Saturday, May 26, 2007

Instructions to al Qaeda fighers in Iraq from Zawahiri

"We are defeating the Americans! Take the Jihad to other Mid-Eastern countries!" Translation: "We're getting our asses kicked. RETREAT!

Let's impeach Bush!

This post from the Anchoress pretty much has it all. Best post of the year so far.

Friday, May 25, 2007


Andy McCarthy says:
By "redeploy," they don't really mean move the troops to where they say al Qaeda is. They don't want to fight al Qaeda. If they wanted to fight al Qaeda, al Qaeda is in Iraq — that is indisputable. Bin Laden has said repeatedly that Iraq is the central battle. You can argue about whether al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along or whether they are there only because we've drawn them there. Reasonable minds differ on that. But however they got there, they're there.

If you really want to fight al Qaeda, you stay in Iraq.

If you really believe al Qaeda is not in Iraq — that the real al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan and its environs — then you're on drugs. But, sure, fine, "redeploy" our troops ... to Afghanistan. But can we please have five seconds of honesty? You guys don't have the slightest intention of doing that. You don't want to go to Afghanistan. You want to go home.

When you say redploy, you mean withdraw. You don't actually want to "focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11." You are content to bring the troops home and leave "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" to build a safe-haven in Iraq even as they continue to make mayhem in Afghanistan.

You think Bush is incompetent and "his" war in Iraq is a terrible mistake? Fine. You think the price of that is that we should pull everyone out of Iraq even though we all know that will be a monumental victory for al Qaeda — geometrically abetting its future fundraising and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on America? Fine.

But have the good grace to say so. Don't give us this BS that you want to redeploy to fight al Qaeda, when the truth is that you want to "redeploy" to NOT fight al Qaeda.
And that's what it's really all about, isn't it? It's not about bringing the people who brought down the twin towers to justice; it is about putting our collective head in the sand and pretending it never happened. Maybe if we're good little dhimmis they'll leave us alone.

Must See Presentation

Wouldn't you like to be a progressive, too?

Friday, May 18, 2007

If Harry Reid took this stance, at least people wouldn't laugh at him

Ron writes an interesting letter. Here's a taste:
Iraq is not a déjà vu Vietnam; it’s a sewer infested with diseased subhumans operating on instructions from hopelessly contaminated DNA. The al Qaeda cancer has metastasized and is inoperable. The Hizb’allah carbuncle has spread its tentacles beyond its original Palestine in situ to open suppurating pustules in Europe and South America. The Saudi Madrassas have poisoned the fountains of knowledge in every Islamic city and nation on the planet such that weeding out the ignorance and hatred will take at least 5 generations.

It’s over. The American people cannot grasp the concept of selecting the battlefield. Our national memory is too short, our nature too forgiving, our focus too easily distracted...
It is a case for surrender basically, but the first one I've seen that makes any sense. I do not agree that Middle Eastern people are subhuman, but I can understand now why he says that. A couple years ago I would have thought it racist. I don't think they have inferior DNA, but their culture does appear diseased.
We’ve had troops in Germany and Japan since 1945; will we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for 60 years as well? Let’s get out . . . of EVERYwhere. Bring home ALL the troops. Let Japan worry about NorKor. Let China worry about Islam. Let Europe worry about Europe. Let the socialists have all of Latin America.

Put our troops, what few we’ll have left after the next election, on our southern border. Let them assist after hurricanes and earthquakes and floods and fires. Make the streets safe in LA and Detroit and Atlanta and Miami, not Baghdad. And if anybody has any troubles with their neighbors, if somebody invades somebody else or steals their resources, if socialism and Sharia law don’t solve all the problems, take them to the UN to get them sorted out. Let’s stop playing Globocop...
Makes sense. At least we'd have secure borders, or not; who knows with the yahoos in DC (murder capital city of the US) in charge .

Free Market Economics Translated

Iraq is just like Vietnam


Bolton on BBC Radio/Bolton for World Bank Head

Now that Wolfowitz has left the World Bank under fire, why not put Bolton in there?
This exchange on BBC Radio is priceless.

An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore says Bush 41 was too easy on Saddam, in 1992:

Quote of the Day

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

- Ben Franklin

Jonah has a question: Why?

Via NRO:
Why is it obvious that intervening in a civil war is not only wrong, but so self-evidently wrong that merely calling the Iraqi conflict a civil war closes off discussion?

Surely it can’t be a moral argument. Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Ok Mr/Ms. Anonymous since you've got all the answers - Why?

Thursday, May 17, 2007

A letter to XM Satellite Radio

I wrote a letter today. XM Satellite Radio had given me a free trial a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday came the subscription form requesting I pay to continue the service. I sent this back:
May 17, 2007

XM Satellite Radio, Inc.,

I would not be able to live with myself if even one dollar of my hard earned money were to go to the producers of the Opie and Anthony Show, which seems to think that raping the First Lady and/or the Secretary of State of the U.S. would be fun. I will not be signing up for your service unless Opie and Anthony are fired. Also, I am short-selling XMSR stock until Opie and Anthony are fired. Opie and Anthony are free to fantasize about raping whoever they want on their own radio show or web site, but there is no way I'm paying for it.
I've also sent some emails to some companies that advertise on XM. It's too bad - I actally liked XM while I had it.

MultiCulti gone wild

I've said it before - the media is on the side of al Qaeda. Some of us are fighting a war against al Qaeda and related terrorist groups, while others, including MSM and Demonrats, are fighting America. Sounds extreme, I know. There's a lot of evidence for that conclusion though.

Here's an article that may help explain. A taste:
It is one of the ironies of our time that members of the media are so hypersensitive to being used or manipulated by any official person from their own society — military officials, government spokesmen, etc. — but can be as naïve as children when it comes to voices from other cultures.

Friday, May 11, 2007

After Iraq

This article looks at the Iraq War funding debate currently occupying Congress in a new light, and asks hard questions that the mainstream media have ignored. A sample:
The Iraqis who took our offer to help them build a better future -- they are our responsibility. Everyone else wants to walk away from them, forget about them, let them disappear into the night of the long knives. They are inconvenient facts about to be ground like hamburger in the anti-imperialist narrative, which will be the story indoctrinated into our children about this war, as it was for me about Vietnam.
The Iraqis who shared our vision of their nation are about to be killed, with their families, and then forgotten.

Re: Defeat

From Neoneocon:
Remember that we had been disengaged from active fighting in the war in Vietnam for years when we abandoned that country in early 1975. ...we gave up when we were undergoing very little risk and when the cost of continuing was low. Even though we were merely subsidizing the fighting of others in a cause for which fifty thousand Americans had already given their lives, we had grown weary of what was perceived as an endless conflict, and it was that psychological defeatism that led to our pulling the plug on the still-fighting South Vietnamese themselves, who then—and only then—were in fact defeated.

We have lost relatively few casualties in Iraq, our economy is still thriving, and we’ve experienced no increase in terrorist attacks here. There has been no military defeat, just a psychological one, and it is self-generated.

New Progressivism, meet Old Progressivism

"The true meaning of progress had been long ago encoded into the U.S. Constitution, when the Founding Fathers had broken away from the earlier feudal model where the government cared for its subjects in exchange for their freedoms. Instead, they established a new model where the government’s role was to make sure the citizens had enough freedoms to take care of themselves.
This truly revolutionary model is the reason why the United States is so successful; why more than 200 years later it is still leading humanity to a better and happier future. To reverse and dismantle this model will be the opposite of progress - yet it’s exactly what the “progressives” seem to crave. Just like the Soviet Politburo stooges, they derive their definition of progress not from the American Revolution, but form Karl Marx’s archaic and disgraced Communist Manifesto."
Found here.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

It's a matter of priorities

A handful of veterans (including three out of several thousand retired generals) oppose the war: News. Thousands of active duty personnel urge Congress to support the war effort: Not news. That pretty well sums up the journalistic standard that has been applied to the conflict in Iraq.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Talkin' 'bout my generation

Bio weapon expert Richard Spertzel, member of the Iraq Survey Group, responsible for the search of WMDs for Congress, said on April 7, 2007, that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

The Flecktones

Friday, May 04, 2007

Why do liberals keep asking conservatives if they would be ok with amending the Constitution to make foreign-born citizens eligible to be President?

Amending the Constitution to make naturalized foreign-born Americans eligible to be President of this country is an idea typically put forward by liberals (e.g., Chris Mathews during the first Republican debate on MSNBC, 5/3/07) and it is usually couched in terms of allowing people like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Martinez, two popular Republican politicians, to run for President. Conservatives don’t generally like the idea because it is, well, unconservative. Liberals seem to like the idea, with good reason from their point of view. They know that foreign nationals support them over Republicans. The U.S. population is about 5% of global population, and many if not most people in foreign countries believe that political and financial economics are zero sum games, hence they tend to think that what is good for America is bad for them, and vice versa. This explains much of why almost everything the Democrats propose (cut military spending, surrender in Iraq, close Gitmo, open borders, socialize healthcare, don’t fix Social Security, be nice to anti-American Venezuela and mean to pro-American Colombia, etc.) is bad for America. When liberals throw up this idea to amend the Constitution to allow prominent Republicans to run for leadership posts, you just know there has to be an ulterior motive. What foreign-born national do they want to run for President? In this case, the hidden agenda is easy to see – just look at who is pulling the strings. Who gives the most money to Democrats and their various mouthpieces like and Media Matters? That’s right, I’m talking about George Soros.

If Schwarzenegger could run, then so could Soros. And Soros has a lot more money than Schwarzenegger. Billionaire George Soros has vowed to spend his “entire fortune” to get a government that only enacts policies he likes. He spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2004 and 2006 elections. He did fail to get Kerry elected in 2004, but succeeded in getting Democratic majorities in 2006. The man already pretty much owns the Democratic party, but he’s pissed that he has to stay behind the curtain. He intends to be ruler of the most powerful nation on Earth, yet liberals and French people call him a philanthropist (I know a lot of liberals and French people, so I am speaking from experience here). You might say that he’s just like any other American – he wants what is best for his country and is allowed to spend his money how he wants. No one is saying he can't spend his money how he wants, but before allowing his media outlets to persuade you, at least consider how he is spending that money. He described his trading strategy on the 1980s, when he ‘earned’ his billions, as taking advantage of predictable crowd behavior. He is doing the same now, but worse. Now he is trying to control crowd behavior by changing our perceptions of reality – by rewriting history, stopping important facts from coming to light (e.g., via Media Matters) while amplifying the things that support his goals (e.g., via The man does not care about humanity. Just consider his answers during a 60 Minutes interview in which he talked about his experience when his “character was made” in Budapest when the Nazis were in charge:
...there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
Where was he? He, a Jew, was working with the Nazis in taking away his fellow Jews’ property as they, not he (thanks to forged documents provided by his father), were sent off to concentration camps to die, and he’s saying he has absolutely no sense of guilt. He literally has no shame. He calls Bush a Nazi when he himself actually worked with the Nazis to steal his fellow Jews’ property. Look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary and there should be a picture of George Soros. This man’s character, as he himself has stated, is defined by benefiting from other people’s, his own people’s, misery. Anyone who thinks that Soros has the best interests of the U.S. is a fool. At a minimum, we can say that he is NOT a humanitarian – can we at least agree on that much? In recent years, he has time and time again sided with America’s adversaries. So, why are we allowing this man to have influence over our government? Why do we give any credibility at all to the people he supports financially? (Hillary, I’m talking about you. You too, Barak.) I know he has a lot of money, but money can’t change facts. What it can do though, is make it unlikely that anyone is around to hear when a tree falls in the forest.

Thursday, May 03, 2007


This video was banned from YouTube. Hmmm....

That's right. Lady standing in front of a mirror video-blogging with a Sony too scary for YouTube.
Now you be a good little dhimmi and don't say anything bad about the religion of pieces (or the Al Qaeda(D) party).

An oldie but a goodie

Most of my "favorites" on YouTube have mysteriously disappeared from my favorites list. I don't know if it is because Google disapproves of them or if they just drop off the list after some time, so I'm posting another of my favorites here. This one needs to be played over and over again until the MSM starts doing its job (i.e., just the facts, ma'am).
All Your Fakes Are Belong To Us!

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

A lesson in how liberals think

Evan Sayet speaking at the Heritage Foundation: