We brought to our reader's attention of the [GASP!] bias in the media. Now, we learn of the Petraeus Curve? Alice Miles of the Times of London has a piece wherein she claims, "The Petraeus Curve - Serious success in Iraq is not being [recognized] as it should be."
Gee. I wonder what the first clue was/is? Nothing like being BEHIND the conservative Blogosphere in this regard or, any other as far as that is concerned, eh?
Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word "surge" his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time. [...]Ja. Go figure. It just doesn't mesh with anti-Americanist "theology", does it? It seems that the more successes there are in the GWOT, the more the Leftinistra and their moppet anti-Americanists face the reality that [GASP!] Bush was Right!
Catch this particular wave (contributing to the Conservative Tsunami) over at Memeorandum.
We have Captain Ed letting us all know that there is a state of emergency in Pakistan now that Al Q'aida has given up the fight in Iraq (read that as Lost The War In Iraq...no thanks to ReidCo). Could it be that thousands of people returning to Baghdad (Breitbart) and the Parade in Ramadi has had a deafening after-shock throughout the Jihadistan Lands?
The New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, and The Guardian all have their own take on this but the question(s) remain...has the War On The West, The Jihad, shifted to Pakistan? And, if so, is it too late for Pakistan? From my (Snooper) perspective, having been "in the know" at one time, I stated many times that we needed to be IN Pakistan and be very active in annihilating the enemy as it regrouped there, under the protections of the ill-fated and lethality of Political Correctness. "We" already knew that a large contingent of AQ and Taliban fled to the hills of Pakistan when "we" removed the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan.
With the demise of AQI and AQA, AQP should be the next Mission Accomplished.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Sadly, the Sadly, No! fools are just that...fools. Their complete and total stupidity...self-induced, is naturally on the level of the fools of the KOSmonoffs. Forest Gump was right. Stupid is as stupid does.
The pathetic and tripe units that write for Sadly, No! prove time and time again why they and other anti-Americanist groups are becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes by...no one of any serious stature in the greater scheme of things takes them seriously anymore. Why should anyone take them seriously?
The Hate America and Blame America First crowds are slinking back under their slime engulfed rocks as their trip towards that Abyss of Obscurity inches closer and closer. Actually, they are quite comical because the emotionally weak...as they demonstrate...cannot place two coherent thought patterns together to save their souls, if they have any.
Their self-professed "holier-than-thou" stupidity displays an arrogant ignorance which is leading them ever and ever towards "udder" self-implosion.
It would behoove the ignorant to actually study Islam and the very tenets of that cult...it IS a cult. There are no miracles and the "religion" is solely based on a known pedophiles' hallucinations in a dessert many moons ago that teaches killing all that don't believe as he did. The historical record is plainly evident to the serious students of history.
Then again, idiots such as Sadly, No! and other anti-Americanist groups have been rewriting history for several decades now. Times are a changing and that Conservative Tsunami is rising ever taller.
To the punks and uneducated fools of Sadly, No!, we laugh at your stupidity.
Snooper brings you the latest from CENTCOM; material the Lame Stream Media will not report.
US CENTCOM Press Releases
IRAQI CITIZEN LEADS COALITION FORCES TO EFP FACTORY
Posted: 02 Nov 2007 03:44 PM CDT
U.S. NAVY STRIKE GROUPS EXERCISE CAPABILITIES IN THE REGION
Posted: 02 Nov 2007 12:29 PM CDT
TALIBAN COMMANDER POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED
Posted: 02 Nov 2007 12:25 PM CDT
Rakkasans Assist Iraqis With Legal Claims.aspx
CAMP STRIKER, Iraq – The nondescript building at the Radwaniyah Palace Complex Civil Military Operations Center appears unassuming, but the Government Information Center represents a beacon of hope for some Iraqis.
Witch Doctors begin journey home.aspx
CAMP TAJI, Iraq - For the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division's medical evacuation unit, the horrors of war are all too real. But, those missions of transporting hurt and dying patients are over for a few troopers.
Airmen and Marines Team for Djibouti Civil Affairs Engagement.aspx
Iraqi Policemen Learn the Basics During 10-day Prep Course.aspx
CAMP TAJI, Iraq – “Left, left, left, right,” the 30-man platoon of Iraqi Police in training shouted in Arabic while marching to their next class.
The blogger blog Take Our Country Back has merged with the Great American Truth Surge- A Newt One. Snooper's articles will now be found daily at A Newt One, along with SonlitKnight, Jimmy Z, Darter45 and an occasional post from a short but strong list of guest posters.
This blog will soon be inert, and the page on which it resides will be an archive/media page.
A Newt One's members are the original moonbat slayers and we are very happy to have Snooper on board with us. We were already the fastest growing conservative blog on the internet.
Now, we will settle for nothing short of global domination.
Posted by The Truth Surge at 11/03/2007 09:24:00 AM
Friday, November 2, 2007
LOCK THE DOORS! COVER THE OZONE! There's bias in the media!! We never would have thought in a million years that such a thing could be true! Catch The Wave!
[...] Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans." [...]
The chart speaks for itself and, as Spree states:
[...] No commentary needed. The numbers speak for themselves.Deny it and prove your bias.Absolutely!
[...] Instapundit calls this a dog-bites-man story, but it does have a twist. Instead of the Media Research Center issuing a report on media bias, today's study comes from another bastion of conservative thought: Harvard University. Not only did the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy find that the media treats Democrats better than Republicans, it also finds that the media gives more air time to the Democrats as well: [...]No matter the spin, the proof is in the pudding and as I have stated SO many times, that Conservative Tsunami is coming to take the anti-Americanists away.
AHEM! There are some that see things and then, there are some that see things. Jimmy Carter saw something once as well.
[...]The above is from CNN's piece entitled, "Former president discusses UFO experience".
"It was unidentified as far as we were concerned, but I think it's impossible in my opinion, some people disagree, to have space people from other planets or other stars to come to us - I don't think that's possible," he said.
At Tuesday's presidential debate, NBC's Tim Russert asked Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, about a recent account from actress Shirley MacLaine that he saw a UFO at her home in Washington State.
"It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something," Kucinich responded.
CNN has another piece entitled, "A UFO lands in the '08 White House race."
Has anyone seen my Kucinich? He saw more than he has alluded to.
A while back, I wrote a piece and, seeing that Snooper is now part of A Newt One, I thought to repost the piece here. It seems as though Kucinich has aired his dirty laundry, thanks to his fruit loop friend Life Line Shirley MacLaine.
Shirley MacLaine and Dennis Kucinich Seen A UFO...WHOA! Lay off the shrooms, man! Don't bogart that joint, either! DAMN!
...and they talk to trees.
And Dennis was enlightened in his heart and listened to the voices in his head. Sanitariums are FULL of such people and they live in rubber rooms.
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has claimed to have seen a UFO, according to Shirley MacLaine in her new book, "Sage-Ing While Age-Ing."
Kucinich "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there," the actress, a close Kucinich friend, wrote. "Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.
"It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."
Read more, if you need a grand belly roll laugh.
Perhaps we should all go see Shirley's spiritual adviser so we can talk to trees also.
Catch the wave
BlackFive is on a rant and rightfully so:
"For you State Dept wienies out there reading this. This is what happens when you choose which President you will follow and which policy you will support. You don't get to choose. The People of the United States get to choose. You swore an oath. Ignore that at your peril. DoD knows better. Maybe you should all turn your jobs over to our 19 yr old diplomat Corporals who are doing a better job on their worst day than your organization does in a week of good days. Undermining US policy is a dangerous way to keep your country safe, and makes soldiers grow to resent your mealy mouthed platitudes ever more. Don't piss 'em off. They have guns! Next time you want to talk to the press, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!"YEAH! What he said!!.
Read the rest of the article. That which is above is how the article ends.
Catch the wave.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Many of you that know me personally and those of that 'know me" via the blogosphere, have heard me say time and time again how vitally important I take my Oath of Service and how I loathe those that swore the SAME oaths I have and then turn around and defecate on that said same oath.
No one held a nuke to our heads as we swore the oath of Service. Everyone that serves this country from law enforcement to the highest political offices, swear an oath of service and not an oath of convenience. Most of us take it seriously ans when it come time tom remove the uniform, whatever that might be, the oath remains with us until the day we die. The Oaths of Service is permanent to the vast majority of us. That's just the way it is.
Apparently, there are some Wimplomats that are saying their job is too hard and it is dangerous. Really? Moron. What. Did you expect some slick and posh detail in like Sau Paulo or something?
BlackFive is on a rant and rightfully so:
For you State Dept wienies out there reading this. This is what happens when you choose which President you will follow and which policy you will support. You don't get to choose. The People of the United States get to choose. You swore an oath. Ignore that at your peril. DoD knows better. Maybe you should all turn your jobs over to our 19 yr old diplomat Corporals who are doing a better job on their worst day than your organization does in a week of good days. Undermining US policy is a dangerous way to keep your country safe, and makes soldiers grow to resent your mealy mouthed platitudes ever more. Don't piss 'em off. They have guns! Next time you want to talk to the press, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
YEAH! What he said!!.
Read the rest of the article. That which is above is how the article ends.
Catch the wave.
I watched this speech today and I also saw GWB wink a few times as he TROUNCED the passe and defunct orgasmnations of MoveOn and Code Pepto Dismal. I nearly laughed myself out of the chair.
That Abyss of Obscurity is getting full. Perhaps we should throw in some more shovels?
There really isn't any need to comment on the text of the speech. It speaks for itself. The video can be seen here and in my VODPOD when this site is finished. My VODPOD is located here at the moment.
Catch the wave.
President Bush's Remarks on the Global War on Terror
by President George W Bush
EDWIN J. FEULNER:
Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the 21 members of the Board of Trustees, the 240 employees and the 320,000 members of The Heritage Foundation around the country, it is my very great pleasure to welcome you here to our Heritage Foundation headquarters today.
Mr. President, 24 years ago last month we opened this building, and the man who wielded the scissors was the then-Vice President of the United States, George H.W. Bush. Fast forward 12 years, 1993, several of us had the opportunity to go to Coral Gables, Fla., to talk to a prominent entrepreneur there. We invited him to join our board. And businessman Jeb Bush served on our board with great distinction for five years before he went on to other things.
You sir, honored us just four years ago when you spoke at the Reagan Center to more than 1,000 members of our President’s Club, and you shared your insights and the outlook for the future then.
As you know, here at Heritage we focus on policy ideas. We let other people worry about horse races and things like that. And I would just leave you, sir, with two basic points. The first one: In the 14 months that you will be serving as our President, all of us look forward to working closely with you and your team on policy issues and ideas across the board. There are going to be many opportunities to do that, and we look forward to it.
And secondly, sir, I want you to know that you are always and will always be welcome at The Heritage Foundation. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming officially President George W. Bush to The Heritage Foundation.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:
Ed, thanks. Thanks for the kind introduction. I'm looking forward to working with you for the next 14 months, but you better put on your running shoes, because my spirits are high and my energy level is good and I'm sprinting to the finish line.
I congratulate you on your 30th anniversary as the president.
No such thing as term limits here.
And rightly so, because Ed is a person who has taken the conservative movement from one that used to meet in a phone booth here in Washington...
... to a robust group of folks who are shaping policy in Washington, D.C.
As a matter of fact, you've got a little bigger phone booth these days than you did 30 years ago.
I appreciate all you've done and I really want to thank Heritage.
One of the interesting things about the Heritage legacy is that the folks here have been tireless advocates, tireless champions of liberty and free enterprise and democracy and religious freedom.
These are values that came under attack on September the 11th, 2001.
Our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's OK to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule.
They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. They are at war with America because they hate what they stand for and they understand that we stand in their way.
And so, today I've come to talk to you about the war on terror, my firm commitment that we'll do everything in our power to protect the American people, and my call on the United States Congress to give us the tools necessary so we can do the job the American people expect.
I, too, want to thank the members of the Heritage Foundation board of trustees who've joined us. Thank you for supporting this important organization.
I can't tell you how important it is to have good centers of thought in Washington, D.C., people who are willing to look at today's problems and come up with innovative solution based upon sound principle to solve those problems. And that's how I view Heritage.
I thank all the members and guests who've joined us today as well. It's a pleasure to be with you.
It's been now more than six years since the enemy attacked us on September the 11th, and we are blessed that there has not been another attack on our soil.
With the passage of time, the memories of the 9/11 attacks have grown more distant. And for some, there is the temptation to think that the threats to our country have grown distant as well. They have not.
The terrorists who struck America that September morning intend to strike us again. We know this because the enemy has told us so. Just last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people, quote, Operations are under preparation and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished.
Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known Al Qaida plot since the 9/11 attacks, a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying over the Atlantic toward the United States.
Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction.
The lesson of this experience is clear: We must take the words of the enemy seriously.
The terrorists have stated their objectives. They intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call infidels, a category that includes America, the world's free nation, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam.
They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world.
Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden last year: Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.
History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake.
In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin as he laid out his plans to launch a communist revolution in Russia, and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet empire he established killed tens of millions and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war.
In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler as he explained his intention to build an Aryan superstate in Germany, take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. And the world paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers and set the world aflame in war before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives and treasure.
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?
America and our coalition partners are listening. We have made our choice. We take the words of the enemy seriously.
Over the past six years, we have captured or killed hundreds of terrorists. We have disrupted their finances. We have prevented new attacks before they could be carried out. We've removed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that had supported terrorists and threatened our citizens and, in so doing, liberated 50 million people from the clutches of tyranny.
With our allies, we're keeping the pressure on the enemy. We're keeping them on the move. We're fighting them everywhere they make their stand, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the deserts of Iraq to the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa.
On every battlefront we're on the offense, keeping constant pressure. And in this war on terror, we will not rest or retreat or withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed.
I fully understand that, after six years, the sense of imminent danger has passed for some. And it can be natural for people to forget the lessons of 9/11 as they go about their daily lives.
I just want to assure you that I'll never forget the lessons of September the 11th, and nor will the people with whom I work.
I know that when I discuss the war on terror, some here in Washington, D.C., dismiss it as political rhetoric; an attempt to scare people into votes.
Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country.
We are at war. And we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.
Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war.
For example, in a time of war, it is vital for the president to have a full national security team in place. And a key member of that team is the attorney general.
The job of the attorney general is essential to the security of America. The attorney general is the highest ranking official responsible for our law enforcement community's efforts to detect and prevent terrorist attacks here at home.
I've selected an outstanding nominee to fill this vital role: Judge Michael Mukasey.
Judge Mukasey has a long record of accomplishments in matter of law and national security. He has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a man of honesty, intellect, fairness and independence.
Judge Mukasey provided nearly six hours of testimony. He patiently answer more than 200 questions at the hearing. He's responded to nearly 500 written questions less than a week after his hearing.
Yet the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding up his nomination.
As a price for his confirmation, some on that committee want Judge Mukasey to take a legal position on specific techniques allegedly used to interrogate captured terrorists.
As Judge Mukasey explained in a letter to committee members, he cannot do so for several reasons.
First, he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are, in fact, used, because the program is classified. And therefore, he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. He has not been read into the program and won't until he is confirmed and sworn in -- won't be until he's confirmed and sworn in as the attorney general.
Second, he does not want an uninformed opinion to be taken by our professional interrogators in the field as placing them in legal jeopardy.
Finally, he does not want any statement of his to give the terrorists a window into which techniques we may use and which ones we may not use. That could help them train their operatives to resist questioning and withhold vital information we need to stop attacks and save lives.
In the war on terror, intelligence is one of the most crucial tools for our defense. If a captured terrorist has information about a plot against our homeland, we need to know what he knows.
And so, that's why I put in place, under the CIA, a program to question key terrorist operatives and its leaders. Last year, Congress passed a law that allows the CIA to continue this vital program.
The procedures used in this program are safe, they are lawful and they are necessary.
Senior leaders in the House and the Senate from both political parties have been briefed on the details of this program. It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about the details of a classified program he has not been briefed on.
If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would send a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general. And that would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war.
By any measure, Judge Mukasey is eminently qualified to be the next attorney general.
And now, after allowing his nomination to languish for 41 days, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for next Tuesday.
Senate leaders must move this nomination out of committee, bring it to the Senate floor and confirm this good man.
Congress has also failed to act on intelligence legislation that is vital to protect the American people in this war on terror. Stopping new attacks on our country requires us to make sure we understand the intentions of the enemy. We've got to know what they're thinking and what they're planning. And that means we got to have effective measures to monitor their communications.
This summer Congress passed the Protect America Act, which strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence on terrorists overseas. And this good law closed the dangerous gap in our intelligence.
Unfortunately, they made this law effective for only six months. The problem is that Al Qaida doesn't operate on a six-month timetable.
And if Congress doesn't act soon, the law will expire, and the gap in our intelligence will reopen, and the United States of America will be at risk.
We must keep the intelligence gap firmly closed.
The terrorists are communicating with each other and are plotting new attacks. We need to know what they're planning.
We must ensure that the protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us. And we must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate Intel Committee has approved a bipartisan bill that contains provisions to preserve our ability to collect intelligence on terrorists overseas, while protecting the civil liberties of Americans here at home.
This bill still needs some improving. But it's an important step in the right direction.
Time is of the essence. And the full Senate and the House of Representatives need to get -- pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly so our intelligence professionals can continue to use the vital tools of the Protect America Act to keep us safe.
Congress is also stalling on the emergency war supplemental to fund our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. This crucial bill includes funds for bullets and body armor, protection against IEDs and mine-resistant ambush-protective vehicles.
Congress should be able to move the supplemental quickly. There's no reason why they're not moving the supplemental. After all, it had more than eight months to study most of its provisions.
In fact, nearly 75 percent of the funding requests in the supplemental were submitted along with my annual budget in February of this year.
The supplemental is critical for our troops. And Congress should not go home for the holidays while our men and women in uniform are waiting for the funds they need.
Congress also needs to pass the Department of Defense spending bill, as well as a funding bill for our nation's veterans.
There are reports that congressional leaders may be considering combining the funding bills for our military and our veterans together with a bloated labor, health and education spending bill.
It's hard to imagine a more cynical ploy than holding funding for our troops and our wounded warriors hostage in order to extract $11 billion in wasteful Washington spending.
If reports of this strategy are true, I will veto such a three- bill pileup.
I ask Congress to send me a clean veterans funded bill by Veterans Day and to pass a clean defense spending bill. Congress needs to put the needs of those who put on the uniform ahead of their desire to spend more money.
When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.
Here's the bottom line: This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to gather vital intelligence from captured terrorists. It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America.
And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight Al Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the struggle against the terrorists and extremists, I hope I made my strategy clear today, that we will keep constant pressure on the enemy in order to defend the American people. We will fight them overseas so we do not have to fight them here at home.
At the same time, we'll use every available tool of law and intelligence to protect the people here. That's our most solemn duty. It's a duty I think about every day.
In the long run, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to advance freedom as the great alternative to radicalism and repression. We can have confidence in this cause because we have seen the power of liberty to transform nations and secure peace before.
Here at The Heritage Foundation, you understand this better than most. During the Cold War, there were loud voices in Washington who argued for accommodation for the Soviet Union, because they believed the watchword of our policy should be stability.
At Heritage, you knew that when it came to the Soviet Union, the watchword of our policy should be freedom. Together with a great president named Ronald Reagan you championed a policy of rolling back communism repression, and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny.
And by taking the side of the dissidents who helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world. And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.
And once again they're wrong.
In Kabul and Baghdad and Beirut and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them and champion their cause, and we are doing just that.
We are standing with those who yearn for the liberty -- who yearn for liberty in the Middle East, because we understand that the desire for freedom is universal, written by the almighty into the hearts of every man, woman and child on this Earth.
We are standing with those who yearn for liberty in the Middle East because we know that the terrorists fear freedom even more than they fear our firepower. They know that, given a choice, no one will choose to live under their dark ideology of violence and death.
We're standing with those who yearn for liberty in the Middle East because we know that when free societies take root in that part of the world they will yield the peace we all desire.
The only way the terrorists can recruit operatives and suicide bombers is by feeding on the hopelessness of societies mired in despair, and by bringing freedom to these societies, we replace hatred with hope.
And this will help us to marginalize the extremists and eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism, and make the American people more secure.
The lessons of the past have taught us that liberty is transformative. And I believe 50 years from now an American president will be speaking to Heritage and say, Thank God that generation that wrote the first chapter in the 21st century understood the power of freedom to bring the peace we want.
Thank you for coming. God bless.
And there ya have it.
Does the Qur'an mean what it says? Is it to be taken literally or is it metaphorical or allegorical? Tafsir are explanations of verses from the Qur'an, written by experts who compare verses and hadith, matching up their meanings. qtafsir.com has the only practical tafsir search engine known to me. In these tafsir topics, Ibn Kathir uses other ayat and ahadith to explain the meaning of ayat. The headings below are the search terms used in an exact search. These tafsir explain the following ayat:
Order to fight
Command to fight
Click the links above and read those tafsir topics. See what Allah commanded Muslims to do. See what Muhammad did. Muslims & Dhimmis will tell you that the Qur'an does not mean what it says, ignoring 3:7, which informs them that the Qur'an contains commands expressed in clear verses.
If " fight them..." & "fight those who"... "until"... do not mean exactly what they say, then:
- Why did Muhammad confirm it ?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
- Why is 9:29 used as the basis of Islamic law? I quote from Reliance of the Traveler, which is described here. [Emphasis added.]
O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
Posted: 31 Oct 2007 01:53 PM CDT
Posted: 31 Oct 2007 08:39 AM CDT
Posted: 31 Oct 2007 08:56 AM CDT
Posted: 31 Oct 2007 07:37 AM CDT
Posted: 30 Oct 2007 03:41 PM CDT
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Let me make this perfectly clear! You paying attention?
And, because I make this statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!!! YOU ARE WELCOME HERE IN MY COUNTRY. Welcome to come through like everyone else has. Get a sponsor! Get a place to lay your head! Get a job! Live by OUR rules! Pay YOUR taxes! And LEARN THE LANGUAGE LIKE ALL OTHER IMMIGRANTS HAVE IN THE PAST!!! AND PLEASE DON'T DEMAND THAT WE HAND OVER OUR LIFETIME SAVINGS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS TO YOU TO MAKE UP FOR ''YOUR'' LOSSES.
If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When will AMERICAN'S STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS??? We've gone so far the other way ... bent over backwards not to offend anyone. But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN that's being offended!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
A scant few actually consider them relevant.
In an article at Townhall, "Peace" Movement Passe? By Brent Bozell III, it states it all too clearly. I wonder if this guy has read my blog? Not hardly. A teaser...or two.
The article begins:
If the "peace" movement holds a protest and no one in the press covers it, does it still exist? If Americans are sick of the war, they're also sick of the "antiwar." Even the media have grown antiwar-weary. Rallies on Oct. 27 drew only perfunctory news mentions.
The peaceniks have become a bipartisan political problem, now that the Democrats who control Congress haven't dared to placate the radicals by cutting off money for the troops. Cindy Sheehan is threatening to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But suddenly -- surprise, surprise -- the media aren't interested in Sheehan's new crusade. Crusades only have a point when it's an anti-Republican point. Camping out against Bush during his Texas vacation was news, fun news, important news. But running against Pelosi is not news. It's a sign your 15 minutes of fame are all used up.
And the article ends:
But the people today are sour. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have lower approval ratings than President Bush. Right now, the "peace" movement looks passe. They have no energy, and nothing original to say, and with the change in Congress, they have no more public-relations magic. They better not stand in front of a banner reading, "Mission Accomplished."
That about sums it all up. Out of steam, out of momentum, everybody is sick of their crap and totally irrelevant...just like Ron Paul and his minions of idiocy.
Greyhawk has a piece up about the Ny Slimes. I cannot, at this moment, relate the verbiage here. Justice would not be served to the article.
Go read it.
The piece is entitle:
NY Times names WOT’s dead; tosses their heroism
I have decided to post this article from WSJ
The Education of Rochelle Reed
Rochelle Reed, an editor at the Tribune of San Luis Obispo, Calif., published an essay recently about her son's decision to join the Army. "This was definitely not the way things were supposed to turn out," Mrs. Reed writes:Never in a million years did I imagine my son would join the Army. Nor did Evan. In high school, he'd hang up on recruiters who called the house. He'd blurt, "Get away from me!" to the ones who trawled the local hangouts. Our home was liberal Democrat and anti-war and now, at 21, he was a Michael Moore fan. The night before he left, he spent his time reading "Stupid White Men." . . .
When I tell people that Evan has joined the Army, their reactions are almost always the same: their faces freeze, they pause way too long, and then they say, "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry for you." I hang my head and look mournful, accepting their sympathy for the worry that lives in me. But as it dawns on them that Evan wasn't drafted, as Vietnam still clings to my generation, their expressions become quizzical, then disbelieving. I know what they're thinking: Why in the world would any kid in his right mind choose to enlist when we're in the middle of a war? I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn't arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join. What finally hooked him was a recruiter's comment that if he thought the country's role in Iraq was so screwed up, he should try to fix it.
Mrs. Reed's piece is sincere and candid, and our purpose in noting it is not to pick on her. But it is quite a window she provides into the "liberal Democrat and antiwar" subculture of which she is a part. Because of her family's politics, "never in a million years" did she think her son would join the military. The people she knows see his decision as a cause for sorrow, not pride. Mrs. Reed has to talk them out of the assumption that only "arrogant patriotism" (the adjective itself is telling) or "murderous bloodlust" would motivate someone to serve his country, that no "kid in his right mind" would do so.
Judging by Mrs. Reed's account, American liberals harbor a deep and invidious prejudice against the military--a prejudice Mrs. Reed herself is now overcoming, thanks to the bravery of her son.
A year ago, a famous liberal Democrat remarked, "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Perhaps he didn't know any better. Rochelle Reed now does.
This fits the Pathology of a Leftinistra to a T.
I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn't arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join
And there you have it, right there. Arrogant patriotism? Murderous blood lust? What would non-arrogant patriotism be? For that matter, what exactly is arrogant patriotism? I love how these silly imps and shallow people come up with these terms and terminologies that have no rhyme nor reason to be called upon to describe a "calling".
The vast majority VOLUNTEER to join the various branches of the United States Military. They "hear" the call. It is heart-felt. It is an answer to the call of duty. The people that answer that call are a special breed than sense it a duty and an honor to serve to maintain our way of life. It it wasn't for the American Armed Services, the United States would have ceased to exist years ago.
The vast majority understand the risks involved in serving in an armed force. Some join for the "goodies" that come in the form of the many benefits up to and including being a man or woman in uniform and getting the accolades of wearing that uniform with no intention of actually "going to war". I have heard many that said that they didn't join to go to war...they joined for the free-stuff. We call them moochers, among other things. I have met some.
When an individual swears the Oath of Service, (many times before they actually swear that Oath, they have been told this), they are not only swearing the Oath of Service, they are giving themselves to the United States Government. They become the Property of the United States Government. They have ample opportunities during the initial phases of training to opt out of service.
Once the training is over and they have not been "sent home" for any number of reasons, their options are limited...it is a done deal. There are no more choices to be made except to follow orders. The UCMJ is thoroughly thorough there.
It says quite a bit for the few to enlist during a time of war. Perhaps they do so after hearing idiots like this Reed woman. The pathetic diatribe is all too telling in that our educators decry this very said same ignorance, knowing bloody well it is those that have served and given their all to maintain the very freedoms these idiots enjoy.
Wishing that the peoples of the Earth can just get along with each other is as ignorant a tenet of stupidity that I even fathom. When a theoretical religion espouses and dictates the killing of those that do not believe as they do is a cult and needs to be dealt with as a cancer.
Pride of country is foreign to this genre of fool and thank God above they are far and few between. They may make the loudest noises and, that is soon beginning to ebb, but they certainly do NOT represent the vast majority in any shape, form or fashion.
As my friend Hawk says, "Forever and always, an American Fighting Man."
What if John Gotti Headed Up the Task Force To Stop the Mafia
Robert Brown's tenure as head trustee for Grady Hospital is eventful for sure. Upon taking over in the mid 1990's the hospital faced a series of issues from budget problems, to corruption, to egregiously poor health care. In 1998, Grady Hospital settled with the state of Georgia for $4.5 million dollars in a suit of Medicare fraud. The investigation covered four years and several of those involved the tenure of Robert Brown. While the Attorney General found no criminal violations, the sheer number of the settlement speaks for itself. Had this been the only run in with the law that Grady had under his tenure, it frankly wouldn't be an issue. It wasn't though. The most egregious case of criminality came when State Senator Charles Walker was charged with 137 separate offenses and convicted of 127 of those counts. (unbelievably Walker, his daughter and the companies they ran were the only ones charged or convicted) Grady was one of a handful of hospitals that was the target of much of this criminality.
This criminality began in the late 1990's and lasted all the way until his indictment in 2002. As I have already pointed out, a source told me that the chief prosecution witness, Joyce Harris, accused Robert Brown of several incendiary crimes along with pointing a huge finger at Walker. Harris accused Brown of such things as witness intimidation and accepting sexual favors for contracts at Grady. Harris is not the only one to point the finger at Robert Brown as far as corruption goes. Here is what Ron Marshall of the Grady Coalition had to say about Robert Brown, (from an article emailed to me. I can't seem to locate it online)It was Robert Brown who insisted that no-bid contracts be given to former Senator Charles Walker, who is now serving ten years in prison for 127 felonies, many of which were committed at Grady with Brown's knowledge.
Furthermore, I am holding onto a 223 page report filed with the Dekalb Ethics Committee that charged Robert Brown with among other things: quid pro quos, retaliation, kickbacks, and obstruction of justice.
Since corruption doesn't exist in a vacuum, Brown's tenure was often met with financial woes. While the current financial woes facing Grady are the most extreme they have ever been, this is not the first time Grady has faced financial turmoil. For instance, here is how things looked in 2001 for Grady.
Board members of the state's largest public hospital want to know how the struggling charity-care provider plans to dig itself out of deepening financial trouble.
Grady Memorial Hospital's 10-member board is scheduled to meet July 23 to, in part, review recent audit results showing the hospital suffered a $17.2 million loss last year and is now operating in the red.
"We were told [Grady] would have an $8 million shortfall this year and that [CEO Edward Renford] would come up with a proposal in July to fix it," said board member Bill Loughrey.
Grady leaders have remained tight-lipped about specific plans for a recovery, but a spokesperson for the hospital said discussions are under way and that any changes would be cleared through patients and employees of the hospital first.
In fact, the current plethora of editorials and analysis that can be found in any current Atlanta area newspaper have a familiar ring to them.
Finally, and most importantly, the Center Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services did an exhaustive investigation of Grady Hospital that ended right around the time that Charles Walker trial ended. Here is the scathing conclusion of that investigation. (Again, I hold onto a hard copy myself though I cannot find it online) They identified...an immediate and serious threat to the health and safety of the
It was after this scathing report came out, that finally Robert Brown was forced out of his position at Grady. Not to worry, upon leaving Grady, Robert Brown was able to snag a lucrative position on the state's transportation board MARTA.
Now, let's get back to the unconventional title of my piece. In my opinion, if there things weren't rotten at Grady, Emory University, and Atlanta at large, along with investigating State Senator Charles Walker, the powers that be would have investigated Brown to see if he should occupy the cell next to Walker. If things weren't rotten at Grady, Emory, and Atlanta at large, the powers that be would investigate Brown's architecture firm R L Brown & Associates and see if he ever gave his own company any sweetheart deals while he served as the Chief Trustee at Grady Hospital. If things weren't so rotten though, someone besides Walker would have been charged with some crime, because I find it impossible to believe that one person could be convicted of so many crimes and no one else did anything wrong.
Things are rotten, so instead of being investigated, Robert Brown finds himself as a prominent member of the Grady Task Force. The task force was set up the come up with solutions to the current fiscal crisis. Robert Brown, who oversaw Grady as it tumbled into financial crisis, is now one of the people in charge of getting it out of the crisis. Excuse me, if this doesn't seem like John Gotti being asked to come up with solutions to dealing with the Mafia.
The problem is this. Grady Hospital is a public hospital and so it is run with tax payer money. Grady's financial woes will probably take an influx of roughly 100 million dollars of tax payer money. If the funds are being directed by the very people that created the problem, then each tax payer is about to sink more of their money into a black hole of corruption and incompetence.
Tune in to TOCB on BTR this Thursday, 2100 hours, Texas time. We will be looking into this. Each of the guests have been on at separate times and they will be both be on together to discuss the progress or the roadblocks to closure on this topic.
From the UAB Media Relations we see a report today showing that the UAB Spam Team Spots First Presidential Campaign Spam.
Lo and behold, it is from... you got it... Ron Paul supporters.
Anti-spam researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) noted a disturbing new trend following Sunday's Republican Candidates Presidential debate. One of the candidates has a new spam campaign dedicated to proclaiming him victorious in the debate and extolling his virtues as the future president.
There is no reason to believe the current spam campaign is actually endorsed by Ron Paul or his official campaign engine, according to Gary Warner, UAB Director of Research in Computer Forensics,
Ron Paul is popular with the Internet and some of the recent Web polls that were taken down because of Ron Paul Spammers include:
The new messages have headlines such as:
Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate!
Ron Paul Eliminates the IRS!
Ron Paul Stops Iraq War!
Vote Ron Paul 2008!
Iraq Scam Exposed, Ron Paul
Government Wasteful Spending Eliminated By Ron Paul
Warner says, "We've seen many previous emails reported as spam from other campaigns or parties, but when we've investigated them, they all were sent from the legitimate parties." The important distinction between the new emails and previous emails, Warner says, is the fraudulent nature of the message. Legitimate messages tell who they are from, and provide a means of "unsubscribing" from future messages from the same source.
According to the CAN-SPAM Act, the primary law under which unwanted email can be prosecuted in the US, one of the factors that makes a message spam is deceptive sending practices. In the messages reviewed at UAB, emails were received from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Nigeria already this morning. In each case it was clear that the computer sending the message did not belong to the person who was listed in the "From" address. Such as a Houston resident, whose email was sent from a computer in Italy, or a Silicon Valley computer worker, whose email was sent from Korea.
"Messages such as these harm the online eco-system by casting doubt on the veracity of other online communications", Warner said.
FYI: The UAB Computer Forensics program is a partnership between the UAB Computer & Information Science Department and the UAB Department of Justice Science. Warner and his colleagues research spam, phishing, malware, identity theft, and related CyberCrime issues.
One of the polls that had to be removed was from CNBC and after the poll was removed the Managing Editor of CNBC.com, Allen Wastler , issued an open letter to the "Ron Paul faithful".
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.
Managing Editor, CNBC.com
True Republican Ron Paul supporters should speak up loudly against this type of activity, such as the spamming emails and the deliberate attempt to skew results of online polls, because it is not doing the candidate any good at all.
We posted a piece the other day about Nick Griffin speaking at MSU and I added a side note there pointing out some of the supporters that Ron Paul seems to attract:
The reason I bring the side note up at this time is because by stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, you see that Preston Wiginton (who was with Nick Griffin) has ties with Stromfront (white supremacists), Stormfront supports Ron Paul as donations from Don Black, founder of Stormfront to Paul shows, Ron Paul is connected with 9/11 Truthers, by money (Alex Jones), and the group that invited Nick Griffin to speak at Michigan State University (Young Americans for Freedom) are Ron Paul supporters as their site Spartan Spectator shows.
And people wonder why Ron Paul creeps me out? Just look at the people he attracts!!! End sidenote)
After having seen Ron Paul speak at the Republican debates, I have mentioned before that he simply sounds like a kook and it is understandable why he attracts many undesirables- (White Suprmacists and 9/11 Truthers).
Today we see reports of Ron Paul supporters also being spammers, which is something we have mentioned before and has even caused certain blogs to stop allowing those Ron Paul supporters from commenting at all, Red State being one such example.
Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.
There was quite a bit of discussion about Red State banning Ron Paul spammers, some blog owners publicly stated they didn't agree and others fully understood the nature of the Ron Paul spammers.
Myself, I believe that who ever owns the blog determines the rules....period.
They have that right because it is their hard work that goes into making their blog a success and only they are in the position of knowing what is good for their blog and what is bad for it.
Red State made that choice and deserves to have their final word respected on the topic.
Rasmussen poll comparing Paul numbers to Hillary Clinton numbers and an excellent analysis from Influence Peddler.
Interesting side point from the Rasmussen piece, found at the bottom shows that Ron Paul has yet to top the 4% level of support in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Via Wake up America