View of the Republic

Stepping Down, Enter Gillespie

2005-02-07T22:36:00.000-08:00

I have had a relatively short period of time in the blogosphere, and View of the Republic has done better than I hoped. It's readers are strong and their opinions valued. I have had huge support from my fellow bloggers in the undertaking of VotR, and I thank you all for that.

Sadly, I will have to step down from writing my blog. Current issues in school and my other duties conflict with my free writing time, and it would be unfair to my readers to continue on with the slow, uninteresting pace that VotR has taken lately due to all the work I have been struggling to complete. For now, at least, I will have to resign and balance other priorities.

However, I will be watching a friend of mine very closely in his fledgling journey into the world of blogging. Dizzy Gillespie, of Gillespie's Opinion Journal, is a fellow conservative who sees things pretty straight. Additionally, from time to time, I will be posting on Gillespie's blog as well as collaborating with him on his political writings.

So, thanks to my loyal readers and my loyal friends. This has been an exciting experience that I will never forget. Best of luck to all of you.

And be warned, you haven't seen the last of Mr. Gatsby.

sincerely,

Jay Gatsby

Rumsfeld Twice Offered to Resign

2005-02-03T16:36:00.000-08:00

This is a story that came out just an hour ago. Looks like all that extreme liberal slurring did get to Rumsfeld... (Hat Tip: Matt Drudge)

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disclosed Thursday that he had offered President Bush his resignation twice during the height of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal last year. He said he wanted the decision on his future to be placed in Bush's hands. "He made that decision and said he did want me to stay on," Rumsfeld told CNN's "Larry King Live," according to a transcript provided by CNN before the program aired Thursday. In the CNN interview Rumsfeld asserted, as he has many times in the past, that as defense secretary he could not be expected to know all that takes place in war zones halfway around the world. But he also indicated that he could have done more to head off the trouble. The release of photographs last spring depicting American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib triggered worldwide outrage, particularly in the Arab world. Rumsfeld told Congress at the time that he would quit if he felt he could no longer serve effectively, but he also said then that he would not resign simply to please his critics and political opponents. In the CNN interview, he indicated that he felt a measure of responsibility for the scandal. "The problem is, this kind of thing occurs in prisons across the country and across the world," he said. "And you have to know it's going to be a possibility. And therefore the training and the discipline and the doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that risk. And clearly, that wasn't done to the extent it should." Some had speculated last fall that if Bush was re-elected he would replace Rumsfeld, but in December the president said he wanted him to stay. Rumsfeld told CNN that when Bush asked him to stay for a second term, they did not discuss whether it would be for the full four years. At a news conference at the Pentagon on Thursday, the subject of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal arose in a different context. Rumsfeld said he may skip an appearance at a security conference in Germany next week because of a lawsuit there accusing him of war crimes for the prisoner abuse. "It's something that we have to take into consideration," he said when asked whether the war crimes suit was a factor in weighing whether to attend the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual gathering of government defense officials, lawmakers and others from Europe and elsewhere. Rumsfeld said he had not yet made a final decision on attending the two-day conference, where an address by the U.S. defense secretary typically is a highlight. Last year, Rumsfeld stoutly defended the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was highly unpopular in much of Europe. "Whether I end up there we'll soon know," he said Thursday. "It'll be a week, and we'll find out." It would not be the first time Rumsfeld has skipped the conference. In 2002, he sent his top deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. If Rumsfeld decides not to attend this year, he will probably send Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy. Attorneys from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed a suit with German federal prosecutors last November charging that U.S. officials, including Rumsfeld, are responsible for acts of torture against detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. That is the prison where U.S. soldiers were photographed abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees. Rumsfeld has maintained that the U.S. government has no policy to permit or encourage torture and that U.S. investigations of the Abu Ghraib abuses showed he was not directly responsible. The lawsuit against Rumsfeld was filed in Germany because its laws allow for the prosecution of war crimes and human rights violations across national boundaries. Because the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, the case could not be filed there.

Rumsfeld noted that he is traveling to Nice, France, early next week for a NATO meeting, and he is "very likely going to visit some other locations in that part of the world during that period."

The Biased BBC

2005-02-02T14:34:00.000-08:00

This is a great article from The Impudent Finger that addresses the problem with the BBC. Conservatives everywhere already knew the BBC was biased, and this is just more evidence of it. I have reprinted the article in it's entirety below, and I hope to publish my own complete review of the BBC's biased reporting sometime soon.

In this recent article, the BBC admits they didn't quite get the facts right.

The BBC has apologised for incorrectly broadcasting figures which suggested more Iraqi civilians had been killed by coalition and Iraqi forces than by insurgents.The information was based on figures given by the Iraqi Ministry of Health to the BBC's Panorama programme. The statistics concerned the number of people killed in conflict-related violence in the second half of 2004. The figures said that 3,274 civilians had died in that period, 2,041 of them as the result of "military operations". The rest were attributed to "terrorist operations". The BBC reported the figures as suggesting that coalition and Iraqi forces could be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq.

To summarize, the BBC reported that the Coalition and Iraqi forces were primarily responsible for civilian combat-related deaths. Now, let's see what they needed to correct:

However, the Iraqi Ministry of Health then clarified that the figures included not just civilians, but also insurgents and Iraqi security forces. And it said that the phrase "military operations" referred to Iraqis killed by insurgents as well as coalition or Iraqi forces. The ministry said the BBC had misinterpreted the figures... "The Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to 'military operations'," said the BBC in a statement. "The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports."

That's not a small mistake. It's a good thing the BBC has remained objective in their reporting of the War for Iraq. If they hadn't, I might suspect their admitted "mistakes" were anything but "mistakes".

I Talked to a Recruiter...

2005-02-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

A U.S. Army recruiter, more specifically, and it turns out that I can join the Army this summer. I have to get parental permission first because I'm only 17 of course, but I think that my dad at least will sign it.

Asthma was the main thing holding me back, but I recently got checked out at the doctors and it's nearly gone. I hope to keep exercising to beat it this year, and then sign up.

Then, it's of to Iraq. I'm going to ask them to send me there, and I'm willing to bet they'll comply.

"I Took Seven Rounds..."

2005-02-01T19:26:00.000-08:00

This is a very inspiring story that I thought I would share with y'all. This Marine deserves every award they can give him. Semper Fi!

I have taken the story from www.grunt.com, and it can be viewed here.

"I took seven rounds from a 'bad guy' firing a fully-automatic AK 47," he said Wednesday during a phone interview from his bed at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. "Five in my right leg, one in my foot and one to the buttocks area. Then a grenade went off about four feet from me and I got 30 to 40 pieces of shrapnel in my back.

Brad described what happened when he was wounded.

"We were moving down the street, clearing buildings," he began. "A Marine came out wounded from a building and said there were three more wounded Marines trapped in there with a bunch of bad guys (insurgents). As we entered, we noticed several dead Iraqis on the floor and one of our wounded.

"An Iraqi pointed an AK47 at me and I shot and killed him, but there was another one on the stairs behind me that began firing at me with a fully-automatic AK. That's when I went down, along with one of my young Marines. Then I noticed the hand grenade."

Brad said his first instinct was to protect his young Marine. He covered the young man with his body and took the full brunt of shrapnel to his back when the grenade exploded.

Brad's injuries were severe. He was in and out of consciousness and lost 60 percent of his blood. He was first taken to a field hospital in Iraq, then flown to Germany, where he was hospitalized for a week before arriving in Bethesda.

The True Sons of Iraq Have Won!

2005-01-30T10:26:00.000-08:00

I woke up today and turned on the news to see that 72 percent of Iraq has turned out to vote. People were dancing in the streets while holding their blue painted fingers high (the mark that they had voted) and had dressed in their best clothes to go and cast their ballot! This is a great day for the true sons and daughters of Iraq, as they have shown the terrorists who really is in control of Iraq! These people have risked their lives and the lives of their families just to vote and elect their leader, something that most Americans would never do. If there is rain on election day here the number of people voting drops! I truely believe that the Iraqis are the bravest people in the world.

I believe that you can get a better idea of what the Iraqis are feeling right now from the Iraqis themselves, so I have republished two posts from Iraqi bloggers below.]

As Ali at Free Iraqi said, "A'ash Al Iraq, A'ashat America, A'ash Al Tahaluf (Long live Iraq, long live America and long live the coalition)".

IRAQ THE MODEL

Sunday, January 30, 2005

The people have won.
We would love to share what we did this morning with the whole world, we can't describe the feelings we've been through but we'll try to share as much as we can with you.
We woke up this morning one hour before the alarm clock was supposed to ring. As a matter of fact, we barely slept at all last night out of excitement and anxiety.

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:
"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".
This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street.
The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer!

We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.

I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.
From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!
Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.
I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.

I still recall the first group of comments that came to this blog 14 months ago when many of the readers asked "The Model?"… "Model for what?"
Take a look today to meet the model of courage and human desire to achieve freedom; people walking across the fire to cast their votes.

Could any model match this one!? Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!?
Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day.

The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun.

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!
These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.

It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again.
Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom.

No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respct and support the people's will.

God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom.

Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq.

Mohammed and Omar.

Free Iraqi

Sunday, January 30, 2005

The best Eid I ever had.

Last night I couldn't sleep well. I was so excited and I wanted to be at the voting center before it even opens its door. I was afraid that I was going to be among a minority who are going to vote, but I was still very happy for rather a different reason. It's that just as I care about the outcome of this election and that democracy would work in Iraq, I cared no less about voting on a personal level. This was my way to stand against those who humiliated me, my family and my friends. It was my way of saying," You're history and you don't scare me anymore". It was my way to scream in the face of all tyrants, not just Saddam and his Ba'athists and tell them, "I don't want to be your, or anyone's slave. You have kept me in your jail all my life but you never owned my soul". It was my way of finally facing my fears and finding my courage and my humanity again.

I slept really late but I woke up at 6.30. I shaved (I do this once every century) and dressed as I was going to a party. The phone rang and I let it ring for a while before I answered. "Hey Ba'athist! Why are you still asleep? Why not go and vote?" a friend's voice came through teasing me. I tried to see if anyone started voting already so I turned on the TV and saw that few people have already done that but the reports were not very encouraging. I heard some explosions and gun shots. Some were far and some were near. I turned on the computer, made a post and checked the news.

My sister who's staying with us together with her husband and their one and a half year old son, "Mohammed", called on me to have breakfast. As I was sipping my tea I was surprised when my mother came back telling us she already voted! I envied her but I had changed my mind on rushing to vote. I decided instead to enjoy these moments to the last. I got out walked to the voting center like I was taking a walk in a park or on the bank of the river. As I got out it was still early and I saw no one on the streets but as I got near to the voting center I started seeing people in groups heading the same way. Most of them were women. I saw a crippled man and my old neighbor and his older wife leaning on their walking sticks going to vote. An old woman cleaning her door step stopped me, "Say son, can I go and vote?" She asked after she saw many people going to vote. "Sure Khala (aunt)! Everyone can". She thanked me and went inside apparently to change and get her IDs.

The voting center that was chosen in our district is a high school in the middle of the Neighborhood . This was the same place I went in 1996 to cast my vote in a poll asking if we wanted to have Saddam as a president for life or not. I had to go at that time. The threats for anyone who refused to take that poll were no less than the death penalty. Still our district was one of the places were one could vote secretly, occasionally though. They trusted our neighborhood because it's mainly Sunni military officers who live here with their families. I and some of my friends chose "NO" but we were scared to death as we marked the paper and remained so for days.

This time we went by choice and the threat was exactly the opposite. As I was walking with many people towards the center explosion hit and gun fire were heard but most were not that close. People didn't seem to pay attention to that. Some of them even brought their little kids with them! It's like the Eid but only a thousand times better.

I entered the school and the supervisors showed me the way to were I should vote. They and the ING guys were so polite and gentle. I cast my vote and got out, not in a rush at all. This is my Eid and I felt like a king walking in his own kingdom. I saw the same look of confidence and satisfaction in the eyes of all people I met. As I left one of the gurads said to me as he handed me back my cellular phone,"God bless you and your beloved ones. We don't know how to thank you. Please excuse any inconvinience on our part. We wish we didn't have to search you or limit your freedom. You are heroes" I was struck with surprise and felt ashamed. This man was risking his life all these hours in what has become the utmost target for all terrorists in Iraq and yet he's apologizing and calling us heroes. I thanked him back and told him that he and his comrads are the true heroes and that we can never be grateful enough for their services.

I'm still thrilled as I'm watching Iraqis vote allover Iraq through TV. Al Arabyia just reported that 6 thousand people in Fallujah have voted till now out of 60 thousands who have returned to their homes (total not voters). I listened to that and I felt enormous admiration and respect to those 6 thousand heroes. Things are difficult in Baghdad but it's still incomparable to Fallujah. I'm sure that the number will rise towards the end of the day.

I'm stil overwhelmed with thoughts and emotions that I don't know what to say more. The only things I can feel so strongly now are hope, excitement, pride and a strange internal peace. I have won my battle and I'm watching the whole Iraqis winning their battle too. I'll try to write to you later my friends.
A'ash Al Iraq, A'ashat America, A'ash Al Tahaluf. (Long live Iraq, long live America and long live the coalition)

Iraq Body Count Lies

2005-01-26T17:15:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you have heard of the website iraqbodycount.net which posts the civilian deaths caused by coalition troops in Iraq (rather, it claims too). A frequent commenter (yeah you, Weech) brought this site up and I'm glad he did. I've had liberals try and get me using information on this particular website before, and I'm prepared. I did a little researching into the information the site uses and exactly what they count as civilians killed by coalition troops. The results were very interesting indeed.

Finding the information on iraqbodycount.net was fairly difficult as they like to try and confuse a person looking for the truth as much as possible. However, it can be done, and if you look hard enough into their information, you will find exactly what anyone with sense suspected: This site exaggerates things beyond belief.

At the time I am writing this IBC had listed 15,493 as a minimum and 17,721 as a maximum of civilian deaths caused by coalition troops. They collect this information based on their methodology, which is:

Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization).

Here are some examples of instances where "the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger," or are just "collateral damage". These are all included in the death count as being caused by coalition troops.

Over 8,000 deaths of Saddams military, not civilians

Zarqawi's murder of 182 Shiite pilgrims in a series of bombings on 2 March 03.

The terrorist bombings of the PUK and KDP offices in Irbil, which killed 107.

The 21 April car bombings in Basra and Zubair, which killed 74.

The truck bomb at Iskandiyah police station which killed 75.

The 11 February car bomb at Muthara Airport, killing 47 Iraqi recruits.

Here are some more.

--IBC counts 10 killed when terrorists blew up the Red Cross Headquarters in Baghdad on 27 Oct.
--IBC counts 12 killed when insurgents detonated a car bomb at the Italian MP headquarters, Nov.12.
--IBC counts 14 killed when terrorists detonated a truck bomb at al-Baya'a police station in April 2004.
--IBC counts the abduction and subsequent murder, by terrorists, of a prominent Shiite judge on 3 November.

IBC also lists beheadings by insurgents under their "civilian deaths caused by coalition forces" list.

Those are just some major ones they have listed since the war began and up untill may. Want more? Check out this page, which contains all of bodycount's casualty information.

Now I looked even closer, and it turns out this site includes the deaths of insurgents as civilians. Don't believe me? Once again, check out the link.

They also include the deaths of Iraqi Policemen as being caused by American soldiers.

Yeah, this gets even more unbelievable; IBC lists the deaths of American troops as civilian deaths caused by American forces.

I wonder how IBC managed to confuse things like that. Do you think that maybe they might be motivated by their liberal bias? Gee wiz...

Oh, and as my friend Weech said, isn't it interesting how this site is liberal? I think you might have meant that differently though, Weech...

How Liberals Commemorate the Lost Soldiers

2005-01-26T13:44:00.000-08:00

Over at A View From the North our friend C.C. has chosen to remember the 31 Marines that died in tragic helicopter accident with only one word: Oops. Yes, that's right, oops. The article can be found here. Please let C.C. know that we don't appreciate his lack of respect and appreciation toward our dead troops.

I am so sick of liberals like C.C. pretending to care about the lives of American soldiers while using their deaths to advance their political causes. I mean, this was an accident; something that could have (and often does) happened right here in the U.S. An accidental helicopter crash, in which 31 brave soldiers were killed doing a routine operation that they would be practicing in America on a weekly basis anyway. And what does C.C. say about that?

I guess that's what you would call having a bad day. But hey, not to worry -- democracy is taking root, freedom is on the ring, ... or whatever is the dyslexism of the day.

Nice, C.C. We all know you hate the soldiers but do you have to mock their deaths as well? Today we lost 31 men better than you or I could ever hope to be. Sadly, in your warped mindset, you don't see it that way. You see it as a time to capitalize on the deaths of those Marines and promote your twisted cause. What do you plan to say about your callous "remembrance" to those soldiers, and to God when you die? And if you don't believe in God or heaven, then what do you have to say to the families of those soldiers?

Oops won't cut it .

It's Finally Happened...

2005-01-24T21:01:00.000-08:00

This is just a bit of personal blather I'm writing; Nothing political, just something significant to me. As my friends know, and many of my readers do not, I'm going grey very early. At 17, I have over 50 grey hairs which stand out starkly against the usual black ones. Now, it has finally happened--I have a grey eyebrow hair. Man, I'm getting old fast...

Sen. Boxer takes victim role after hearing for Rice

2005-01-24T14:35:00.000-08:00

This is something we should have expected. Typical Democratic tactic: who you try and slime a persons integrity, and that person points out that the personal attack wasn't necessary, make yourself look like the one who was personally attacked. This article brought to you by The Washington Times.

Sen. Barbara Boxer says she is the real victim of last week's confirmation hearing for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, yet continued yesterday to question the national security adviser's honesty. "She turned and attacked me," the California Democrat told CNN's "Late Edition" in describing the confrontation during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

She's talking about this quote below... See if you can make sense of it.

"I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth," Mrs. Boxer told Miss Rice

So, according to Boxer, Rice was given an evil propaganda mission which blinded her from the truth. It's a little odd how that wasn't what Rice was told to do at all, but since when has the truth mattered to the liberals?

Miss Rice responded that she "never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character." "And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity," Miss Rice said.

And, according to boxer, that was when Rice turned into a vicious madwoman that attacked her personally. Wow, what a terrible thing it was the Miss Rice said. I'd go home and cry about that one. I mean, suggesting the obvious? How low is that?

"She turned and attacked me, I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity," Mrs. Boxer said.

Which Boxer obviously was. Without any evidence, Boxer just spurted out her biased opinion on Rice's personality and motivation. Then Rice had the gall to accuse of doing just that. What Rice didn't point out was that Boxer didn't really care (now THIS is a personal attack) whether Rice was good for the job or not. She just cares about halting every little thing that President Bush tries to do, up to and including breathing.

"When you really don't know what to say about a specific, you just attack the person who is asking the questions," Mrs. Boxer told CNN.

Let's look at those quotes again.

"I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth," Mrs. Boxer told Miss Rice

Miss Rice responded that she "never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character." "And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity," Miss Rice said.

So, who is doing the attacking here?

Liberal Media Downfall

2005-01-22T01:04:00.000-08:00

The liberal media downfall that many have predicted is coming about slightly sooner than expected, as the drudge report shows. While this is just a small event, similar instances will soon follow... CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001 Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005 CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo. Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers. In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10am-4pm (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday. PRIMETIME: FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01) (Hat tip, Matt Drudge)

Tolerant Lefties?

2005-01-20T20:50:00.000-08:00

This is just a swell story of the non-violent liberals at the inauguration. This is a great day for freedom, may President Bush spread the legacy of liberty all over the globe, despite liberal efforts to stop it!

12:12 p.m. ET Not So Peaceful Peace Rally Hundreds of people gathered at both ends of Meridian Hill Park in Northwest Washington for a peace rally sponsored by the D.C Antiwar Network. But there were interlopers: Thirteen members of ProtestWarror, supporting the Bush administration and its policies in Iraq. When the Bush supporters arrived, about 20 black-clad, self-described anarchists emerged from the crowd, shouting profanity and epithets and demanding that they leave the peace rally. When the Bush supporters refused to leave, the anarchists tore the signs out of the Bush supporters’ hands and stomped on them. When ProtestWarrior leader Gil Kobrin objected, several male anarchists knocked him to the ground, kicking him in the back and punching him. Other anarchists punched and shoved Kobrin’s 12 colleagues.
After D.C. Antiwar Network members broke up the fight, the Bush supporters heeded their order to leave the park. Kobrin then called D.C. police, who are now guarding them at the entrance of the park as they hold up their pro-war signs. “We’re going to hang tight,” Kobrin said. “We’re expressing our freedom of speech just as they are expressing theirs.” —Robert MacMillan

Khatami: Iran Will Defend Against U.S. Attack" -- Yeah, Right

2005-01-20T14:35:00.000-08:00

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has plans to defend itself should the United States make any aggressive moves, President Mohammad Khatami said Thursday, but he added that the possibility of an attack "is very low" because Washington has too many problems in Iraq.

Well, that last part may be true (though I doubt it) but his attitude that Iran could possibly defend itself against U.S. attack is ridiculous. I mean, America has the strongest military in world history...we won't encounter difficulties attacking Iran. Look at it this way; When the U.S. attacked Iraq in the first Gulf War, Iraq has the third largest army in the world. In 60 days, the war was over with the United States as the victor. The Iraqi military was nothing compared to ours, and it is the same with Iran.

Plus, the kind of attack we would initiate wouldn't be a ground war at all. We would attack the three (or possibly more) sites that we believe Iran is using to create nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from the air or sea, using laser guided missiles that would demolish each of the sites completely. In this initial attack, Iranian defense systems wouldn't be enough to stop us and they probably wouldn't even know we were there until it was over. There would be no battle deaths.

However, the Iranian response to a U.S. attack would be different. They would probably launch missiles at our forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and probably at Israel. We would have to rely on our missile defense systems to bring those missiles down before they could reach our troops. Our defense capabilities in that area are pretty high, so the casualties would be few in number.

Also, Iranian troops would probably try to cross the border into Iraq and stage an attack on our forces. This problem would be dispatched easily, however, by merely monitoring the border and bombing any troops movements into Iraq. The ground forces of Iran would never make it across the border alive.

Hopefully, the United States would focus on only attacking the above mentioned sites, and not try to pull of a regime change. If we did this, the war with Iran would be over in a matter of months with little U.S. casualties and the world much safer off.

Whether we start this war remains to be seen, but I wouldn't count it out.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

2005-01-18T19:43:00.000-08:00

This is pertaining to my "Journalistic Treason" theory that y'all have been hearing me talk about so much. So we now know what the military really thinks of the War...Strange how it doesn't appeal to liberals.

By LTC Tim Ryan

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story — the whole story — and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Bachelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product — cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transfomations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the 20-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up – ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there.

The Big 1,000

2005-01-17T23:17:00.000-08:00

1,000 hits since December 4th, 2004

It's finally happened...I've reached 1,000 hits. My thanks to all of my readers, even the liberal ones.

1000 Hits Coming up!

2005-01-17T21:05:00.000-08:00

I'm getting to the 1000 hit mark, and I'm writing this on number 999. Damn close!

War with Iran Inspires Liberal Treachery

2005-01-17T10:15:00.000-08:00

This is a report done by journalist Seymour Hersh, who claims that he gets his information from "inside" sources, who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider. "I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said. Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Alright, what Hersh did was obviously wrong. He probably just endangered the lives of our special forces by revealing what the U.S. is (possibly) planning to do. This is another example of "Journalistic Treason". I'm confident that Hersh is a huge liberal, as you can see from his quotes in the article, and is biased as such. This probably led him to undermine U.S. intelligence for this possible war as soon as he head about it. Hersh said he did this because he wanted diplomatic measures to be taken first. Well, I suppose that he forgot how our own intelligence states that Iran is creating nuclear weapons while lying about them, and that Iranian inside sources claim that Osama Bin Laden and many of his Lieutenants were harbored in Iran. And that's just getting started on the Iranian threat.

If this administration is planning to go into Iran, and it knows there will be serious consequences it were to do this, then the administration has a good reason. Iran is suspected by almost all of the free world as being a threat, and is on Henry Kissinger's top threat list for quite some time (for those of you who know who Kissinger is). This is a dangerous nation, and if it needs to be taken out, we will do it. Even despite the liberal treachery at home.

Fear of the Truth

2005-01-14T13:54:00.000-08:00

For a long time Canadian Cynic has been attacking conservatives over at his blog, A View from the North, and for much of that time I have been attempting to bring light to his lies. The usual pattern that follows our commenting can be recognized by how I disprove CC's point, and he then tries to confuse readers by stating irrelevant "facts", of which are comprised mostly of opinionated sources and are not really facts at all. After that, he will swear and call me names and his loyal lemming friends do the same. I'm sure that if I was any race but white, they would hurl racial slurs at me as well. After CC and his followers cloud the truth, I once again state the truth and expose his lies. Then, he repeats his process of misdirecting, lying, and using profanities. However, realizing the futility of continuing this cycle, I twice challenged CC to a live, online debate that would be conducted through a chat server. The first time he just ignored the question, the second he called me names, attempted to disprove my facts again, and said that he, quote

"So, no, I have no interest in debating the annoying, humping little dog. And the previous restrictions still hold -- anything from Jay that doesn't constitute direct and explicit evidence of the claims he made here will be summarily deleted."

Then, he proceeded to delete what I had said about he wouldn't debate me simply because he knew that his point was so weak that it wouldn't stand up to actual debate. I said some others things in an attempt to defend my "maturity" which he also deleted. Don't believe me? I have put the link here. You will notice that my comments have been deleted, and he states that anything that doesn’t have “direct evidence” will be deleted. Meaning, anything that doesn’t conform to his liberal views will be censored. As many already know, liberals only support free speech if it is supporting their views. I think this proves it.

Needless to say, I will be posting this message, and many others, on “A View from the North” until Mr. CC either accepts my live debate or allows the truth to be spoken. So, CC, are you so afraid that what I am saying will disprove your radical liberal views that you have resorted to censorship?

As I stated in the deleted comment, “Is your position so weak that you fear it would not stand up to open debate?” Give me an honest answer this time.

Sheriff Brings Back Anti-Gay Beliefs

2005-01-13T13:40:00.000-08:00

This is a story that I think deserves more attention that it’s getting. As my readers know, I have always condemned the mistreatment of any people through bigotry and racism, and I am condemning this as well. This story was reported by Fox News, and the original article can be found here.

Mac Holcomb, a County Sheriff from Alabama, has displayed on his website an anti-homosexual message. Not only that, but he is leaving the message up on the site even now, sticking to his claims. Reflecting on the 1940’s and 50’s, Holcomb states, "Men were men and women were women and there was no mistaking which was which ... Homosexuality was very queer and a despicable act ... an abomination."

Don Hunter, an Anniston native who is now a deputy administrator for Marin County, Calif., first ran across the website.

"It is shocking," said Hunter, who is gay and who wrote the sheriff a letter. "He seems to have a very warped sense of the good old days."

The Sheriff’s real point seemed to be trying to bring back the time of the 1940’s and 1950’s, which is something that I would like to do as well. However, certain things that were present during those times, such as racism, bigotry, etc, are not things that should be brought back; which is precisely what Holcomb is trying to do. Hunter managed to sum up my thoughts in the letter he wrote to the sheriff.

"While I would agree with you that we have lost many wonderful things from the 1950s," Hunter wrote to the sheriff, "homophobia, racism, and sexism are not part of the wonderful things. They are ugly now, they were ugly then, and surely they would be ugly in the eyes of Jesus Christ, who taught only love and compassion, never hatred."

‘nuff said.

Iraq War Photos

2005-01-11T22:48:00.000-08:00

Iraq War Photos Continued

2005-01-11T22:47:00.000-08:00

These are some photos from Iraq that I discovered recently, and I thought I should share them. Any of y'all remember the New York Times publishing any of these? Yeah...me neither...

Mich. Schools Won't Offer Bible Class

2005-01-11T14:30:00.000-08:00

This is an article that caught my eye recently, and I thought I would share it here. Kudos to Fox News. The original article can be found here.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 FRANKENMUTH, Mich. A rural school district will not offer a religious group's Bible class as an elective high school course, ending a yearlong debate. The school board in Frankenmuth, about 75 miles north of Detroit, decided with one dissenting vote Monday to not offer the "Bible As Literature and History" class at Frankenmuth High School, following the recommendation of school Superintendent Michael Murphy

Alright, this doesn't make much sense to me. Tell me if I'm off base here guys, but I think that this course should be allowed to exist in the school. I mean, the students obviously want it. 1,200 of them signed the petition, which is more than the entire population of my school. I'd like to make a few points clear that help explain my view.

First, the whole "separation of church and state" thing. This class is a elective, no one would be forced to take it. I dislike horticulture, but it doesn't offend me just by being a class. I mean, some people do like horticulture so why shouldn't they be allowed to take it? Catching my drift?

Second, the schools views on the class don't seem to make much sense. Take a look:

"It goes beyond talking about religion and becomes faith-based," Murphy said.

Really? Thanks, genius. So what if it does? Once again, no one is being forced to take this class. Why don't they just form classes on the study of the Qu'ran or the Torah? It would be simple enough, just get the needed signatures and there you go. That sounds pretty equal to me.

Finally, there IS a place where schools should draw the line on religion. My schools English class has a part of the Bible, "Genesis", listed as required reading. I really don't think that's fair to non-Christian members of the school at all. They are being forced to read a section of the Bible, while the students of the Michigan school would not be.

Well, that's just what I think. Please comment away.

Abbas...Right or Wrong for the Mid-East ?

2005-01-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

RAMALLAH, West Bank Mahmoud Abbas was elected Palestinian Authority president by a wide margin Sunday, exit polls showed, giving him a decisive mandate to renew peace talks with Israel, rein in militants and try to end more than four years of Mideast bloodshed.

Mahmoud Abbas Declares Victory

This is an interesting story, as this election holds within it the entire history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Abbas has recently promoted peace between to people of Jerusalem, and many of the worlds leaders, including George Bush, seem to believe him.

However, Abbas is a holocaust denier and he has called Israel the Zionist enemy. If he believed, or still believes in what he has said, it is unlikely that Abbas is as peace minded as he has only recently sounded. He has promised to work with both Israel and the United States on peace efforts, but I dont believe his word should be fully trusted.

After all, Abbas was overwhelmingly elected by a people who overwhelmingly hate the Israelis (according to quite a few poles). Why would the Palestinians, the majority of which hate Israel to the extreme, elect a man who supposedly advocates peace with their enemy? Unless, of course, they have somehow gotten a different message from Abbas or his supporters...

Seig Heil, Palestinians!

2005-01-05T22:06:00.000-08:00

Something pertaining to the Anti-Semitism discussion that was found by Little green Footballs. These are the people that liberals are sympathetic to. And they say Israel is too military oriented? I don't think you can be too militaristic when facing these kind of people; people that forget the past...then try to relive it.

Echoes of Nazism

In a supreme irony, the supporters of a Holocaust denierunfailingly identified by mainstream media as a moderate Palestinian leaderuse the same salute as the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

Fatah Youth in salute...

Members of the Fatah youth movement chant slogans during a rally for Palestinian presidential candidate Mahmoud Abbas at a hotel in the Jerusalem suburb of Beit Hanina, January 5, 2005. Palestinian fighters wounded 12 soldiers in a rocket attack on Israel Wednesday, defying calls for a cease-fire from Mahmoud Abbas, the frontrunner to succeed Yasser Arafat in an election Sunday. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

Anti-Semitism on the Rise In Europe

2005-01-04T22:05:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON - A rise in the number of Muslims in Western Europe, many of them poor and uneducated, is contributing to an increase in already deeply rooted anti-Semitism there, the State Department said in a report to Congress...

...In Europe, where millions of Jews died in the Holocaust, anti-Semitic acts have increased both in frequency and severity since 2000, the report said...

The extreme liberal views of Europe have always focused on Anti-Isreali propaganda, as the right has always claimed. The site that I read about this survey on seemed to want to blame the problem mostly on uneducated people lashing out at what they don't understand, but I have another group to blame: Liberals. Yeah, I know this is nothing new for me, but it seems to be true. At least, for the European liberals. We all know that the United Nations is an extremley anti-semetic organization, and that seems to bring about the conclusion that some of the U.N.'s leading members would be too. Take a look at the results of a survey taken the the UK:

British people rate Israel as the country least deserving of international respect, as well as one of the world's "least democratic countries," according to a recent survey.

What does that show? We know that the liberals hate Israel...but do they hate the Jewish people as well?

Sorry 'Bout Not Posting

2005-01-04T20:04:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a while guys, I've been busy (mid-terms coming up). I want to say that whoever here has donated to the Tsunami relief through my site please let me know, I'd like to put your name in a special thanks spot on my blog. Same with contributors to the "Friends of Iraq" blogger challenge that I joined. I finally got the button working, so please donate what you can. Thanks everybody!

Donate to the Tsunami Victims

2005-01-02T13:03:00.000-08:00

I was browsing my sitemeter the other day and noticed something unusual; many people have been coming to my site looking for a way t donate to the tsunami victims in Asia wanted to provide a link for donations, but I also wanted be sure the money was actually going to help those people. I browsed the web, and on my own blog I found a comment from Heart for Missions.

Survivors of the Tsunami disaster hold a candle light vigil in remembrance.

This is a Christian organization that has provided numerous links for donating to crisis relief in Asia. What Heart for Missions does is basically create a hub for all the Christian charities to meet up put this information in my sidebar, so let's all donate what we can to help those people out.

HeartForMissions.net

The Network for Christians with a Heart for Missions

Mission
To provide a central location where [1] Christian missionaries and missions organizations can go to easily provide communication—field reports, needs, prayer requests, news, etc—regarding their ministry, and where [2] Christians can go to easily find information from Christian missionaries and missions organizations that will allow them to more easily partner in, and more actively be involved in world missions.

Person Questioned About Laser Beam, Planes

2005-01-01T22:50:00.000-08:00

Dec 31, 11:33 PM (ET)By BRUCE SHIPKOWSKITRENTON, N.J. (AP) - A laser beam was aimed at a police helicopter Friday - one of several incidents involving aircraft across the country in the past week - and federal authorities were questioning someone who had been at a house where they said the light had originated. Officials said no one was hurt when the laser hit the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police helicopter as it flew over an area where a similar incident occurred Wednesday. Soon after, Port Authority officials and the FBI went to a Parsippany home where they had tracked the laser beam and were questioning a person there in connection with both incidents, said Steve Coleman, an authority spokesman. No charges had been filed as of late Friday night, Coleman said. Police in the helicopter were trying to pinpoint the spot where three green lasers were pointed at a pilot preparing to land a plane at Teterboro Airport on Wednesday night. The force's superintendent and some detectives were in the helicopter at the time, Coleman said. The plane involved in Wednesday's incident, a corporate-owned Cessna Citation with 13 people aboard, was about 11 miles from the airport when the incident occurred, authorities said. It landed safely and no injuries were reported. Federal agents are looking into several recent incidents involving lasers and aircraft, including cases in Cleveland, Washington, Houston, Colorado Springs, Colo., and Medford, Ore. In some cases the lasers locked onto aircraft several thousand feet up as they approached airports for landing.

Though there have been no reports of accidents caused by lasers, they can temporarily blind and disorient a pilot and could lead to a plane crash. The FBI is investigating whether the incidents are pranks, accidents or something more sinister.

Charity, Aid and Criticism

2004-12-31T16:20:00.000-08:00

*UPDATE* United States Donates $350 million to Tsunami Aid, Japan donates $500 million. Let's hear it for them folks!
In the wake of the tragedies in Asia, countries have been rushing aid to countries in need in the form of money, supplies, and coalitions. Sadly, that is not the only thing the world community has been focused on. Instead, many nations (and here I point the finger at Europe) have been criticizing one another about who's "stingy". Of course, the United States was their first target. We all know that just about the whole of the U.N. wants the U.S. crucified and, in their usual short-sighted and spiteful manner, the United Nations began to attack us for how we had not yet donated a huge amount of money. As if on cue from the “axis of weasel” organization, the American liberal community began its attack on the President. Many liberals began harping on how the President showed a lack of sympathy for the dead in Asia by going about his usual Presidential schedule. Apparently, the liberals wanted Bush to strap on a wetsuit and head out to Sri Lanka to perform CPR on the nearest inhabitant. And while Bush was asking the media to “watch this drive”, the liberals were celebrating the enormous donation by the European Union of a whopping 3 million euros currently and a “planned” 30 million euro donation. Then President Bush, being the terrible “innocent dictatorship” invading, monkey-faced Neanderthal with an IQ of -37 that he is, donated $35 million. Instead of applauding how the U.S. had now donated more than the entire E.U., the liberals decided to attack President Bush on how his completely undeserved Presidential Inauguration would cost $50 million. They forgot how money going toward the Inauguration was not government money but private donations. Once this critical error had been realized by the liberals, they attacked the private donators group by asking, “Well, if they have that much money then why aren’t they donating to the Asian crisis”? Following this lead, the liberals began the assault on the “oh so wealthy” conservative America. They forgot to ask how much Senator Kerry and his wacko wife had donated (I believe the total amount so far has been two pairs of raised eyebrows upon hearing the news). However, the liberals did get an answer to that question. The filthy, wealthy, upper-class, conservative crooks have donated $42 million dollars and counting. Surprisingly, this wasn’t the answer the liberals were looking for, so they switched topics again to how the United States is a “scrooge” nation that never donates to any cause that doesn’t involve bombing the bejesus out of peaceful, kite-flying nations. Because of this, Colin Powell the had the pleasure of describing how over the past four years the United States has provided more such aid then all the other nations on the planet combined. Then the “one-upping” contest began. France, stung by comments made by a few Americans on its “stinginess”, changed its donation from 1.5 million euros to around 50 million euros. Chirac then proceeded to claim that France was and always had been the most charitable nation on the earth. The United Kingdom promptly donated 59 million euros. In response, Chirac stuck his tongue out at Blair. Well, whatever gets them to donate… After the European spat, the world community aimed their upturned noses at America and wondered what we would do next. We made a large aid coalition and sent it to Asia. Then, Kofi “I don’t steal oil money from Iraqis; that was my son” Annan accused the United States of trying to show off and described (lacking details and examples) how the American coalition would completely disrupt the U.N. coalition. I guess we know what the United Nations thinks of the American military and our aid workers.

It’s just my opinion…but I don’t think that what the United Nations is doing is really “in the spirit” of charity. And Europe, does it matter who gave more money to the aid in Asia? I mean, as long as people are giving money and aid, that’s all that matters. The United Nations is so focused on bashing America that they attack us for not doing enough, then hate us when we make a whole aid coalition that rivals theirs. But hey, ‘tis the season.

Moore...Why Pfizer?

2004-12-29T22:40:00.000-08:00

As you may know, Michael Moore has recently made the drug company Pfizer his next smear target. I just have one question for Moore; why Pfizer? This pharmaceutical company is known, but not really well known, so I don’t see what Moore wants to do with this company. I mean, I doubt many will really care. Of course, Pfizer has been shoved into the spotlight recently due to its announcement that the popular arthritis drug Celebrex doubles a person risk for a heart attack. The media failed to mention that no deaths have occurred from the drug as this risk only presents itself when the drug is taken in EXTREMLEY high doses. If something like this is why Moore plans to attack the company, he won’t have much luck. He might, however, find success with another drug company, Merck. Merck produced a drug called Vioxx that basically did the same thing, with the same heart risk. The difference was that the heart risk presented itself to anyone taking any dose of the drug. What people fail to realize is that this isn’t anything new, products are recalled all the time, and at least Merck withdrew it from the market.

Also, Pfizer is the second most philanthropical drug company in the world, right after Merck (philanthropical means charitable, by the way). I guarantee that Moore will not mention that fact in his “mockumentary”, as he has a habit of leaving out the facts or, in some cases, completely making “facts” up. In fact, Pfizer gave away about $2 billion to charity last year alone. Now, in the wake of the catastrophic events in Asia, Pfizer is giving away $35 million to help the victims of the earthquake. Yes indeed, the company that Moore wants to call evil is giving away an amount of money equal to what the entire United States is donating.

So, Michael Moore, once again I ask…why Pfizer? Oh, and another thing I would like to ask…how much are you giving away? I promise my readers right now, Moore will do nothing to help the victims of southern Asia; financially or otherwise. Although, he will blame Bush and Pfizer for not doing enough.

Tsunami Warning Was Stopped

2004-12-28T19:18:00.000-08:00

*UPDATE* NEW CASUALTY FIGURES FROM INDONESIA PUSH TSUNAMI DEATH TOLL OVER114,000
This is what I was describing in my previous post, and I'm glad Wizbang supports me on this. Many people have been debating this issue, but now it comes to light. Once again, thanks to Wizbang for clarifying this issue. I think you all will join me in the outrage I feel at those responsible for this travesty (except a few liberals...which oddly enough seem to want to support the people responsible).

Tsunami Wave Chart Courtesy of Fox News Channel

Just minutes after the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on Sunday morning, Thailand's foremost meteorological experts were sitting together in a crisis meeting. But they decided not to warn about the tsunami "out of courtesy to the tourist industry", writes the Thailand daily newspaper The Nation.

The experts got the news around 8:00 am on Sunday morning local time.

An hour later, the first massive wave struck. But the experts started to discuss the economic impacts when they were discussing if a tsunami warning should be made. The main argument against such a warning was that there have not been any floods in 300 years. Also, the experts believed the Indonesian island Sumatra would be a "cushion" for the southern coast of Thailand. The experts also had bad information; they thought the tremor was 8.1. A similar earthquake occurred in the same area in 2002 with no flooding at all.

...We finally decided not to do anything because the tourist season was in full swing. The hotels were 100% booked full. What if we issued a warning, which would have led to an evacuation, and nothing had happened. What would be the outcome? The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit...

Ohio Recount Over

2004-12-28T17:13:00.000-08:00

What did I tell the numerous liberals out there? That Bush actually won, and even a liberal backed recount will prove it. Guess what, I was right (headless Lucy, I laugh at you now). Bush is still the winner by six figures.

Election officials finished the presidential recount in Ohio on Tuesday, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bush's six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term.

The recount shows Bush winning Ohio by 118,457 votes over John Kerry, according to unofficial results provided to The Associated Press by the 88 counties. Lucas County, home to Toledo, was the last to finish counting.

The state had earlier declared Bush the winner by 118,775 votes and plans to adjust its totals to reflect the recount later this week.

The Kerry campaign supported the recount, but said it did not expect the tally to change the election winner. Supporters of the recount, requested by two minor party candidates, said they wanted to make sure every valid vote was counted.

Asian Governments Could Have Warned Tsunami Victims

2004-12-27T11:57:00.000-08:00

*UPDATE* NEW CASUALTY FIGURES FROM INDONESIA PUSH TSUNAMI DEATH TOLL OVER 80,000

*Update* - USA Today
Minutes after a massive earthquake rocked the Indian Ocean on Sunday, international ocean monitors knew that a tsunami would likely follow. But they didn't know whom to tell.

"We put out a bulletin within 20 minutes, technically as fast as we could do it," says Jeff LaDouce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LaDouce says e-mails were dispatched to Indonesian officials, but he doesn't know what happened to the information.

On Monday officials of Asian nations admitted they could have warned people about the earthquake caused tsunami's that, so far, have killed 22,000 with the death toll constantly rising. Had these nations warned their populations, the report said, countless lives could have been saved. I have quoted some of the Fox News article below. I hope you will all join me in praying for those lost in this terrible tragedy.

AKARTA, Indonesia Asian officials conceded Monday that they failed to issue broad public warnings immediately after a massive undersea earthquake in Indonesia, which could have saved countless lives from the subsequent giant waves that smashed into nine countries as far away as Africa.

Governments around the region insisted they did not know the true nature of the threat because there was no international system in place to track tidal waves in the Indian Ocean where they are rare and they cannot afford to buy sophisticated equipment to build one.

And what warnings there were came too little, too late.

"No one ever told us that these things can be predicted and we can be told about them," said Sumana Gamage, a shopowner in Colombo, Sri Lanka. "Next time I hope our government can do this."

"This is tragic," said retired Sri Lankan air force chief Harry Goonetilleke. "There should have been such an arrangement for the region. This is absolutely not acceptable."

Dec. 27: A man carries his son as relatives and others grieve at the site of a mass burial in Cuddalore, India.

Thammasarote Smith, a former senior forecaster at Thailand's Meteorological Department, said governments could have done much more to warn people about the danger.

"The department had up to an hour to announce the emergency message and evacuate people but they failed to do so," Thammasarote was quoted as saying in The Bangkok Post newspaper. "It is true that an earthquake is unpredictable but a tsunami, which occurs after an earthquake, is predictable."

The death toll Monday topped 22,000, with millions left homeless.

Troops Support the War

2004-12-27T03:12:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting story that you probably won't hear about in the mainstream media. Take a look at this poll:

Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.

Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.

A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.

The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/—2.6%.

Among the poll's other findings:

•75% oppose a military draft.

•60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

•12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

To be frank, I've noticed a few kinds of ways our troops are displayed by the liberal media and leftist propagandists such as Michael Moore. The portrayals by the liberals are this: if the troops dislike the war, they are heroes. Especially if those troops received wounds. Of course, the troops and families being interviewed in Fahrenheit 9-11 were unaware of Moore's intentions. If you were to watch FahrenHYPE 9-11 (an actual documentary, unlike Fahrenheit), then you will see many wounded soldiers and families of dead soldiers saying that Moore showed them either without their knowledge, or with a huge anti-war bias. In these cases, the troops and families said that they knew what they and their loved ones were fighting for, and that it was a good cause.

However, If the troops are in favor of the war, then they are portrayed as neo-nazi bigots that only want more "fresh-meat" to join the military so the killing can continue. In Fahrenheit 9-11, you will see Military recruiters shown as ruthless thugs trying to "press gang" people into service. This, of course, is not the case. I have actually debated a Moore supporter about whether Military recruiting should be allowed in schools. His argument consisted of how Military recruiters were "forcing" kids without futures into service by simply being there. How his logic works, I don't know. The alternative to going into the Army, Marines, etc. by his stance would be living on the streets. I think it is worth knowing that the person who argued this with me is the same one that made a disgusting comment about a Marine recruiter, behind the Marine's back. I wrote about that in a previous post entitled To You, Coward, if any of you are interested in reading it.

I think the main point of this topic is to show something that I've suspected for a long time; liberals (broad generalization, I know) hate the Military. They hate the discipline, the authority, and they think that anyone who joins it must be a blathering idiot for actually putting their life on the line so that these Libs can sleep safe at night (while continuing to undermine the military). Like the person I described above, many liberals just hate the Military completely, and anyone in it. They know that just coming out and saying this would be moral and political suicide, however, so they try to mask their hatred with claims that undermining the Armed Forces is "in the best interests of America". Americans are waking up to this fact though, and the vicious portrayals of our troops by the propagandists are becoming visible for what they actually are. We know the truth.

Christmas in Qatar

2004-12-26T01:46:00.000-08:00

I saw a very poetic Christmas observation while browsing The Dawn Patrol today, and I thought I should post it here. This letter was written by USAF Capt. Steven Givler, who is currently stationed in Qatar. This letter really shows what the true meaning of Christmas is about, and I'm sure you'll all join me in wishing a Merry Christmas to all of the brave people serving our nation over seas. God Bless, fellas.

Last night I walked the nearly two miles from the compound where I work to our squadron. I could have signed out a truck and driven there, but it was a beautiful night and the walk provided an opportunity for some solitude. The waxing moon outshined all but the brightest stars, and cast its light across a far-flung layer of thin, high cloud. My walk carried me past a large spherical antenna shelter. The moonlight gleamed on the top and faded down the curving sides. In the darkness, the shelter seemed to be a planet, reflecting the light of its small silver sun.

I had a cigar in my pocket, and paused a moment to light it. Then, marked by its glowing orange tip and a wreath of silver smoke, I left the road, cutting across a broad, dark patch of desert. Had I not walked this route before in daylight, I wouldn't have done it last night in the dark. Concertina wire, which is the tinsel of deployed bases, is invisible in the dark, and once wandered into, is difficult to get out of without leaving something precious behind.

Absent razor wire though, the desert is a beautiful place at night. Having no particular schedule to keep, I sat for a bit on a rock, accompanied only by the darkness, the silence, and a tiny desert fox that flirted with the limits of my peripheral vision. On a night like this, not far from here and not particularly long ago, shepherds keeping watch over their flocks were amazed by the sight of a heavenly host. Angels shouted, trumpets sounded, and the word went out. The world is changed forever.

On the distant end of a momentarily forgotten runway, a pair of fighters lit their afterburners. They shattered the silence and leaped into the sky, trailing 20-foot cones of pink flame. No angels for me this night (none that I can see) but I am no less aware of Christmas for the lack of them. This night, this place, my circumstances - as foreign and as far removed as they are >from the Christmases I have known, they are somehow appropriate. Christmas exits outside the presents, the trees, and even the company of my family.

Maybe that explains what happened on this day during the First World War. The German troops, facing the British across a blasted landscape, caroled them with Stille Nacht. The British answered with a carol of their own. The Germans sang another, and as Christmas Eve wore on, the night was filled with songs, back and forth across no-man's land, celebrating something that transcended even war. On Christmas day, a small number of Germans climbed from their trenches. With one exception, they held their hands in the air. In the center of no-man's land, the man with his hands in front of him dropped his burden. It was a soccer ball.

The day was filled with games. Schnapps and whiskey were exchanged. Men who had faced each other across the most brutal battlefield known to man laughed and ran and drank together like brothers. Even for those men, whose world was bounded by machine guns, barbed wire and slaughter, Christmas was transcendent.

We won't be playing soccer with terrorists over here. We won't share any sense of brotherhood with them. Our religions and their conduct of war preclude that. Still, Christmas is here. This evening the open space outside the chow hall was covered with tables and chairs, and burgers and hotdogs smoked over charcoal grills. We ate under the same sky I noted last night, while the general and the chief handed out stockings filled with gifts.

After supper two of my colleagues and I retired to the smoking area - a dusty corner protected by 12 foot high concrete barriers - for a Christmas Eve cigar. (I know, that's two cigars in as many days, but it's Christmas.) We were surprised to find that the camo netting overhead, through which the silver moonlight filtered, was strung with Christmas lights. Someone had spread Astroturf over the gravel and set out chairs, and from a radio came Christmas carols. I might have failed to notice these improvements were we at home, or noticing them, failed to be affected. Here though, they mean a lot to me.

When we finished smoking and talking to the airmen gathered there, we wished them all a Merry Christmas and returned to the facility where we work. On entering, we were arrested by the sound of a flute. On the operations floor, below the many screens showing maps and aircraft, and video footage from our unmanned surveillance aircraft, a group of carolers was finishing Oh Come Oh Come Emanuel.

Normally I can't decide what I want for Christmas, but this year I know exactly. To read again to my children. To say their prayers and put them to bed. To spend a quiet evening with my wife and, when the evening is over, to peer into our little ones' darkened rooms and listen to the softness of their breathing. I will have those things. It will take a little while, but don't feel bad about that. As with many things, the waiting will make the realization that much better.

I've long been a little cynical about decorations and carols and wishing people Merry Christmas. Not long ago I told a friend that I wasn't sure why we made such a big production out of the day. Easter I understand, because Jesus' resurrection seems to me so much more miraculous than His birth. But I've come to revise that philosophy. The angels who appeared to the shepherds clearly thought Jesus' birth warranted celebration on a grand scale. I find, now, that I am inclined to agree. That alone might be worth the trip.

Merry Christmas,

Steven

Capt. Givler

"The tree is made of clothes hangers, straightened out and taped together into a trunk, then bent down as branches. We have a surplus of hangers here. There are no laundry facilities for us to wash our own things, so we have to send them out (I know, it sounds more like a luxury than a complaint) and everything comes back on hangers so they're everywhere."

At this time I would also like to wish a Merry Christmas to Christopher Lucas, who is serving with the 210th EN Detachment in Afghanistan. Keep up the good work, Chris, and Merry Christmas from View of the Republic.

Merry Christmas!

2004-12-25T02:10:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas to all, and especially to Michael Moore and all you liberals out there!

Journalistic Treason

2004-12-24T17:39:00.000-08:00

You've all seen the pictures in magazines such as Time and Newsweek and in newspapers such as The New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The pictures showing Iraqis holding guns, yelling, discussing things unknown to the viewer. And, you have all seen the captions that describe how the people in the photograph are insurgents, terrorists, trying to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis. When I saw these pictures, I always figured that they must have been taken by an insurgent and sent to the press, or something happened in a similar manner that allowed the media to get a hold of these images. But, no, these pictures were taken by American Journalists. As it turns out, some insurgents allow journalists to photograph them.

From JACK STOKES, director of media relations, Associated Press: [This is a solicited letter regarding Salons The Associated Press insurgency.] Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. Its important to note, though, that the photographers are not embedded with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

What are these people thinking? Those insurgents WANT TO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS. That is their goal, and (as the journalists must know) they will attempt to very soon, if they havent already. These journalists are guilty of something I call journalistic treason; knowing where insurgents are, knowing that the people they are photographing are terrorists that have an intent to kill Americans, and not reporting these peoples whereabouts to the proper authority so the insurgents can be eliminated or taken into custody. Kill them, for crissake. These people are going to kill Americans, and the journalists dont give a damn. They just want their story. If you lack the means to kill these people when you find them, at least report to soldiers exactly where they are located.

To get an idea of the mindset these journalists have, take a look at the caption below.

A gunman, left, shoots and kills a man lying in Baghdad’s Haifa Street after being pulled from a car Sunday, Dec. 19, 2004. The man at right on his knees was executed moments later, along with another man not shown in picture. About 30 militants hurling hand grenades and firing machine guns attacked a car carrying five people employed by the commission’s Baghdad office and tried ‘to drag them out,’ said Adel al-Lami, a member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.

Want to know how the journalist explains this disgusting photo away? Take a look below:

"Even with todays proliferation of compact photographic equipment, a legitimate photojournalist rarely gets the opportunity to capture an execution."

This person sounds positively giddy at the prospect of catching the multiple murders of several innocent Iraqis on film. Did the photojournalist try to stop the murders though? No, of course not; that would have ruined his story.

My thanks to Little Green Footballs, for initially bringing up this topic.

Sand in the Gears

2004-12-23T23:07:00.000-08:00

Sand in the Gears is the funniest bunch of words on paper (or cyberspace, what ever) that I have seen in a long time. The author is also a Political Scientist (you go to college for that, folks), and while browsing his archives, I noticed a very funny and very true post. I reprinted the main part of it below. Please guys, check this site out whether you are a liberal or conservative, the sense of love this guy has for his family is something you can just sense through his writing and it makes me hope that I'll find happiness like this one day.

...So over dinner, several family members get into the inevitable Iraq/War on Terror conversation. To give you a flavor for the discussion, a few quotes selected primarily to make the part about me below sound especially good:

"We aren't the world's policeman."

"No wonder people over there hate us."

"The Europeans are sick of us meddling."

"We're just doing it for oil."

And so on. I kept my mouth shut. That's right. I kept my mouth shut. For this reason, I shall be abstaining from any sacrifice during the 2003 Lenten season.

A day or so later, my mother-in-law, bless her soul, asked me what I thought about the conversation.

"I'm no expert on foreign affairs," I demurred. I'm shy that way; can you tell?

"C'mon, Tony, I want to know what you think."

"Well, since you asked, we aren't the world's policeman, until the world goes and gets itself in another bind, usually involving the Germans directly or indirectly, and requiring some sort of rescue of the French, during which they will try to overcharge us for amenities. Come the wet-ass hour, to quote Al Pacino, we are everybody's daddy. So no, the Europeans don't want us involved, because they are too busy having fun pretending, now that we've defeated the U.S.S.R., that somehow they can manage their own safety without actually having armies, and while selling technology and weapons to terrorists and communist China. About the time they have their fat heads in a noose, made of rope they've sold at EU-subsidized prices to their executioners, then they'll start carping about how isolationist and hard-hearted we are. So the Europeans can bite me. And another thing -- it may be fashionable for liberals whose sole source of education is the E Channel to deride Ronald Reagan as an idiot, but he is a hero, that's right, a hero to millions of East Europeans, because he had the moral courage to call the Soviet Union what it was -- an Evil Empire -- while the slack-shouldered agnostics ladling out second-rate education in our nation's colleges were too busy sipping cappuccino and banging co-eds to recognize that communism is responsible for more state-sponsored murder than ten Nazi holocausts. So to answer your question, no, we aren't the world's policeman, but when there are people out there who want to kill me and my children, and they are actively seeking the means to do so, then my personal philosophy is that you kill them and everything within a ten-mile radius of them, post freaking haste. And if the U.N. doesn't like it, they can pack their louse-filled bags and hold their busy little seminars on gender inequality and structural racism on somebody else's dime. Since you asked, I mean."

Christmas in Baghdad

2004-12-23T20:45:00.000-08:00

This is a really touching story that was pointed out to me by Iraq the Model. I have reprinted it here:

Rose describes briefly her experience with Christmas in Baghdad and writes a little about the social bonds among Iraqis from different religions, ethnicities..etc

"The Iraqis have strong bonds between them, in spite of religion or ethnic differences, we all work together, have neighbors from other religions, visit each other and respect our differences. my neighbors are shias, my best friends are Christians and Kurds and I’m Sunni"
It's a nice post, read the rest here.

Freedom of (Non-Christian) Religion

2004-12-23T17:32:00.000-08:00

This story is just ridiculous. Now a kid can't go to a holiday party dressed as Santa (an image already displayed on coke bottles, advertisments, etc.) because someone could get offended. I seriously can't believe the stupidity of this principal. If a Jewsih boy had showed up at the party dressed as a Dradle, the Prinincipal wouldn't dare ask him to leave. Political correctness has made this country one of religious freedom, providing you are not Christian. If anyone is actually offended by the Image of Santa Clause, please seek emotional help. I mean, who was thinking of the feelings or saftey of this poor kid? I've highlighted important section from the article below, the full version can be found here.

Bryan Lafond, in a photo taken at his home, before going to the holiday dance at Hampton Academy Junior High School on Friday night.
Courtesy photo

A parent of a Hampton Academy Junior High School student says the principal of the school told his son to leave the school’s holiday dance on Friday night because the boy was dressed in a Santa Claus costume, which was politically incorrect. Michael Lafond said his son, Bryan, went to the dance dressed as Santa because it was a holiday party. "He asked if he could dress like Santa and we said yes," said Lafond. "We went to Brooks and purchased the outfit and everything."

"I went to the dance with my friend," said Bryan Lafond, who is in seventh grade. "He had an elf hat on and we thought it was pretty cool. Everyone loved the suit, but when I went by the principal, he asked why I was dressed like that."

Principal Fred Muscara said he told the boy he couldn’t get into the dance because he was wearing the costume.

"It was a holiday party," said Muscara. "It was not a Christmas party. There is a separation of church and state. We have a lot of students that go to Hampton Academy Junior High that have different religions. We have to be sensitive to that."

"My wife was leaving the parking lot when she saw Bryan running out of the building," said Lafond. "He told her that the principal said it was politically incorrect to wear the Santa outfit."

"I saw him running out of the building crying," said Leslie Lafond, Bryan’s mother.

"One of reasons why we are so angry is that the school has a policy that says once you go to the dance you can’t leave until it’s over," said Lafond. "You can’t leave school grounds unless they call a parent. If my wife wasn’t there, my son would have been out roaming the streets."

Bryan’s mother picked up her son and drove him home to change.

Lafond said his wife had to persuade Bryan to go back to the dance.

"He was so embarrassed," said Lafond. "It wasn’t like he was trying to pull a prank. He is just a good-natured kid getting into the holiday spirit who just happened to walk right by Scrooge."

"I don’t want this to happen again," said Leslie. "It is unacceptable. When Bryan returned to the school, the principal said, ‘What are you doing, trying to get me fired.’ That is not a proper comment to make to a student."

Rumsfeld and the Autopen: A Holiday Story

2004-12-23T15:48:00.000-08:00

I have been getting a lot of greif about how Rumsfeld uses an auto-pen to sign letters addressed to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. But...that's all I've been hearing. Oh, and that whole armor schmeil that was already proved to not be a problem(they stopped talking about that one real quick. Anyone wonder why?). The neo-libs have nothing to accuse Rumsfeld of profesionally, so they go on the "he's a heartless bastard and therefore is unfit to be in charge of the troops" ploy. So what if he is? He's damn good at running the military, so maybe the neo-libs should just get over this auto-pen issue. Would you really feel better knowing that your son died in Iraq...but Rumsfeld hand signed a letter to you? Big whoop. Ann Coulter published an article on this that seems to describe what I'm feeling. You can view it below.

Happy Giving Tree Festival To All, And To All A Good Night!
December 22, 2004

Since the attack of 9-11, we've won two wars, liberated millions of people from monstrous regimes, presided over one election in Afghanistan and are about to see elections in Iraq and among the Palestinian people. Focusing like a laser beam on the big picture, liberals are upset that, during this period, the secretary of defense used an autopen.

An autopen is a mechanical arm that actually holds a pen and is programmed to sign letters with a particular person's precise signature. Imagine a President Al Gore, with slightly more personality, signing all official government letters – that's an autopen. (You can relax now, there will be no more exercises imagining a President Al Gore.)

There are 300 million Americans who have a constitutional right – an actual right, not a phony one invented by Harry Blackmun – to write to government officials. Every government office you've ever heard of in Washington, D.C., uses autopens with abandon.

As president, Clinton sold burial plots in Arlington Cemetery and liberals shrugged it off. What really gets their goat is the autopen. Evidently, the important thing was that every one of those pardons Clinton sold for cash on his last day in office was signed by Bill Clinton personally.

It occurred to someone (who obviously has the best interests of America at heart!) that among the letters Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sends out there must be condolence letters to the families of servicemen who died for their country. So liberals are in a lather that those letters were signed by autopen.

On the bright side, this is the first war America has been in where the number of casualties is small enough that it would even be theoretically possible for a Defense secretary to sign each condolence letter personally. When Democrats were running the Vietnam War, letters of condolence often began, "To whom it may concern" and were addressed to "occupant."

Most politicians were mum about Autopen-gate, inasmuch as they respond to letters from constituents with dying children in letters signed by autopen. Not Sen. Chuck Hagel, D-Neb. He criticized Rumsfeld for the autopen, saying: "My goodness, that's the least that we could expect out of the secretary of defense, is having some personal attention paid by him."

It would save everyone a lot of trouble if the New York Times would just go ahead and put Hagel on the cover of the Sunday magazine with the headline: "COURAGE." Even now, Hagel can apparently count on no reporters dropping by his office to investigate whether he uses an autopen.

I've been so damn upset that Rumsfeld uses an autopen that I've barely had time to enjoy the "Giving Tree" season. Actually, I think it's time to come clean with my readers and admit that I belong to a small religious cult that celebrates the birth of Jesus this week. So things have been a little hectic.

And if the best liberals are going to give me to argue about this week is Autopen-gate, then: (1) I shall sleep well knowing that the secretary of defense has made so few mistakes for the past four years that liberals are reduced to carping about his autopen, and (2) I'm going to re-gift one of my interviews not published in the United States so I have time to buy more Ann Coulter action figures for Christmas, or as the Blue States call it, "December 25."

Possible Site Change

2004-12-23T01:18:00.000-08:00

I was thinking of including some of my political cohorts in my blog, and changing it into a team effort. There will be at least one democrat and one more conservative (besides me, that is). They will leave comments, and their own posts. Do you think I should do this? Please, my four viewers, leave your opinion below. If you have any other ideas, go ahead and comment.
*UPDATE*
I changed around the site format and added a traceback feature to the comments. Sadly, the old comments were deleted(*sniff* we had such good debates on those old comments), but y'all can just comment again on the old posts if you really think it's important. The question above is still open, so go ahead and comment. BTW, if you don't like the idea changing THIS site around, then I can just create a new blog and use that for the team run one. Thanks for bearing with me guys.

"Wrongful-Life" Suit Dismissed

2004-12-21T17:18:00.000-08:00

Wrongful...life? Doesn't that sound like an oxymoron? Well, thanks to Dawn and the Associated Press, this story is getting out there. What is this mother thinking...and how will this affect her judgment in the future?

The South Carolina Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit that claimed a woman was denied the option to abort her disabled son because she was not told about the condition.

Jennie Willis of Marion County contends she would have legally aborted had she known when she was pregnant that most of his brain was missing, said her lawyer, O. Fayrell Furr Jr. of Myrtle Beach.

The lawsuit was filed by Willis on behalf of her now 8-year-old son, Thomas....

[T]he state's high court unanimously ruled Monday it recognizes the "extremely severe nature" of the boy's impairment, but it could not accept the "wrongful life" claim.

"Even a jury collectively imbued with the wisdom of Solomon would be unable to weigh the fact of being born with a defective condition against the fact of not being born at all," Associate Justice E.C. Burnett of Spartanburg wrote for the court. "It is simply beyond the human experience."

South Carolina joins 27 other states, including Georgia and North Carolina, that either reject or limit the "wrongful life" claim, the court said. California, Washington and New Jersey are the only states that allow such claims; the remaining states haven't taken a position.

Willis contended in court papers that Dr. Donald S. Wu, an obstetrician-gynecologist, failed to tell her about her son's condition in 1995 before the 24-week deadline under state law to have a legal abortion.

Wu in court papers said at the 22-week stage he informed Willis after her third ultrasound examination of a potential problem and ordered another test by a fetal specialist in Charleston.

But she refused to go, even after another examination a week later showed her son "lacked any significant brain," he said in court papers.

"The question I posed to the court was, `Where do you draw the line?'" said Stephen Brown, Wu's Charleston lawyer. "Is it (for example) a Down Syndrome case or a child who takes 20 diabetic shots a day?"...

"There are better ways, there are positive alternatives to dealing with people with disabilities than to get rid of them," said Holly Gatling, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life. This child was born less than perfect, but I would say who of us is not?"...

Brian Lewis, spokesman for Planned Parenthood of South Carolina, said Monday that expectant mothers should always be told, if possible, whether their children might be born with disabilities so they can decide whether to keep the child, seek adoption or have an abortion.

"It's up to that woman (to determine) where she is in her life, what her needs are, what she can or cannot handle," he said.

There they go again. Planned Parenthood claims it's "up to [the] woman" to determine if she can "handle" a disabled child—and if not, kill it.

Read this mother's account of the baby she refused to abort. How cruel that Planned Parenthood and others would say the child should have been killed before birth to spare its mother grief. (As if an abortion actually could spare a mother grief—plenty of post-abortive women would give the lie to that.) Thank God that, as with this South Carolina case, there are still judges who refuse "to weigh the fact of being born with a defective condition against the fact of not being born at all."

Fire Rumsfeld!

2004-12-21T14:25:00.000-08:00

Well, that’s what the media has been saying lately. I just can’t figure out one thing…why? Rumsfeld’s resume is flawless, he has served our country impeccably, and he is one of the greatest Defense Secretaries of our nation’s history. The big media buzz urging Rumsfeld to step down seems to have started with his speech to the troops in Iraq. In that speech, as most of us know, a soldier questioned Rumsfeld about the lack of armored Humvees. This question was met with cheers of agreement from the soldiers around Rumsfeld. Of course, the media coverage stops right there. In actuality, Rumsfeld went on to answer the soldiers question by stating that production of armored Humvees had been increased to 400 units a month and that the armor shortage would quickly be over. After Rumsfeld said this, he received a standing ovation from the troops. Surprisingly, I didn’t learn of that part until first heard about it on a talk radio show yesterday.
This is an obvious case of media blackout and deception. They saw an opportunity to attack Rumsfeld and grabbed at it, not caring what information was left out in the process. I say they saw an opportunity, but really they created it. The question about armor that was asked to Rumsfeld was planted by an imbedded reporter in Iraq. You can read all about that story here. So, the media created an opportunity to attack Rumsfeld, followed through on it while intentionally leaving out important facts, and are now urging Rumsfeld to resign. I think it seems obvious that the people in charge of this “Fire Rumsfeld” campaign are the ones that need to resign. Intentional misrepresentation of the facts is a deceitful and immoral tactic, and when it’s being perpetrated by the people that we are supposed to be able to trust for unbiased news then we have a real problem. Rumsfeld has honorably served our nation extremely well, and no one can challenge that. I mean, he is independently wealthy, so he really doesn’t need to stay and take all this open criticism from the media, but he does because he loves this country and he is the best man for the job.

Name Change

2004-12-20T20:32:00.000-08:00

Just to let you guys know, I have (once again) switched names. The name I was using before was an old friend of mine's from Georgia, and I figured with all the internet badness out there(the recent case of a woman being murdered), I shouldn't be using it. My posts will be under Jay Gatsby from now on. Hope you continue reading.

Iraq Elections to Proceed

2004-12-20T18:17:00.000-08:00

The approach of the Iraqi election has been responded to by terrorists with increasing violence and attacks. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq hate the idea of freedom so much that they are wiling to kill thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis to stop the voting process from going forward. This kind of violence, in reaction to freedom no less, only proves to the Iraqis that our side is the right one.

The Iraq elections are to go forward, even with all the violence, as the President made clear today.

"The terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate people in their country, to disrupt the democratic process any way they can," Bush told reporters in his 17th solo press conference of his presidency. "Yet I am confident of the result. I'm confident the terrorists will fail. The elections will go forward and Iraq will be a democracy" that reflects the freedoms and the ideals of its people.

These attacks will not be successful, nor will they weaken the will of the people in Iraq. The elections will proceed on January 30^th, and nothing these people do will stop freedom from reaching Iraq.

Iraq The Model’s Ali Foretells Trouble

2004-12-19T13:12:00.000-08:00

Ali of Iraq The Model has resigned from writing on the blog, with an outgoing message that predicts problems. I wish all the luck in the world for Ali, and I hope his quest for the truth will be successful. I put his final post below. If I had to guess guys....I would say that some Americans are taking advantage of the election made by Ali and his brothers. Hopefully, this will hit the media hard and fast and soon we will all know what really is going on. Wish Ali luck guys, Lord knows he'll need it.

Sunday, December 19, 2004

This is the last time I write in this blog and I just want to say, goodbye. It's not an easy thing to do for me, but I know I should do it. I haven't told my brothers with my decision, as they are not here yet, but it won't change anything and I just can't keep doing this anymore.
My stand regarding America has never changed. I still love America and feel grateful to all those who helped us get our freedom and are still helping us establishing democracy in our country. But it's the act of some Americans that made me feel I'm on the wrong side here. I will expose these people in public very soon and I won't lack the mean to do this, but I won't do it here as this is not my blog.
At any rate, it's been a great experience and a pleasure to know all the regular readers of this blog, as I do feel I know you, and I owe you a lot.
Best wishes to all of you, those who supported us and those who criticized us as well.

Yours sincerely,
Ali.
- posted by Omar @ 01:27

The Global Warming Myth Continued

2004-12-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

Since I first published my post on Global Warming, there have been a couple people willing to keep believing that Global Warming is actually happening. They questioned the reliability of the article I posted, and so they should have. It is never good to unquestioningly believe in an article (especially one that did nit cite its sources. I have contacted the author and asked him to send me his sources). So, I went searching for more…unbiased…information on sites purely devoted to science. Lo and behold, the scientists back up what I have been saying. I have given the link to The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change website, which backs up the theory that Global Warming is nothing more than a myth.

You can find the article here. By the way, liberals, before you rage at me, look up this guys sources and tell me they're are wrong.

TIME Person of the Year is Bush

2004-12-19T00:54:00.000-08:00

TIME Magazine has named George W. Bush as their Person of the Year, and let's get some opinions on this guys. I think y'all know mine.

The Global Warming Myth

2004-12-18T17:01:00.000-08:00

The article below was written about the huge Global Warming myth that Democrats have continuously blathered about and blamed on Republicans. I always had a hinting that Global Warming wasn't a real threat (mainly because of the numerous scientific reports claiming that the Earth was actually getting colder...) and this pretty much clears it up. I have reprinted the article in full below, and would like to give credit to Tom DeWeese for writing it and to the American Policy Center; a grassroots movement.

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese
17 December 2004

Modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth.

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents -- is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time. The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding, and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: “Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070.” The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled: “Impacts of a Warming Arctic,” submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups who have an agenda. The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical environmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle. Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing “scientists” to the ACIA “researchers” is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers which creates junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding, and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm, or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

Two Kinds of Scientists

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings, and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's an age-old practice called “peer review.” It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine -- Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable commodity known as Freon was gone forever.

Flawed Computer Models

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment it really is just a “best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future. The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we have now. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

Scientists are Not on the Global Warming Bandwagon

And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to…man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren’t consistent with the political agenda the UN is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like Freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide. Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on and the UN has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has called the White House stance on global warming “terribly disappointing.” McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the “human effect on climate and what to do about it.” McCain intends to help build pressure on the President to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will -- in the short run -- cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon. There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses, and tooth paste. A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum, and cement. That about sums up the economy.

Global Raid on American Wealth

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment -- then how come it doesn't cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock, and computer chip to those Third World countries where they will be free to carry on production. But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And there’s still more looting of the U.S. treasury planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries’ adaptation to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies will be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don’t think this devastation can’t happen. The UN and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity -- George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America’s soul?

Tom DeWeese is publisher and editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA.

UPDATE:

The article below is pertaining to the Global Warming issue. This only further affirms the truth about Earth's climate.

Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers

by Paul Driessen
17 December 2004

Over 18,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate.

Some ten thousand delegates, scientists, activists, politicians and journalists have convened in Argentina for the COP-10 confab on “solutions” to the theoretical problem of “dangerous” and “catastrophic” global climate change. Months of hype and consternation preceded the event, to pressure the United States and Australia into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

The Day After Tomorrow and interminable activist group press releases provided appropriate horror movie scenarios. A hearing chaired by Senator John McCain promoted his prophecy that a climate Armageddon is near -- and his legislative palliative.

A new report warned that North Pole temperatures are rising. Science magazine asserted that not one of 928 studies supported the position that climate change is naturally occurring.

UK science advisor Sir David King said global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, and greenhouse emissions will have to be cut by 80% by 2050 to avoid massive coastal flooding due to melting Greenland ice sheets. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy hinted that the EU would give preferential access to its markets for poor countries that accept Kyoto.

The hysteria and caterwauling swamped essential facts.

Actual satellite and weather balloon data -- as well as historic and geologic records of numerous warming and cooling cycles -- contradict computer models, theories and assertions that humans are causing disastrous weather events and climate shifts. Arctic temperatures were even higher in the 1930s, before cooling again for several decades. Science’s editors didn’t mention countless studies that analyze natural warming and cooling cycles -- or the fact that 18,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate.

All the countries in the world together are responsible for less than 3% of the Earth’s total greenhouse gas emissions (the rest are natural), and the U.S. emits only 1/5 of this. The Kyoto treaty would force the U.S. to slash emissions and fossil fuel use by some 25% over the next decade -- an impossible task that would cost millions of jobs and over $300 billion annually, according to government and other studies.

Even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep average global temperatures from rising only 0.3 degrees less than they would by 2050 in the absence of a climate treaty. Actually stabilizing greenhouse gases and temperatures would require 19 to 40 “successful climate treaties” -- causing ruinous social and economic impacts, and diverting resources from solvable problems like AIDS, malaria, poverty and poor sanitation.

What then energizes all these false prophets of doom and their demands for immediate drastic action? Simply put, profits and power.

Just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. had a combined budget of $2 billion in 2003. Collectively, the global environmental movement has a war chest of up to $8-billion a year. That buys a lot of influence, but apparently it’s never enough. As National Audubon Society chief operating officer Dan Beard has admitted, “What you get in your mailbox is a never-ending stream of crisis-related shrill material designed to evoke emotions, so that you will sit down and write a check.”

Global warming is big business. The U.S. government ladled out $15 billion on global warming research and “education” between 1992 and 2000. The United Nations spent billions more, as did the European Union, and big foundations provided hundreds of millions more.

Unfortunately, most government money goes to researchers who support the position that human-caused climate change is a serious problem. Foundation money does likewise, for operations like the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Global Climate Change Center, and an International Institute for Sustainable Development $700,000 study of “how farmers in India may be vulnerable” to problems supposedly caused by “economic globalization and climate change.”

“Scientists must be allowed to conclude that we don’t have a problem,” MIT professor Richard Lindzen insists, and funding should not be based on politics and preconceptions. What’s needed are nonpartisan funding mechanisms to support climate research.

Climate treaties are driven by near-religious convictions, Lindzen and author-producer-molecular biologist Michael Crichton observed. This further politicizes science, makes rational debate unlikely, and keeps people perpetually anxious -- and in desperate search of saviors.

“To capture the public imagination,” global warming scientist-activist and former global cooling false prophet Stephen Schneider once said, “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan urged a Washington, DC audience in July 2000: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” In a similar vein, Time science editor Charles Alexander told a Smithsonian Institution conference: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Many climate alarmists see the Kyoto and other treaties as instruments of international power politics. Ultimately, they seek to give activists and centralized government bureaucrats control over fossil fuel use, economic growth, lifestyles, housing and transportation.

EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto “is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious,” she declaimed. And French President Jacques Chirac has termed the Kyoto Protocol “the first component of authentic global governance.”

Even now, proposals are being floated in Argentina that would allocate the right to emit carbon on a per capita basis throughout the world. Eventually, the scheme would ensure that every person has an “equitable” right to the same (minuscule) amount of energy -- whatever global bureaucrats and activists determine is “appropriate” and “sustainable.”

“Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of having vested interests,” The Economist has observed. “But their own incomes, their fame and their very existence can depend on supporting the most alarming versions of every environmental scare. Pressure groups, journalists, and fame seekers will no doubt continue to peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed.”

Actually, industry has much stronger motivations for honesty than do the activists, Daniel Koshland, Jr. noted when he was Science magazine editor. “Businesses today have product liability and can incur legal damages if they place a dangerous product on the market.” Environmental pressure groups “have no such constraints.”

All this should be on everyone’s mind -- in developed and developing countries alike -- as COP-10 attendees debate the merits and demerits of Quixotic proposals to “control” the world’s climate.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

Happenings In Iraq

2004-12-17T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Frozen Toaster pointed something out that I think should be shared. The letter below is from a Marine in Iraq right now and was recieved 3 days ago via email. This is a very important story, and (like the Toaster pointed out) it will probably never be written about by the media. They reallt don't want stories that prove what we are doing in Iraq is helping those people, so it's up to the bloggers to get this news out. Enjoy.

Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.
As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.
On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.
As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.
Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.
It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?
If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.
Semper Fi,
Mark
GySgt / USMC

Hero of the Week

2004-12-15T23:14:00.000-08:00

This guy is a true patriot, if only others could be more like him. Make no mistake, I'd be in Iraq now if they'd only let me in. Asthma keeps you out, you know? Thanks to The Frozen Toaster for finding this one.

Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he's 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago.

"My first reaction was disbelief," Caulfield said. "It never occurred to me that they would call a 70-year-old."

In fact, he was so sure it was an error that he ignored the postcards and telephone messages asking if he would be willing to volunteer for active duty to "backfill" somewhere on the East Coast, Europe or Hawaii. That would be OK, he thought. It would release active duty oral surgeons from those areas to go to combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But then the orders came for him to go to Afghanistan.

.......

Caulfield has much-needed experience in gunshot and fragmentation injuries. "We salute his courage," Schwartz said. "We salute his bravery."

Caulfield lived and practiced oral surgery in Salisbury, N.C., before moving to Satellite Beach two years ago. When the call came, he had no qualms about serving. He said that because the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq were within such a close time, the military is exhausting some specialties. They have rotated some reservists in and out. "Because there is no draft, they are using and maybe overusing the National Guard and Reserve," he said. "There is no obligatory method."

Caulfield said he is glad to be able to help.

"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."

Amen, sir and God bless. The origional article can be found here.

Aide to Iraqi 'Beheader' Shot Dead

2004-12-14T22:41:00.000-08:00

We got one of them guys. Let's hope more are to follow.

Allawi, in a televised address to Iraq's National Council, said police had killed Hassan Ibrahim Farhan and seized two of his aides, but did not say when or where.

Allawi said those captured were responsible for carrying out the beheadings of several hostages in Iraq. Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for many of the worst attacks to take place in Iraq over the past year, including beheadings of foreigners.

A group allied to Zarqawi said on Monday it had carried out a suicide car bomb attack on a checkpoint near Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone which killed at least nine people and wounded 19.

Zarqawi and his senior aides were believed to have been hiding out in Falluja, a rebellious city west of Baghdad, until shortly before Nov. 8, when U.S. forces launched a major offensive to take the city back from Sunni Arab insurgents.

U.S. military officials have said they believe Zarqawi, or at least some of his chief lieutenants, may have fled to the northern Iraq city of Mosul ahead of the Falluja assault.

Possible AIDS Cure Found

2004-12-14T22:22:00.000-08:00

This is very big, guys. We can only hope that this will be the end of the terrible virus. I hope you like the article I quoted from ;) . Well done to the guys at Rutgers!

Researchers from Rutgers University are expressing optimism over a trio of HIV drugs they have developed that could possibly destroy the AIDS-causing virus.

According to a prepublished report in the electronic edition of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, the drugs, known as R278474, have the potential to interfere with an enzyme that HIV needs to copy and insert itself into human cells.

Tests show the drugs can be taken in the form of one pill that is easily absorbed with minimal side effects, the Associated Press reported.

"We're on to something very, very special," said chemist Eddy Arnold, who led the research team.

The research team, which is partnered with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary companies, has targeted reverse transcriptase, a submicroscopic protein that is a key protein in HIV.

"If you can really inhibit reverse transcriptase, you can stop AIDS," said Dr. Stephen Smith, the head of the department of infectious diseases at St. Michael's Medical Center in Newark, N.J.

The full research will be published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry early next year.

Blurring the Line

2004-12-14T19:27:00.000-08:00

A while ago, to the outrage of the Blogger community (even though surprisingly few people know about this even now), post-birth abortion was made legal in the Netherlands. Only in cases of terminal illness or severe mental retardation, however. In their logic, the baby has “no free will” and therefore, is not a life. This is, of course, an atrocity and disgusting in every way. After bringing this subject up to a friend of mine, something interesting occurred to me. Before abortion was made legal (way back in the day, mind you) the conservatives against it made a point that the liberal community scoffed at. The conservatives predicted that if abortion were made illegal, the line about life would be blurred. They predicted, ladies and gents, that if abortion were made legal, eventually, so would post-birth abortion. Liberals in favor of abortion immediately discarded the claim as nonsense. Who would ever kill a baby once It has been born? Well, liberals…..we told you so. Soon, parents will kill their children because they are missing an arm, or because their baby has some other kind of undesirable trait. Perhaps parents don’t like the color of their baby’s eyes. Parents are already making abortions based on gender, so this certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibility. And liberals didn’t have the foresight to realize that this would eventually come. Cause and effect, a simple concept, but one that is forever lost on liberals. The line of where life begins was forever blurred by pro-abortionists, and now it is slowly becoming “OK” to kill babies after birth. It’s Nazi reminiscent, it’s disgusting. Welcome to the world you brought in, liberals.

To bring up another issue of cause and effect…gay marriage. Albeit, gay marriage is definatly less severe than what’s happening in the Netherlands, but they are (however distantly) related. By creating rights that never existed, you are allowing new rights to be claimed in the field of marriage. These rights will be claimed by bigamists, and possibly by incestuous people. Now, history is repeating itself, and liberals fail to see that by ushering in gay marriage, they are opening the doors to a country where bigamy is allowed, and where you pay for the marriage benefits bigamists receive. And in bigamy, the women always lose. Wake up, liberals, and realize the consequences of your actions. You never have before, and now, our children are being murdered. We can still stop this, but I doubt any of the liberals out there will even make a semblance of an effort.

UPDATE
I mistakenly implied in the post above that all liberals are pro-abortion and that all conservatives are against it. This is not true, of course, and was pointed out to me by a teacher of mine. I would like to add, however, that most pro-abortionists are liberal, and most pro-lifeists (correct term?) are conservatives.

Using The Bible Against Republicans

2004-12-12T19:15:00.000-08:00

This Christian-bashing article was pointed out by Jinx at Shock and Blog, and I felt the need to address it. My response to the article is written below.

Well, it would seem that we have found yet another bigot. I would like to ask the author of this post to take back the things he said before it’s too late, but people like this are more inclined to respond with mindless blather on a different topic. The author here is very openly calling Christianity stupid and mocking it. If I were to call Judaism or Islam stupid, I would immediately be called a bigot. But, because Christian bashing is ever so popular these days, this person can get away with it. Well, buddy, let’s practice some tolerance for those unlike you, alright?

Why don’t you criticize the Muslim religion? After all, I find that the Qur'an is very harsh in its criticism of the Jewish people. For example in chapter 5:60-64 I see that Jewish people are called as those whom Allah has cursed, is angry with them and has turned them into apes and swine. This is very offensive and sounds outright anti-Semitic. However, this can be explained by reading further into the Qur’an (as can the Christian one can be, if you bothered to look, and as Jinx pointed out). So, where are your harsh words for Islam?

To be truthful, the author he doesn’t have any; he is just a bigot that hates Christians to the extreme. Why? Well, I doubt we will ever find out the reason why bigots hate others. Perhaps he was dropped as a child, because someone so stupid as to be openly bigoted online really has issues. Who are you going to spew your rage at next? African Americans? Once again, I implore you to apologize and change your bigoted ways, before you become consumed with hatred for all people unlike you.

Letter to the Left

2004-12-12T02:53:00.000-08:00

I saw this letter while browsing blogs and it brings out a good point (even though some of the opinions in the letter do not represent what I believe. Those who are sticking to the Democratic Party just because you think it's "right to be a democrat", I want you to take a look at this. Unlike what Howard Dean wants, in a speech he recently recited, I do not want you to "stick to democratic convictions and not give in to Republican ideas". No, I want you to join us. I think Howard Dean said those things in his speech because he realizes that many of you are waking up to the truth, and that scares him. Our country is at a time and place in history that will effect the rest of our lives, and the lives of future generations. We need to unite, and work together to strengthen this nation. I know the hardcore liberals out there will call what I am saying a mind game, or something similar, but hear me out. The Democratic Party lost this election, and for good reason. Their ideals were rejected by the people of America, their lies were exposed, their candidate revealed as an unfit commander. This does not mean the rift between Democrats and Republicans and the Independents has to grow. I want to speak to those that are considering changing their party, or their views. I have no doubt that many of you Democrats have had that tiny feeling in the back of your mind that what you are debating or listening to may not be entirely true. This is because the liberals have a tendency to lie, they really can't help it. Most of their ideas can only be backed up by lies, and not by the truth. If you feel this way, and want to come toward the truth, then I implore you to do so. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion. I, after all, was once a liberal. I later found out that the party I had trusted had, and still was, lying to me. I went out into the political world to find the truth, and I did....in the Republican Party. Closing, just listen to what your mind is telling you about the lies you have been hearing, and read the article below. Any people on the left that read this, give me feedback on what my words and the words below left on you. I don't necessarily want you to go hardcore Republican, but maybe just independent. Give the truth a chance. The blogger that wrote this wonderful letter can be found here, at the Right Thoughts blog. Check it out guys, it's a great blog.

Dear American Left,

I know why Bush won. I know why you lost. No, not just lost…were rejected. I know exactly why, and we’ll get to that in a minute. First, though, just let me say this: If you think that spewing hate and invective on me now is going to make your life improve in any way whatsoever, you are a bigger group of fools than anyone imagined. If you think calling me more names is going to get you what you want in this country, you are not just acting foolish, you are delusional and maybe your hatred is more than just a little self-oriented. The reason I say “I” here instead of “we” or “The GOP” is because I want you to understand something so basic, so fundamental that I am ashamed for you that I have to spell it out.

I am the Republican Party.

Oh, I may not be a majority of the party yet. I am strongly in favor of gay marriage and completely against most of the pro-life points of view (for reasons that transcend the circular discussion of when life begins). This makes me an outsider for the moment, not part of the mainstream of the GOP.

But my numbers are growing. And my age is a factor. You see, the old guard of the Republican party is quite literally dying, and we, the younger members, are moving up. It won’t be long before we are a majority influence and can turn the party back toward preserving the ideals of smaller government, less interference in both business and private life. I believe it is possible to embrace both traditional and progressive values. I do it every day. I believe that it is possible to hold our military up as the primary reason the federal government exists and still manage to protect the rights of two people who wish to legally share their lives, and I will work within my party to make that happen.

I am the Republican Party. Or more appropriately, I am the future of the Republican Party. And if you think keeping me on your side is worth anything, you might want to re-think the idea of calling me a bigot or a Nazi or spewing hatred at me. Your ideals were soundly rejected, and if you stopped whining long enough to ask, some of us can tell you why. Part of why you don’t know is the fact that you haven’t stopped whining in the last four years. The steady stream of hate, lies and vitriol from the American left has hardened the American right in ways you can’t begin to imagine. You tempered us. You forged us in the fire of your hate, and you made us stronger than we every could have without your steady litany of bile and complaint.

I’ll give you a perfect, shining example of why you lost. His name is Michael Moore.

Before Moore burst forth with his theories of 9/11 conspiracies, “seven minutes,” blood for oil, Taliban pipelines etc., very little actual criticism was levied at Bush beyond the misguided notion that something errant happened in Florida. If Moore did not exist, I believe that cooler heads would have realized that a never-ending flow of recounts all proved one thing: Bush won. Period. And we would have moved forward. 9/11 would still have happened and we might have had a chance at keeping some of that unity we all felt, but along came Moore, and in tow came the most extreme elements of the American left. Bolstered by the Hollywood liberal, the MoveOn/Democratic Underground lunatic, the darkest fringes of radical American liberalism were given credence simply by being a market share. Fine…free markets are great. Moore has a message, you provided an audience, money was exchanged.

But then you started taking those messages into the political arena as though they had validity. And most of America looked at you like you just grew a third eye right in front of them. And still you persisted, getting more and more hateful, telling more lies, spinning out-of-context elements and juxtaposing any and every situation in order to try to hammer home your talking points. No matter what the discussion, you brought it back to one of Moore’s talking points. If the topic did not fit your need, you forced it, or just ignored it altogether and ranted away.

You never stopped for a minute to consider the fact that you might be wrong. And yet that very behavior is one of the greatest criticisms of Bush by the new radical left. Ironic, I think.

You took this new radicalism so far that your candidate for President, a man who is guided by polls, took a look around and said “Oh, I get it. There is energy around this new radical hate of the President. I will base my message not only around my questionable service, but around this new radical hatred, even if most of it is baseless or contradicts what I said just six or twelve months ago.”

Make no mistake, people, two things lost you this election. First it was your incessant need to spew vile invective at anyone who did not think like you, and secondly, like Nader in 2000, you have one man to thank, and his name is Michael Moore.

As proof of the lack of class, take a look at his site today. As of this writing, that filthy excuse for a human being has replaced all his crowing and self-righteousness with a photo of Bush made up of the first 1000 soldiers that died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know, from VERY personal letters that I will be sharing with everyone soon, that at minimum, 75% of the people pictured in this photo hate Moore. They cannot stand him and would be deeply offended and disgusted at being used in such a manner.

I see that he doesn’t care, and to be honest, I bet you don’t either. And that’s another reason why you lost. You ignored the voices of those who would die to protect you.

Let me say that again in a different way. There are a few million men and women who have volunteered to give thier very lives to protect you. Can you even grasp the enormity of that concept? After 9/11, knowing there was going to be a military response, hundreds of thousands of people volunteered to join the military to defend you. TO protect you. To take whatever action they could to try to prevent your death in another terrorist attack. They are willing to die for you, and you ignored them. You treated them like mindless pawns. You used them and then tried to elect a man that has betrayed them time and time again.

Do you have any idea how that must feel?

Regardless of your position on Iraq, whether it was warranted or not, they have a position, and that position is overwhelmingly in support of Bush, the idea of the war, the execution of the war and the goal to stay until the work is finished. And you ignored them. Worse, you ridiculed them. You called them “kids” and “children.” You painted them as bloodthirsty savages hell-bent on murder and sadism when you heard that a small number of individuals did some pretty nasty things to some prisoners. They will never forgot that, you know.

And that brings it back to the hate and bile that poured forth from the left. The hate and bile that is still pouring out today, perhaps at an even greater rate.

I spent all night last night blogging the election…reading websites, tracking data, reading other blogs, talking about it, watching TV, etc. This morning, while I was still awake after the long run, I was both smug with the win and giddy with relief that we avoided electing a man I have come to despise, and I threw it right in the face of some people on another website. To that person; If you’re reading this, I apologize for my tone. Not my content. You still have some lessons you need to learn, and if you want to move out of the country because of this…more power to you. I don’t believe you will. But that doesn’t excuse the way I spoke to you, and for that I apologize.

Something that person (and the rest of you to whom this letter is addressed) is going to have to learn is that telling me I’m stupid, a racist, a bigot, or whatever else you may come up with is going to result in exactly one thing; further marginalizing you as a political power in America. What you need is me as your ally. Your inside man. Someone who will fight you on a lot of issues, but will also fight for you on others. Why?

Because I am the Republican Party. And right now, we control the game. If you want to play, you need to re-think this idea that throwing tantrums will get you on the field.

Talk to me. Treat me with respect. And you just might find yourself with the most powerful ally you can imagine: someone who shares a vision of a more free, more perfect America.

*UPDATE*

Some people seem to have missed my entire point.

Look at it not as a political issue, or a moral issue or a social issue or anything else but a practical issue. The fact is, if the American left wants to make a difference in America in the next four years, you do not have a choice except to deal with Republican control. That’s the fact. Complain all you want, but that is the way it is.

Do you think namecalling is going to change it? Will it make it easier to get your ideas heard? Will it make it easier to get yor ideas into law? Of course it won’t. That’s a pretty stupid premise. When you want something from someone, do you berate and scream at them, or do you ask? What do we teach children, to throw tantrums, or to ask nicely? WHat method do you prefer to be used on you, threats, tantrums and vicious personal attacks, or a request for civil conversation and a sharing of ideas with the goal of reaching an accord?

As a matter of consistency, how is it that the American left will literally march in protest over the United States not using diplomacy, and yet are physically incapable of using diplomacy to deal with the right? Doesn’t that just scream “hypocrite?”

To address another issue; No, I’m not a spokesman for the GOP. But someday I will be. If not the GOP, then some other form of conservative movement that will be in control. And my memory for things like who has attacked and berated and browbeat me is long, my friend. Very, very long. Especially for people who attack me for things in which I do not believe without even a moment’s hesitation to hear my point of view. I do not believe it is in my nature, nor the nature of others, to simply take abuse and reward the abuser. That behavior is considered an illness in this country.

Yet another mistake I feel some have made in interpreting what I wrote is that I declared Moore some kind of kingmaker. No…Moore wanted to be a kingmaker and failed because his message is too full of lies and insanity to appeal to moderate Democrats. However, that did not stop the leadership of the party from adoptying his rhetoric of lies. By choosing to adopt Moore’s litany of deceptions, the Democrats also galvanized the right into a stronger force than they have been in decades. Basically, Moore promised you the moon, and what you got was a cheap card with a picture of the moon on it and a note inside that read “Yeah, I failed, but you paid me millions, so screw you.”

Oh and can we drop the “revolution” nonsense? As a practical matter, you couldn’t possibly pull off a revolution. We own the guns and the military. It was brought up in the comments to this post and it’s not anywhere NEAR the first time I have seen that in the last 48 hours. It makes me laugh every time. It also IMMEDIATELY makes me think the writer is a Grade-A idiot for even suggesting it.

If you would be willing to revolt over one election, you’re not someone who should be taken seriously. On any level. But that doesn’t matter…what are you gonna revolt with? Spitballs? As for legal secession…go ahead and try. No blue area of the country can sustain itself. Too many people, not enough actual production. Stop playing martyr, stop playing victim, stop spewing hate and calm the hell down. Take a breath, admit that the country is much more conservative than the you wanted to admit, and let’s find ways to compromise. That will never happen while you are busy calling me “f***ing stupid” and “a goddamned redneck” and all the other vile things I keep seeing.

The harsh reality of, for the next four years, we *don’t* need a consensus. The Republicans can, if they so chose, run the country with absolutely zero input from the parts of the left that refuse to tone it down. Should they? No. Can they? You bet your ass. That’s a wake-up call for the American left.

Someone should answer the damned phone.

The Afghan Miracle

2004-12-11T18:43:00.000-08:00

Charles Krauthammer has pointed out something that many liberals would like to ingore in the article below. Read and enjoy.

"Miracle begets yawn" has been the American reaction to the inauguration of Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Before our astonishing success in Afghanistan goes completely down the memory hole, let's recall some very recent history.

For almost a decade before Sept. 11, we did absolutely nothing about Afghanistan. A few cruise missiles hurled into empty tents, followed by expressions of satisfaction about the "message" we had sent. It was, in fact, a message of utter passivity and unseriousness.

Then comes our Pearl Harbor, and the sleeping giant awakens. Within 100 days, al Qaeda is routed and the Taliban overthrown. Then the first election in Afghanistan's history. Now the inauguration of a deeply respected democrat who, upon being sworn in as the legitimate president of his country, thanks America for its liberation.

This in Afghanistan, which only three years ago was not just hostile but untouchable. What do liberals have to say about this singular achievement by the Bush administration? That Afghanistan is growing poppies.

Good grief. This is news? "Afghanistan grows poppies" is the sun rising in the east. "Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president" is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies. What is President Bush supposed to do? Send 100,000 GIs to eradicate the crop and incite a popular rebellion?

The other complaint is that Karzai really does not rule the whole country. Again, the sun rises in the east. Afghanistan has never had a government that controlled the whole country. It has always had a central government weak by Western standards.

But Afghanistan's decentralized system works. Karzai controls Kabul, most of the major cities and much in between. And he is successfully leveraging his power to gradually extend his authority as he creates entirely new federal institutions and an entirely new military.

Again, what should Bush have done? Send another 100,000 GIs to put down warlords with local roots, local legitimacy and a ton of firepower?

What has happened in Afghanistan is nothing short of a miracle. Who is responsible for it? The New York Times gives the major credit to "the Afghan people" with their "courage and commitment." Courage and commitment there was, but the courage and commitment were curiously imperceptible until this administration conceived a radical war plan, executed it brilliantly, liberated the country and created from scratch the structures of democracy.

The interesting question is: If we succeeded in Afghanistan, why haven't we in Iraq? One would have thought Afghanistan, with its obviously less-developed human and industrial infrastructure, to be far less conducive to democracy. It is more tribal, more primitive and has even less history of modern political development.

Yet that may have been an advantage. Iraq has for decades been exposed to the ideas of political modernism -- fascism and socialism as transmuted through Baathism (heavily influenced by the European political winds of the 1920s and '30s) to which Saddam Hussein added the higher totalitarianism of his hero, Stalin. This history has succeeded in devaluing and delegitimizing secular ideologies, including liberal-democratic ones. In contrast, Afghanistan had suffered under years of appalling theocratic rule, which helped to legitimize the kind of secularist democracy that Karzai represents.

Furthermore, Afghanistan had the ironic advantage of having just come out of a quarter-century of civil war. As in Europe after World War II, the exhaustion that follows is conducive to pursuing power by peaceful political means. In contrast, Iraq's Baathists, fresh from 30 years of unimpeded looting and killing, are quite prepared to ignite a civil war in pursuit of the power and privileges they have lost.

And, finally, Afghanistan's neighbors have largely kept out of the postwar reconstruction. The most powerful and active neighbor, Pakistan, was made an ally in this effort and has supported the democracy project.

Iraq's neighbors are hostile to the United States and to our democratic project. The Baathist insurgents are heavily supported by Syria, from which some of the sheltered leadership provides funding and operational directives for guerrilla actions in Iraq. Behind Syria stands the Arab League, composed mostly of Sunni monarchs and dictators, carrying water for Iraq's Sunni minority, which ruled for 80 years.

On the other side is Iran, funneling money, fighters and, by some reports, even voters (waves of immigrants) to help elect not only a Shiite government but a theocratic Shiite government. As Iraq becomes the cockpit for the regional rivalries, internal divisions are greatly exacerbated.

This does not mean we cannot succeed. It does mean that Iraq will be very difficult. It also means that against all expectations, Afghanistan is the first graduate of the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy in rather hostile places. A success so remarkable and an end so improbable merit at least a moment of celebration.

Deceiving The Media

2004-12-10T14:20:00.000-08:00

CNN has come out with a report on how the military deliberately deceived the media to gain a strategic advantage in Iraq. Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert announced that a major U.S. military operation was under way in Fallujah, three weeks before the offensive that eventually recaptured the city began. The idea behind this deception was to gain intelligence on how insurgents in the city of Fallujah would react to a military offensive. Gilbert’s words are quoted below.

The troops crossed the line of departure. We had artillery fire, prep fire going out. Aircraft have been moving through the area all day, helicopters providing transport. It's been a pretty uncomfortable time.

The Los Angeles Times first reported the incident as a major pentagon deception of the media, which turned out not to be true. Mark Mazzetti, the reporter covering the incident, later filled CNN in on the details.

“The Pentagon people I spoke to said that the intended audience was the insurgent population around Fallujah [who] might think that the U.S. military was coming to get them, and the U.S. military wanted to observe what they did when they thought the U.S. was coming," Mazzetti told CNN's "Newsnight With Aaron Brown.”
The Pentagon is now stating that Gilbert's remarks were “technically true but misleading.” It was an attempt to get CNN “to report something not true”. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said U.S. personnel are never allowed to deceive reporters, and he said he is reviewing the circumstances surrounding the Gilbert interview. “We are looking into reports where people may have gotten more creative than they should have,” he said.

CNN is pretty ticked off at the whole incident here, probably because they were the ones being mislead. They finish the article, which can be found here, by saying how what the military did here was a dangerous thing to be doing. They also try to claim that what was actually happening “became apparent immediately” even though they haven’t reported on it until now. I personally think that what the military did was perfectly acceptable, because we can’t take the convenience of what’s going on immediately in a war over the lives of our soldiers. The media is lucky that they are allowed to follow the army along at all, frankly, and several reporters have already reported information that was detrimental to military operations (Rivera, for instance). If the military lying to CNN helped them gauge the reaction of an insurgent defense in Fallujah, then they should be allowed to do it (providing that they disclose the actual information once relevant operations have ceased). What the military did here probably saved quite a lot of American lives, and that’s something my news can wait for.

Gay Marriage-Right or Wrong?

2004-12-09T20:29:00.000-08:00

Well, that’s a complex question. Recently, I have been hearing quite a lot of arguments going back and forth about this subject and I think that it’s about time that I discussed it here.

First, let me get my opinion out of the way. I believe that gay marriage is breaking the religious beliefs of many and that a civil union is just as good. Even discounting this, however, there are many legal and moral reasons for not allowing gay marriage. Sure, I think that a man can fall in love with a man. If you’re built that way, you really can’t help how you feel. I also think that if you are in love with someone, a civil union should be enough and I support these. Marriage is a religious institution and always has been. Allowing gays to marry violates the religious views of not only Christians, but Jews and Muslims. These religious groups should have their views respected just as much as the gays should have their views represented, and by allowing gay marriage you are basically telling religious groups that what they think no longer matters.

Second, we should take a look at the facts in the gay marriage case. Legally, allowing gay marriage is opening a can of worms. Gays claim that they are having their rights denied, but this is not true. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, never between a man and a man. Gays never had the right to marry (a religious creation), so their rights are not being denied. Now, should we allow homosexuals to marry, then we are allowing whole new rights to be created. Mormons who want to marry multiple wives will be able to claim that their rights are being denied, even though they never had those rights. Also, a man could claim to love his daughter, and by not allowing them to marry, his rights will have been denied. Let’s not forget that we will be the ones paying for the tax benefits that married couples (or triples, quadruples, etc.) will receive. Do you really want to add to your taxes so a bigamist can marry 20 women? Or so an incest oriented person can be wed to his daughter? No, I didn’t think so. By creating rights that never existed, you are allowing others to claim new rights in the field of marriage, and that fact cannot be denied. If you really love someone (and I don’t doubt that many gays do) then a civil union should be enough. If you are getting married, then it is done by a church and called a marriage. You can get married by a Justice of the Peace and it is a civil union. People get married in churches for a reason; marriage (in that sense) is a religious event, based on Christianity. If you are religious, then you understand that gay marriage is permitted by the bible. If you are gay and getting married by the church sense, then you are breaking the rules of your own religion. The bible says nothing about civil unions, however. Anyway, my point there is protecting the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution. More important, I think, are the legal problems that allowing gay marriage entails need to be recognized.

So, we have my opinion and the facts……what do you think?

For His Country, For His Friends.....

2004-12-07T22:24:00.000-08:00

I heard this story once again on the Mark Levin radio show, and I also heard how the media hasn’t been releasing the details. I guess it doesn’t work out with their agenda, but this man deserves to be known as a hero. Sadly, the media wants coverage that makes our soldiers look bad, or they want blood and guts reports. Obviously, this story does not conform to those wishes Read his story below. You can also find this story on Shock and Blog, where I first found it. Good job Jinx, for getting this story to us.

Sgt. Rafael Peralta built a reputation as a man who always put his Marines' interests ahead of his own.

He showed that again, when he made the ultimate sacrifice of his life Tuesday, by shielding his fellow Marines from a grenade blast.

...

One of the first Marines to enter the house, Peralta was wounded in the face by rifle fire from a room near the entry door, said Lance Cpl. Adam Morrison, 20, of Tacoma, who was in the house when Peralta was first wounded.

Moments later, an insurgent rolled a fragmentation grenade into the area where a wounded Peralta and the other Marines were seeking cover.

As Morrison and another Marine scrambled to escape the blast, pounding against a locked door, Peralta grabbed the grenade and cradled it into his body, Morrison said. While one Marine was badly wounded by shrapnel from the blast, the Marines said they believe more lives would have been lost if not for Peralta's selfless act.

"He saved half my fire team," said Cpl. Brannon Dyer, 27, of Blairsville, Ga.

I looked this story up further, and it turns out that Peralta received wounds to the face and chest, which wounded him gravely, and he was thought to be dead. When the grenade rolled in, however, he used the last of his strength to clutch it to his chest, knowing fully what the consequences of his actions were.

Also, Peralta wasn’t forced to go into Fallujah, he volunteered. God has a special place for people like Peralta, this we can be sure of. He wrote home that he probably wouldn’t make it back alive, but that he was going anyway.

Sergeant Peralta gave the ultimate sacrifice….for his country, for his friends….

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends- John 15:13

Should We Have Invaded Iraq? The Truth Revealed

2004-12-05T22:02:00.000-08:00

My previous post about this subject attracted so many comments that I thought I should continue the discussion with another post. This one, however, will be dealing with how the liberals that commented on this post intentionally lied and distorted the truth about the invasion of Iraq. I have always hated liberal propaganda (or any propaganda for that matter) and it sickens me that someone actually tried to spread his lies on my blog. The person I am writing about is named Josh, and his post is filled with nothing but lies designed to deceive you. Clever lies, no doubt. Some were even based on truths, but this does not excuse the fact that they were lies. Maybe this Josh person was lied to, and doesn’t know the difference. If so, I hope this article will change his opinion. Not likely though, because when anyone looks at information as slanted as what he was researching, they have to think that maybe what they are reading just isn’t right.

I have posted Josh’s original comment here, in its entirety, so you can see what I am discussing.

Tell the 20,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians that we've killed since invading that we are there for them. Tell all the families of those that we've killed under false pretenses that we are there for them. Tell all those that have life changing injuries since we gone in that we went there for them. Tell the million Iraqis who died because of the U.S. lead sanctions that we were there for them.

Saddam was a horrible dictator, no doubt. But we are not the world police. Applying a good intention to something that wasn't done for good is just trying to justify an action. We invaded for WMD’s, which didn't exist (see the Dulfur report). The invasion was a mistake.

Our history shows that we don't care about people in other countries (or even people in this country if your skin isn't very lightly colored). Can we change? Yes. Should that change be now? Absolutely. However, we did not have an effective plan to secure Iraq after we defeated their military, we didn't go into Sudan, etc. We really haven't changed as far as our uncaring for people in other countries (thankfully racism is becoming less prevalent). Any justification of Iraq for humanitarian reasons is just an attempt to make the mistake look okay.

The other reasons, oil-for-food corruption, UN corruption, Saddam's intent to get/build WMD’s after the sanctions were lifted, are all just attempted justifications for the mistake. For all we know Saddam wanted WMD’s for protection. Using them would have been suicide and Saddam, while a heartless bastard, was not suicidal.

Why am I, an American, more upset about us killing Iraqis than I am about Saddam doing it? Because it is US! I'm going to feel more upset if my son or daughter goes and kills someone than if a stranger does. I am partly responsible for the actions of my children as I am partly responsible for the actions of my country. I am not responsible for Saddam's actions (never mind the fact that we were the one who supplied the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds or that we are the ones that supplied him with many of his weapons so that he, the ruthless horrible person that he always has been, could remain in power in prior decades).

If we were consistently the world police, then this wouldn't be as much of an issue (although I think we would have developed more effective means of helping people if that was our true intent). But we aren't.

BTW, not all those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were guilty. Many were rounded up to be sorted out later, the same with Guantanamo. Torture is wrong, no matter what. One may justify torture by saying that torturing a few can result in the saving of many innocents. That is fine, but it is still wrong, especially when those being tortured may be innocent. While putting women's panties on your head is no big deal to you, being forced to sit in the back of the bus really isn't that bad either is it? Without understanding a person's beliefs or situation, one has no idea how bad those seemingly benign actions are.

And last thing, oil prices are the way they are because we completely misjudged the resistance we'd have after taking Iraq. Yet another mistake, one which many people brought up many times before we invaded. Even Bush Sr. America will protect the interests of Americans. Oil is a fundamental part of our life style. Saying that oil had nothing to do with our decision to invade is just as incorrect as saying that it was the only reason.

Alright, let the truth come out! I have listed each of his points in numerical order, with the actual truth about them following it. Enjoy.

Josh opens with a very dramatic play on what I had written, asking me to “Tell the 20,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians that we've killed since invading that we are there for them.” Well, Josh, I would tell them that…but they don’t exist. That’s right, we did not kill 20,000 innocent people and we most certainly did not kill 100,000. When I read this, I knew it was bologna because I had seen these numbers thrown around and debunked quite a few times. But, I went to the source and looked up the original survey that claimed this outrageous lie. I don’t suppose you bothered to look into the survey to see what they based their information on, did you? This is a quotation from an article that looked into the findings of the above mentioned report.

The Bush campaign survived three October Surprise attacks from abroad. The alleged missing munitions allegation has deservedly died, and The Osama bin Laden Show probably actually helped the President. But the third attack, malicious and false though it be, may survive to be used by both Iraqi rebels and war opponents. That's the report in the British medical journal The Lancet claiming the U.S. has killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians since the invasion.

To come up with that figure, lead author Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and fellow researchers sent Iraqis to interview 998 families in 33 neighborhoods across the country. They asked how many people in each household had died and of what, then extrapolated to Iraq as a whole. Thence the 100,000 figure, which they said came mostly from air strikes and insisted was "conservative." But try "worthless."

Consider just this: Because the sample size was so small, the range for deaths was wider than Mick Jagger's mouth: 8,000 to 194,000. So Roberts and company just split the difference. They said the tiny sample size was necessary because the interviewers were in constant danger. No doubt they meant being caught in the crosshairs of an F-16, rather than any possible threat from those jolly terrorists who routinely kidnap civilians and slowly saw off their heads.

Further, the researchers didn't feel bound by anything official like death certificates. Interviews were fine. "In the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they wrote.

Such faith in the honesty of Iraqis is touching. But these are the people who gave us "Baghdad Bob" and are quoted daily saying U.S. air strikes killed only innocents. It's as if we had developed a chip that makes our weapons zero in on civilians.

To sum this article up, the researches of this report asked several towns who dies of what and how many, without bothering to check their sources at all, and included natural deaths and the deaths of terrorists as innocents killed by America. They also included those killed by terrorist attacks as being killed by American soldiers. They then took the number they got from those towns and multiplied it by itself for every other town in Iraq. Nice try Josh, but next time please check your sources.

2. Josh then says, “Saddam was a horrible dictator, no doubt. But we are not the world police. Applying a good intention to something that wasn't done for good is just trying to justify an action. We invaded for WMD’s, which didn't exist (see the Dulfur report). The invasion was a mistake.” As it turns out, I did check the Dulfer (not Dulfur) report, although I doubt you did. If you had checked it, you would see the numerous references to how Iraq was attempting to create WMD’s. Allow me to quote some.

“The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.”

“Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.”

“The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.”

“…The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.”

So, it would seem that Hussein was indeed attempting to create WMD’s, as listed in the report. Shall we also include the numerous nuclear materials that were found in facilities across Iraq, or does that disrupt your carefully planned lies? Yes, there once were nuclear projects being worked on in Iraq, and seeing as Israel destroyed Iraq’s only nuclear facility some time ago, the nuclear traces we found weren’t being used for power. Tell me, what option does that leave?

The attempted justification by the current administration for the invasion of Iraq. In this point, you bring up a point that many have been discussing: why doesn’t the Bush administration just admit there were no WMD’s? Well, as I pointed out above, it seems that there very possibly were WMD’s somewhere in Iraq. Because of this, I would justify the Iraq war as well. Also, you bring up how the humanitarian issue isn’t any kind of justification and, on that note, you are right. But denying that we did save thousands of people from a ruthless dictator and exposed that dictators terrible deeds isn’t right either. I shall quote you here:

“The other reasons, oil-for-food corruption, UN corruption, Saddam's intent to get/build WMD’s after the sanctions were lifted, are all just attempted justifications for the mistake. For all we know Saddam wanted WMD’s for protection. Using them would have been suicide and Saddam, while a heartless bastard, was not suicidal.”

First, when did I try to use the OFF corruption or the UN corruption as justifications for invading Iraq? Those are just the facts involved with the Iraq situation. But Saddam’s intent to get WMD’s was a very real threat, which you don’t seem to understand. Saddam did terrible things to people (the Kurds, for example) with just weapons of minor destruction. What would you expect him to do with WMD’s? Especially against countries he hated, such as Iran. In the last part of your statement, you act as though you have some insight into Hussein’s mind. He is indeed a heartless bastard, but who says he isn’t suicidal? The psychologist who questioned Saddam before his trial said that “he was looking forward to his trial, even though it might mean death, because the spotlight would be on him”. Does that not sound suicidal to you? The man knows he probably will lose his life, but he doesn’t care because he can get attention. Just imagine the attention he could grab with some nukes.

Next, Josh seems mad that our country is killing innocent civilians. Oh, that’s right, we aren’t. But still, he brings up another point. I will quote his argument:

“Why am I, an American, more upset about us killing Iraqis than I am about Saddam doing it? Because it is US! I'm going to feel more upset if my son or daughter goes and kills someone than if a stranger does. I am partly responsible for the actions of my children as I am partly responsible for the actions of my country. I am not responsible for Saddam's actions (never mind the fact that we were the one who supplied the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds or that we are the ones that supplied him with many of his weapons so that he, the ruthless horrible person that he always has been, could remain in power in prior decades).”

I disproved your fist point about how America is killing off Iraqi civilians by the thousands, so let’s focus on the second part of your statement. We actually did not give Iraq chemical weapons, we gave them conventional ones. Please, cite your source for that “fact”. I doubt you can, as you probably just heard about it from Michael Moore, or another member of the Distortion club. The gas Saddam used against the Kurds was mustard gas, Josh, something we haven’t used since WWI (if we used it at all, I can’t remember). We didn’t go and purchase a big load of mustard gas and then sell it to Saddam, although I’m sure you would like to believe that. Once again, I compliment you on your creative lying.

“BTW, not all those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were guilty. Many were rounded up to be sorted out later, the same with Guantanamo. Torture is wrong, no matter what. One may justify torture by saying that torturing a few can result in the saving of many innocents. That is fine, but it is still wrong, especially when those being tortured may be innocent. While putting women's panties on your head is no big deal to you, being forced to sit in the back of the bus really isn't that bad either is it? Without understanding a person's beliefs or situation, one has no idea how bad those seemingly benign actions are.”

That’s a good one Josh, but stop trying to claim that putting women’s panties on a man’s head is torture. Oh, and if humiliating a person can prevent another 9-11, I am defiantly willing to do it, even if it does conflict with that persons religious beliefs. You know what? Having my head sliced off conflicts with MY religious beliefs, but I doubt that would stop the terrorists. Now, about understanding a person’s religious beliefs; I have a close friend who is a Muslim. He does not consider what happened at Abu Ghraib torture, nor does he believe it to conflict with his religion. He says he would be weirded out by it, but not much more. But, I think that’s beside the point. What I want to ask you is how far can we take political correctness in war before it goes too far? While some of the people in Abu Ghraib were indeed innocent, the majority were guilty of being part of terrorist organization (a fact you fail to mention). They believe in very conservative Islam (or, maybe they just claim to believe, who can tell? I could say I believe in the ancient Aztec gods…who can say I’m lying?) This religion bars things by the hundreds, and the tactics we use to get information from these people defiantly don’t conform to those beliefs. The main point is, those tactics (mainly psychological profiling and humiliation) actually work. I’m willing to continue them to stop another 9-11 from happening.

Now, going into the oil issue. Yes, U.S. involvement in the Middle-East has always stemmed from our countries need for oil, that’s the way it started and that’s the reason why it continues. Iraq is a separate issue, however. You claim the following :

“…oil prices are the way they are because we completely misjudged the resistance we'd have after taking Iraq. Yet another mistake, one which many people brought up many times before we invaded. Even Bush Sr. America will protect the interests of Americans. Oil is a fundamental part of our life style. Saying that oil had nothing to do with our decision to invade is just as incorrect as saying that it was the only reason.”

I hate to open my argument with this, but what are you talking about? You just tried to say that we aren’t rolling in cheap oil because we “underestimated” the Iraq forces. Did these forces smuggle the oil out of the country(after getting it all out of the ground first) or just vaporize the entire supply, you aren’t very specific…Listen, the oil is all there in Iraq for the taking, and we are now running a program that sells Iraqi oil and gives the proceeds to the Iraqi government. So…..there is oil. We just haven’t stolen any (like the U.N.). And if our country is so desperate for oil, why are we the only nation that boycotts Iranian oil? Come on, Josh, don’t try to defend your oil theory by making broad generalizations. Or, at least, back them up a little.

Finally, I would like to point our how Josh constantly claims that Americans are all a bunch of racist, bigoted, pigs that only look out for themselves. Wow, Josh, how much do you hate this country? Is it Saddam hate, or liberal hate? Let me quote some of this:

“Our history shows that we don't care about people in other countries (or even people in this country if your skin isn't very lightly colored). Can we change? Yes. Should that change be now? Absolutely. However, we did not have an effective plan to secure Iraq after we defeated their military, we didn't go into Sudan, etc. We really haven't changed as far as our uncaring for people in other countries (thankfully racism is becoming less prevalent). Any justification of Iraq for humanitarian reasons is just an attempt to make the mistake look okay.”

Do you really think that America hates every other being on the planet? Oh, unless they have fair skin, that is. Come on now, yes this country had slavery (just like many other countries of the time, and countries that still have it, if not legally, including many nations of the Middle-East) we abolished it. Yes, there is was and still is (in a few cases) racism is this country. That’s hardly the governments fault, nor is it this administrations (Bush has assigned more minorities to positions in his cabinet that any other President). Trying to say that humanitarianism in Iraq isn’t an issue because America is a bunch of “racists” isn’t a very good idea, Josh. I doubt many Americans would agree with you on that point.

So, now that we see the truth about the War in Iraq, what do you readers think? Please, comment on this. Oh, and Josh, I want you to comment again as well. Go ahead and try to defend your arguments with lies, because I will continue to expose them. I hope you will try to research a topic and confirm the validity of your sources before you comment again.

Ex KGB Agent Calls U.S. Dictatorship

2004-12-04T15:07:00.000-08:00

Well, just from the title I think you can tell how seriously we can take this guy... Putin is now just stepping out of his boundries. This guy is constantley decreasing the level of democracy in Russia. He also called the Breakup of the U.S.S.R. a "tragedy". Check out the news story here. Post brought to you by The Impudent Finger.

Kofi Annan Must Resign!

2004-12-01T02:00:00.000-08:00

I have good news readers; someone is finally calling for Kofi Annan to step down from the position of Secretary-General. The corrupt leader of the United Nations has been deceiving the world with his scandals and money laundering for far too long. Senator Coleman, the man leading an investigation into the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, is the man responsible for taking this necessary political leap. Recently it was proven that Annan’s own son has been taking kickbacks from the Oil-for-Food program, and the Secretary-General claims he is “deeply ashamed” by this. Hey, Kofi, like father like son. The only reason the U.N. investigation into the OFF scandal has turned up nothing is because Annan himself has been taking bribes and kickbacks for years. This man would rather see his bank account grow richer by stealing money meant for the Iraqi people than let the program bring the Iraqi's much needed food. We are dealing with a monster here, one that has no regard for human life. Saddam Hussein gathered an estimated $21.3 billion in illegal revenue because of these people. Please read the Fox News article here on this subject. I have to thank Senator Coleman for what he is doing, it must take an enormous amount of courage to face the entire U.N. and say what he is saying. I would like to quote the Senator now:

Coleman said Annan should step down because "the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose."

"Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses," wrote Coleman.

Of course, the Democrats are putting up a stink about this. They know that the allegations here are true, but they don’t seem to care. They would rather defend someone who lets people die of hunger for money than help Senator Coleman in his movement. Typical liberal form….I’ll quote one of them, Carl Levin, who worked with Coleman on the investigation, said:

"While I believe that one or more specific individuals working with the Oil-for-Food program at the U.N. may have acted improperly, I have seen no evidence of impropriety whatsoever on the part of Kofi Annan”

Well, we have known for years about Annan’s corruption, and I’m ecstatic that someone in politics is finally trying to bring him down. Good luck and Godspeed, Senator Coleman.

Conversation on War

2004-11-26T21:31:00.000-08:00

I had the following interesting discussion with an Anti-war Liberal the other day, tell me what you think.

Liberal: I hate the Army.

Me: Really? The Army loves you.

Liberal: It loves me?

Me: Yes. As a matter of fact they love you so much that they are out dying for you everyday so you can insult them freely, and all they ask in return is really bad pay.

Liberal: That’s not what I meant…I meant I hate war.

Me: You hate all war?

Liberal: Yeah, all war is evil.

Me: You realize that during World War II, six million innocent Jews died because the world didn’t go to war soon enough, don’t you?

Liberal: You’re not getting my point…..

The conversation continued like this for several more minutes with this liberal continuing to say that I wasn’t “getting her point”. When I asked what that point was, she said that she had already told me and refused to talk to me anymore. Look in that conversation and see if you can find her point….

Helping The Innocents In Iraq

2004-11-26T11:49:00.000-08:00

I was browsing the blog Solablogola today, and the first post immediatly caught my eye. It was about the Spirit of America, a non-profit organozation helping the innocent people in Iraq during this war. Those people deserve our help, folks, so I listed some ways you can contact them, donate, or even volenteer. Please, everyone, I'll be doing my part but the good folks at Spirit of America need all the help they can get, so Check out their website. If you would like information on volenteering, it can be found here. Click the link here if you wish to donate to their cause. I would like to also thank the blog Solablogola for listing this important information and getting the word out. Solablogola has continuously posted important news relating to humanitarianism and religeous charities, so please check this blog out guys.

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

2004-11-24T22:18:00.000-08:00

Now this is just treasonous. Read the story here and please leave a comment describing what you feel on the subject.

Dan Rather Steps Down

2004-11-24T15:29:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather, a classic example of the extreme liberal media, is finally stepping down. He will now be only a “lowly reporter”. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many, he doesn’t even deserve this position. This man deliberately put information that was false onto the news and presented it as fact, when he hadn’t even bothered to check the source. Rather was so desperate to get our President out of office that he immediately presented information that he came upon to the public as the truth without first checking the source. This information was supposedly a statement from the Air Force base that the President was stationed on during the Vietnam conflict which claimed, once again, that Bush hadn’t served out his full required term. Now, the Bush administration has presented paper after paper PROVING that he was there, so of course this report was immediately shown to be a fake. It was typed using a word processor, something that hadn’t been invented at the time that the report was supposed to have been written. Well, Mr. Rather has paid a fairly high price for his liberal deception, but it wasn’t high enough nor was it soon enough. Of course, Rather is way to pompous to step down on his own, so it’s my guess that MSNBC told Dan Rather that he could step down now of his own will and become a reporter or be fired. He should have been fired long ago as any other journalist would have been, but the liberals are all too forgiving of their own breed. Had an anchorman at Fox News done something even remotely similar to this the liberals would have crucified him, and Fox (being an actually respectable news provider) would have fired him immediately. I think the main point here, however, is that at least some form of justice has been done. How does it feel Rather, knowing that you just sacrificed your career because of your intense and childish hate of the President? Even funnier is that you and other distorters of the truth like you probably helped Bush remain where he is. America isn’t as stupid as you would like to think liberals; we can see through your lies.

To You, Coward

2004-11-22T21:31:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, conservatives and liberals, I am going to put aside all differences tonight to write something that I think we ALL need to hear and do something about. Today, there was a Marine recruiter at my High School (Voorhees of New Jersey) and I almost couldn’t contain myself. You see, I have immense pride in our Marines, and when I saw one of these honorable gentlemen in our midst, the feeling was one of indescribable pride, and I’m sure many of you can relate. I would join up the minute I turn 17 if I could, but sadly I have asthma and they don’t let people with that disease into the Military. So, when I saw this fellow, I went up and thanked him profusely for all that he has done for our country. Immediately afterward, on my way back into the school, a person I know (you know who you are) suddenly responded to what I had done by callously insulting this man of honor and esteem right in front of me. I won’t go into too many details (I still cringe thinking about it) but what this ignorant boy said was something to the effect that the Marine was a coward because he “probably never fought in Iraq” and that he was still being provided for by his parents and that he was “getting rich off of us”. This young boy was lucky that he was a good eight feet from me when he said this or I would’ve cracked him one right there, school suspension be damned! What this stupid, stupid child said was utterly unforgivable and I never plan to talk to him again. Calling one of our nations Marines a coward! Who the hell does he think he is to say such a thing? Of course, this person said this behind the Marine’s back and a fair distance from him. If the purveyor of this great offense is reading this article now, I challenge you to repeat that comment to the Marine’s face! Or maybe sign up for the fighting. You don’t have asthma or a physical ailment, so go serve your country. The one which you claim to love. I’m saying this knowing that you won’t do any of the above things because you are nothing but a coward. You are not fit to even look at that Marine, much less live in this nation. You, calling this man a coward because he may not have fought in Iraq, when you yourself have claimed that if the draft was reinstated you would move out of the country! By God, I say that movement isn’t soon enough! You could never do what the Marines do. I say with utter confidence that you would most likely not even make it through training and that in battle you would wet yourself out of fear. I plan to make a large thank you card to the Marines recruiting at our school and let them know we appreciate all of their sacrifices. I will not permit the boy who insulted that Marine to sign it.

Liberal Reaction To Election

2004-11-22T14:33:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over, it’s time for both parties to put aside their differences and allow our President to do his job. Sadly, many liberals don’t seem to see it that way. I have heard excuse after excuse as to why Bush (a) shouldn’t have been elected and (b) why he unfairly got elected (just like last time right? After two recounts and a Supreme Court ruling in Bush’s favor…). Some of these excuses include how many votes were not counted correctly (such as the dreaded 4000 votes supporting Bush) and how those damned Christians finally turned out and voted. Well, I think it’s time to address these and other issues so that we can finally just settle down under our true and rightful President.
First, let’s address the less serious accusations and explanation of the election. For some unexplained reason, liberals seem to feel the need to justify the fact that Kerry lost. I guess their egos are insulted, or they feel the need to make themselves more secure about the whole thing. First, they produce fraudulent reports of how everyone that voted for Bush must be a dumbass. Does that help you sleep better guys? Knowing (I say that exaggeratingly) that you are vastly to superior in intelligence than the majority of the country? Alright, just grow up and shut up for a minute. If you actually listened long enough to find out why American rejected your ideals, then maybe you could change for the better. Those supposed polls that prove that smarter people voted for Kerry didn’t actually test intelligence, as a matter of fact. No, they tested the education level of people. People in college, high school, and so on. Now, how about an IQ test liberals? Afraid of what it might reveal? Hey, if we actually went by IQ instead of education level then maybe we could find out the truth, which is that the average IQ of those who voted for Bush is higher than those who voted for Kerry. Interesting fact here, my IQ (that of a mere junior in high school) is higher that Senator Kerry’s (that of a Yale graduate). That’s right Libs, 126 to 125. A whole point (just imagine what it will be when I’m through with college...oh wait, college doesn't raise a person's IQ at all. Funny how the libs saw it differently).
Second, the Christian vote. Yeah, those terrible moral people actually turned out to vote this time because of Bush’s moral issues. Oh, I forgot, they do every time. In fact, the Christian turnout to the polls HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE HIGHEST TURNOUT IN EVERY ELECTION. This isn’t anything new here liberals. Let’s not forget the moral issues here though. I mean, since when has our country been one of morals? Morals suck, right? Since our great nation was formed, it has been based on morals. Morals were implied in the constitution and throughout the law. They are what make our country so caring and just. Some are now saying that too many people voted on morals instead of just how good a job the President has done. The president has done a great job, but that’s beside the point. The point is this: why is it wrong to vote on morals? Isn’t it a free country? To be honest, morals are very important to me, and it would seem they are also important to a large part of the country. Maybe the liberals should check them out…it just might help.
Now for the final, and most important, issue: the 4000 pro Bush votes when there are only 625 registered voters in that town. Well, time for the big bad republican to admit a wrongdoing. Yes, indeed, those votes were off big time. I mean, that’s a huge amount right there. Now, for the facts from the big bad republican. Even with those votes ALL going to Kerry, he still would’ve lost Ohio. Fancy that. Many have been saying if there is one discrepancy, there simply must be others. And I know that were I a liberal I would be fighting tooth and nail to get all those discrepancies out in the open. Well, the liberals have been doing this, and they found a total of …zero other discrepancies in Ohio. Wow, what a number.
So, now that these issues have been exposed as what they are, don’t all you liberals think its time to step back and wonder…..well, why did American reject our ideals and positions? Of course, I have no doubt that the vast majority of you will put those blinders back on and blame the Christians or the dumbasses. And you wonder why Kerry lost?

Weapons In Iraq Stolen ( Yeah, right)

2004-11-01T14:02:00.000-08:00

So perhaps you have heard about the supposed 380 tons of weapons that managed to disappear overnight without a trace. And I’m sure you have a vague idea what a terrorist could potentially do with 380 tons of explosives. This point was brought home when a teacher of mine gave us a little extra-credit assignment of finding out how many planes could be blown out of the sky by bomb toting Muslims. A more interesting assignment might be to try and figure out how a terrorist would get these bombs aboard a plane after President Bush’s crack down on homeland security. Of course, all of the above can only be considered if the missing explosives were actually taken by looters or terrorist forces. But, hmm, how odd, it would seem that they weren’t. According to Major Austin Pearson, the leader of a 25 man team in Iraq called Task Force Bullet, the explosives in question were removed by his unit. Yes indeed, this task force removed approximately 250 tons of explosives from the site in question. Now, you must be saying to yourself that 250 tons isn’t anywhere close to 377 tons, but the IAEA has not come forward with documentation that explains how it arrived at the figure of 377 tons of missing explosives. So far, this wonderful U.N. run organization has only verified in its paperwork that 219 tons of explosive materials were at Al-Qaqaa and surrounding facilities. Interesting how the IAEA is run by the United Nations, isn’t it? I would like to add that I got the information about this from the good folks at Fox News (who appears to be the ONLY organization that can get any truthful news to the U.S.). Once again, Fox, you have done this country a service. Of course, now the U.N. and every democrat out there is claiming that “it’s just too soon to tell what really happened” when only moments before they had been ready to lynch our President. Come on all you raging liberals. Why are you no longer so hungry for justice? Oh that’s right, you never were.

The War in Iraq

2004-10-27T19:01:00.000-07:00

A huge issue that has been tossed around lately has been the war in Iraq. This stems questions such as whether we should have entered it, and should we still be there. Well, I’d like to tell you that the answer to both is yes. Now I’m sure many of you are raising your eyebrows in skepticism and I know that it’s hard to believe this with all the biased liberal media out there, but bear with me.
First, should we have gone into Iraq? Yes is the only answer fit in this case. I’m sure that you all know that we went into Iraq because we feared that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and I have no doubt that you have been hearing from the media that there were no such weapons in Iraq. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have been greatly misinformed. Did Saddam have WMD’s? The answer is probably yes. Or, at least, all the evidence points that way. Evidence that the U.N. weapons inspectors, with all their vast researching abilities, seemed to have missed. How convenient for nations such as France, Germany, and Russia, who have been selling Iraq weapons for all this time (under clear violation of international law, I might add. And they swear to protect it?). Where is the proof of this, you ask? Well, according to World Net Daily (yes, a reliable source) U.S. Marines have located a complex of tunnels underneath an Iraqi nuclear complex containing a vast array of warehouses and bombproof offices that could contain the "smoking gun" sought by intelligence agencies. This was also reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Fox News. In fact, Fox News Channel is reporting that the tunnels may contain traces of weapons-grade plutonium. They say may, even though two preliminary tests conducted on the material have indicated that the facility contains weapons-grade plutonium. Former Iraqi scientist Gazi George told Fox News that the material "definitely" could have been planned for use in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Marine nuclear and intelligence experts say that at least 14 buildings at Al-Tuwaitha indicate high levels of radiation and some show amounts of nuclear residue that are lethal to humans, according to Fox News and the Pittsburg Daily. "It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist said. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material." The site was examined quite a few times by U.N. weapons inspectors, who found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The motives behind the U.N. have been clear all along, this just reinforces them. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," said Marine Capt. John Seegar. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?" In addition, Physicist David Albright, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997 said that the U.N. went through that site multiple times, but never bothered to go underground. Also, in a report that Albright wrote with Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear engineer who defected in 1994, he stated that, “Iraq developed procedures to limit access to these buildings by IAEA inspectors who had a right to inspect the fuel fabrication facility. On days when the inspectors were scheduled to visit, only the fuel fabrication rooms were open to them. Usually, employees were told to take to their rooms so that the inspectors did not see an unusually large number of people.” This shows that not only was Saddam deliberately deceiving weapons inspectors (not that they minded) but he was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Backing this up are statements from Saddam’s own scientists saying that they were told to hold on to nuclear weapons plans because Iraq was going to pursue a nuclear weapons program once the U.N. sanctions had been lifted. You should also be aware that the United Nations was in a big hurry to lift the sanctions because many members of the U.N. were told by Saddam that if they voted to lift them, Iraq would sell oil to these nations at a lower price, which these countries could in turn sell on the open market for a greater return of their money. Need I say that France was in on this? And yes, all this is well documented.Not only was Iraq working on weapons of mass destruction, but they were also involved with terrorism. Al-Qaeda may not have the same political structure as Iraq, but it also hates America. This makes them comfortable bedfellows, if you’ll excuse the expression. There are many documents tying Saddam Hussein to many terrorist networks, just one of which was Al-Qaeda. Even without these connections, Iraq was working on training its own terror network. A camp was discovered just outside of Baghdad, called Salman Pak. This camp contained several buses and the fuselage of a Russian plane and was used to train terrorists to attack passengers with implements that could be snuck aboard a plane. Now if that’s not defined as terrorism, I’d like to know what is.The second topic of this article was whether we should still be in Iraq. This won’t take a long answer because it’s such a simple topic, and I’m sure many of you see the logic in staying there already. Sadly, I was confronted with this question, so I must answer it. First, whether you agreed with the war in the first place or not is irrelevant. To use the old expression, we made this mess, now we have to clean it up. I am not afraid to admit that the situation in Iraq has become tougher because I know that with patience, persistence, and a strong will we can bring peace and democracy to the nation of Iraq. The innocent Iraqis that remain in their country need protection from the terrorists that plague it now. Without us, they would be attacked mercilessly and soon would succumb to those who cause evil. Once Iraq has its own army that is capable of defending it from terrorist attacks we can leave.Thank you for reading, please feel free to reply to this article, and if you are reading a printed version the website is http://www.viewoftherepublic.blogspot.com/. Thanks again.