting the country to fight it), would you be so careless or indifferent as to not close the borders to the threat of terrorists who might actually decide to attack us? I doubt that there is a reader who would not agree that anyone who took such a task seriously would–at the very minimum–do this.

So, I repeat: the fact that George W. Bush refuses to seal our borders and ports proves that whatever else he thinks he is accomplishing in Iraq, he is disingenuous when he proclaims that he is fighting a "war on terror." (Again, the country that had the closest connections to the 9/11 terrorists was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If fighting the terrorists was the focus, why did Bush not attack Saudi Arabia?)

And that means John McCain is disingenuous when he says he wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years so "we won’t have to fight the terrorists over here" while, at the same time, promoting amnesty for illegal aliens (which does nothing but promote even more illegal immigration).

No, my friends. The real war is not a "war on terror." The real war is a war against constitutional government, personal liberty, and national sovereignty. It is a war against the fundamental principles of America’s Founding Fathers, that America should be a friend and trader with all, but engaged in entangling alliances with none. It is a war against the Bill of Rights. It is a war against the Spirit of ’76, the spirit that says America is a free and independent country, subservient to no international entity or interest. It is a war against the principle that would put America first. It is a war against the very heart and soul of everything this country has stood for ever since our patriot forebears stood on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge. And this war is not being waged from Baghdad or Tehran. It is being waged from Washington, D.C.

Chuck Baldwin’s Website

Elect Pastor Chuck Balwin to be President of the United States of America.

Progress being made in Iraq, so says Michael Yon

Posted on

…and Michael Yon would know too.

I happened to be over at HotAir.Com and I saw this video:

Now what I want to know is, when is Keith Olbermann, who very loudly condemned President George W. Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, going to invite this man on his show and allow him to tell Keith Olbermann and his very captive audience that there is progress being made in Iraq.

Now honestly, I do not think that this will happen, because Keith Olbermann is a sworn liberal, he has an agenda and script to follow, that the war in Iraq is a total disaster and that we must pull out, right away and that we will never win the war there.

The problem with that mentality is that it smacks of total irresponsibility, yes, we went in there on bad information, but if we just pull out and leave those people to rebuild their own country, the rest of the Arab world will utterly hate us for this sort of an action. What gets me, is the Liberals think that we should just turn it over to the U.N.

The problem with that rather stupid idea is this, as hard as it is for the far left to realize is, the U.N. did not get us into this situation, we did, and we as responsible Americans should get ourselves out of it. It is simply called personal responsibility. Something that the far lefty Liberals know absolutely nothing about, at all. Just look how the Liberals passed that very stupid, and very Anti-American Gay marriage law in California, or look at the city council in Berkley, California. Need I say anymore?

If you can afford, head on over to Michael Yon’s Website and Blog, and make a nice Donation. He is all we Pro-Americans and Pro-Military people have, as far as a pro-American voice on the ground in Iraq.

God Bless our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places in the World.

Let us not forget our United States Servicemen

Posted on

While I have been a very vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s Handling of the war in Iraq. I will always stand in honor for our United States Military.

Here is a video that I think everyone, Liberal, Conservative and everything in between, needs to watch: (H/T to Army Wife Toddler Mom and Tammi)

Please, support Military Ministry or Soldiers’ Angels

Let’s not forget those, who choose to serve our Nation, so that Bloggers, like me, can write and be free.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogs 4 Borders Video Blogburst

Posted on

In this weeks show:

Chris Simcox At Depaul University in Chicago! The leftists! The Commie Kids! The character assassination! All this and more in this weeks edition…

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here. To sponsor a show send us an email here.

Tags: chris simcox, depaul university, the minutemen, illegal immigration, open borders, deportation, the rule of law, catholic, corruption, communist, socialist, leftist, lowlife, violence, teh crazy

Cross-Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service

As such I thought….

Posted on

You know, If I had a dollar for every time, some idiot news outlet, who was seeking ratings, published a bogus story, saying Bush was going to attack Iran. I’d be rich, very rich.

The Article: White House denies Army Radio report on plan to attack Iran (Via Jerusalem Post

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran’s push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

I mean, really? Are people just that stupid that they will Blog on every drip of news that comes out of the nozzle of the Main Stream Media’s faucet?

I can see why now, that MSM hates Blogs, there’s just no ethical standards amongst these people.

A word of wise to you guys, if it doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t print it!

Here’s the list of gullible people that printed this unfounded story: Firedoglake, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Think Progress, Wonkette, God-o-Meter, Israel Matzav. The major exception being Blogs of War who, like me, says the story doesn’t pass the smell test.

Update: Hello to all the readers from Memeorandum, who finally added me back to the list of blogs to scan! yippie! DancingBig Grin (thanks to Blogs of War for linking!)

Keith Olbermann defends himself

Posted on

It was in my opinion the apology and correction that Keith Olbermann did not have to give. However, in hindsight it mostly likely best that he did.

Last Wednesday Keith Olbermann gave, what I felt was the best Special Comment, that he has given, since I have been watching his show.

It seems however, that a use of a few words that were not edited well enough by Keith caused a major dust up within the Right Wing world.

I first saw this story today over on HotAir.com. “Allah Pundit”, one of the more sane writers within the Right Wing Blogging world, and believe me, that is saying quite a bit, gave Keith the benefit of the doubt, as did myself. However, it seems that some of the bedwetting, knee jerk, and Kool-Aid drinkers in out midst came unglued and began accusing Keith Olbermann of insulting our troops.

Many people have e-mailed me and wondered, sometimes with great vulgarity, why I even bother to include Keith’s segments on this Blog, since I am a Constitutionalist and Libertarian. Ladies and Gentleman, I will answer this question as best I possibly can.

Because I Love America, and yes, as much as it is hard for the Kool-Aid drinking right wing fascists to believe, So does Keith Olbermann. No, I do not agree with all of Keith Olbermann’s Political Positions, but I do agree with Keith Olbermann on one main point, this war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes that this country ever made, I make no apologies for that feeling. There were never, ever, ANY operational ties with Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Ever.

Anyone who believes anything other than that, is listening to, and believing the ignorant spin and lies of this fascist Presidential Administration, or are still drinking the poisonous “Kool-Aid”, of this Presidential Administration and the political party that he represents, Which by the way has not stood for the classic conservatives, which I grew up admiring as a child. Rather a toxic form of Conservatism called “Neo-Conservatism.”

As much as I would like to believe that Keith Olbermann would see this, I highly doubt it, but I will just say this, anyhow. Keith, you did a good job, once again, silencing the right wing morons, who seem to think that they, and they alone hold court of true patriotism in America.  

Keep up the good work.