Saturday, September 29, 2007

BATTLE CRY, A Poem By Forrest Langley

It is both my privilege and an honor to post this poem by request by Forrest Langley, Pfc (ret) United States Army.

For those that do not know Forrest, he is the 41 year old who enlisted in the Army to fight in the War on Terror and has suffered traumatic brain injury due to multiple IED explosions. He has now started this to raise money to help other families of Veterans who have been wounded and are waiting dissemination of their claims by the VA, which as we all know, can get drawn out at times.

Feel free to pass this along to any others you desire, as he requested I do.

Battle Cry

O` The depths of wars horrors to others are unknown,
I have no vocabulary to explain; I just sigh and groan,
Soldiers died now their families no more will them see,
They bled, and died O the awesome cost for your liberty.

The IED Blasts caused soldiers brain damage; now blasted insane,
Post Traumatic Stress disorder causes Soldiers to be deranged,
The person I was before the war, that person doesn’t exist anymore,
When im alone I cry rivers, O god my God the unseen horrors of war.
The cries of the children for their father; silent dead in his grave,
Yet he died a hero His humvee exploded in flames. he died very brave,
~Kaboom~ horror settles upon them like a terrible black nightmare,
Numb by the bomb blast. His legs blown off, just too much for him to bear.
From war soldiers come home, and see ghosts that no one else can see,
Traumatic nightmares and flashbacks just will not let them go free,
They rode and they marched and seen comrades blown slam apart,
The depths and horrors of war. Cries of families with a broken heart.
From the Army disabled Soldiers are discharged with such little pay,
Spouse has to quit work and stay home her lost soldier is just not ok,
Black darkened gloom set in the money we have wont make ends meet,
O Will we lose our land, car, and home and have to live on the street?
The Terrors of Wars horrors don’t end they’re still haunting us today,
Lord God let me come home from wars terrors please help me this day,
Please don’t misunderstand me all this is a pleasant misery I do endure,
a great honor to sacrifice for my country to make freedom more sure.
Please donate to “independence fund” for soldiers and there families show them you care.
The wounded and dead soldier’s families are in poverty depression, and despair.
Before they went to war and fought for your freedom they had plenty and not one need.
This brain injured soldier begs your help for wounded and dead soldier’s families.

Poem written by Forrest Langley to raise funds for the wounded and soldiers who have fallen families.

Go to to donate

A message from Forrest Langley

When I was discharged from the Army they only gave me a 40% disability rating even though I had Traumatic Brain Injury, ptsd along with many other ailments. That gave us 673.00 dollars a month. My wife had to quit her job to take care of me. I have 2 children to take care of. We spent the savings we had and almost lost our home, car, land, and most everything.

They’re thousands upon thousands of soldiers in this shape.

Please I beg you to help the wounded, and there families. I became suicidal because of all the things that had come upon me at once. Your soldiers are bleeding and dying upon the battlefield for you. It is your duty to help them bear the burden as they bore the burden of war for you.
May God bless America

I have wrote a lot of other poems if you like this or are interested in other write me at.

Not one dime of this money goes to me. I don’t need it. (Forrest)

Friday, September 28, 2007

Letter To Senator Patty Murray (D. Wa.)

Ms. Murray, as a two tour Viet Nam Veteran, I am sorely disappointed to read in the Hill that you will be co-signing a letter of condemnation against radio host, Rush Limbaugh, for the false charge of him slandering our Troops. If you had listened to or read transcripts of his radio program the morning in question, it was very clear that he was talking of the false claims of the false veteran, Jesse MacBeth, who I'm sure you realize admitted his falsehoods and has been tried and convicted for his falsehoods.

What makes this so disappointing is that I have not found one instance of you condemning the slanderous ad from the New York Times calling a brave patriotic American General like General Petraeus as "General Betray-Us."

I have never seen you condemn Representative Jack Murtha for his false claims of Marines murdering innocent civilians in cold blood in Iraq.

I have never seen you condemn Senator John Kerry for his false testimony alleging war crimes committed by the vast majority of Viet Nam Veterans and labeling us as "monsters trained to deal in violence" in that same 1971 testimony.

I have not heard you condemn Senator Barack Obama for alleging our Troops in Afghanistan air raid villages and kill civilians.

I have not heard you condemning Senator Hillary Clinton for her audacious claim of accepting General Petraeus's Report would "require a willing suspension of disbelief."

Those of us who have gone to war know from where and from who we receive support and political grandstanding against a radio host while giving a pass to actual condemnation of the Troops by members of the Democrat Party in Congress isn't supporting the Troops, it is hypocritical.

Frankly, I expect better from a United States Senator from Washington State.

Lew Waters

Sent to Senator Murray September 28, 2007

UPDATE: This was also cross posted to SoundPolitics and drew some good comments there as well.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Cindy Sheehan Now Slanders General Petraeus As Well

September 27, 2007

Earlier this year I posted about anti-everything, Queen of the Moonbats, Cindy Sheehan as she Labeled Viet Nam Veterans “Rightist Haters of America”.

Since then, the on again, off again antics of hers grows stranger every time she opens her mouth. Her latest tirade, an ‘op-ed’ she wrote for titled “Pro-Democracy means Anti-Fascism” appears more like Ms. Sheehan is ready for those nice young men in their clean white suits to come and take her away, after fitting her for the latest style in a straight jacket.

We all are familiar with her antics since the Kerry campaign enlisted her to oppose President Bush in the 2004 campaign. Apparently even Kerry saw that she was a loon as he dropped her quickly. That didn’t stop Cindy Sheehan from continuing on her own and dancing on her hero son’s grave, grabbing all the attention she could for herself, alienating her family to the point that her husband divorced her.

Her “grieving mother” shtick wore thin quickly as she announced she was sitting in a ditch outside of the Crawford Ranch of President Bush until he saw her in person. She neglected to tell the world that President Bush had already met with her in person and Sheehan had no complaints then.

Her ditch escapade lost steam as people grew tired of her and Kerry lost any way. She moved on to bigger and better things, still dancing on Casey’s grave, which was left without a headstone for nearly a year, as she squandered his insurance money traveling the globe and making a spectacle of herself with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, crying about machinegun nests in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and making a nuisance of herself at the United Nations.

Not receiving the attention she once was, she announced her retirement from the anti-war movement, but within weeks was back to her old antics, culminating in this article as a bench warrant was released for her arrest after she failed to appear before the Court for her arrest for Disorderly Conduct stemming from a September 10 protest.

Tiffany Burns, spokeswoman for Sheehan said, "She wasn't aware that there was a court appearance today. We'll have the attorney deal with this immediately, so as soon as she's rescheduled to appear, she'll be there."

Sheehan’s ‘op-ed’ claims, “I was supposed to be in court today in Washington, DC for my last arrest. I didn’t go because I am not under allegiance and repudiate the fascists that run our government and the enforcers who are doing their best Nazi-job of “following orders” in oppressing our rights as Americans.”

Her anti-American tirade contains the usual litany of Bush bashing, America bashing, false claims of conspiracy nutcases, and even a new call for “Impeach Bush and Cheney-post presidency so they can’t receive federal benefits.”

Not content with her usual Anti-America, Anti-Bush, Anti-Cheney, Anti-Republican, Anti-Democrat rants, twice she invokes “General Betray-Us” in her diatribe, mimicking the recent New York Times ad that has drawn much heat for the leftist group from most Republicans and even Democrats.

Most dangerous for Sheehan is her call of, “I am also very skeptical of a “professional” and fascist military leadership taking their oath of service seriously and above their corporate-military allegiance to the Executive Branch recently and so tellingly revealed by General Betray-Us, so a military coup is out of the question and has the tricky element of becoming a military dictatorship.”

I take that as she would be willing for a “Military Coup,” should the “right” Military people lead it.

In the past she was primarily a nuisance, a loud mouthed boorish attention whore full of herself. Now she is becoming a danger, not only to herself, but to the country as she advocates illegal activities and wild antics that even a few might listen to.

I can only hope that whenever she does appear before the Court, the Judge sees what is going on and commits her to a Mental Institution for her own sake.


Wishful Thinking and Hoping - The Reagan Diaries

September 27, 2007

Listening to the Neal Boortz program this evening, I heard him read what was sent to him in email and labeled as a direct quote from the Reagan Diaries.

“A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.”

The internet and emails are abuzz over this with several Leftist sites lauding their “find.” Of course, it also shows just who quotes without the luxury of actually having the book because the quote is not from the Reagan Diaries, but was a quote taken out of context from a July 7, 2007 Michael Kinsley article for the New Republic.

Maybe if they had ran it through the local Kinko’s, like Dan Rather did in the “fake but accurate” memo he televised in 2004, they might have been spared the embarrassment of once again, letting their BDS get the better of them.

Museum of Hoaxes



Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Why It Matters

September 26, 2007

Even though we are very early into the campaign season, I often hear words from many along the lines of, "why vote, what does it matter?" With average voter turn out hovering around 40% in the 2006 mid-term elections, one might conclude that about 60% of the population either doesn't care about voting or possibly sees no sense, feeling that no matter what their vote, a candidate they'd rather not be in office will win anyway.

Any number of reasons can be seen for less than half of the population showing up to vote in the world’s freest Democracy, but for the most part, many feel it just doesn't matter if they vote or not. Of course, this could be extended to supporting a candidate as well, or even a particular party. In a sense, less than half of the population is choosing who writes the laws and governs all of us.

Currently our Military is embroiled in a long over due conflict against a brutal group of ideologues that desire to rule the world under their misguided, oppressive and draconian interpretation of the worship of God. At the same time, inside the country we have the ongoing struggle between political ideologies of more conservative thought versus socialist liberal thought, with many stuck in the middle. Those in the middle are often the ones who feel "what does it matter."

Many Americans don't seem to realize either struggle is going on, going about their day-to-day business while complaining about security measures applied to our Airports, Subways, Train and Bus Stations since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Socialist left plays on this complacency by continually impugning not only the integrity of the conservatives, but by using outright lies at times to portray them as treasonous, cold hearted, uncaring, unpatriotic, prejudiced, mean-spirited, lying and generally, just not nice people.

A good example of this would be an email I received yesterday from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and signed by disgraced former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of former CIA analyst, Valerie Plame, who I am sure all remember was supposedly "outed" in a desperate and failed attempt at "exposing lies" given by President Bush in justifying the Iraq theater of the War on Terror. Attempting to resuscitate a failed strategy, Wilson once again spreads his lies to potential donors to the Democrat party, hoping to fill upcoming Congressional seats and the White House with more of his Socialist Democrat friends.

Falling prey to these tactics, many Republicans turned on the current administration as was evidenced by many conservatives refraining from voting last election and even in the early campaigns today, candidates seem to compete with the Democrat candidates on distancing themselves from traditional conservative values and President Bush's administration.

In protest many conservative voters stayed home election day 2006 and didn't vote at all. The end result we all now see is far left Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and far left Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader. What this boils down to is not only the ongoing opposition to our Troops efforts in defending us, but a majority vote in both the House and the Senate to back up their opposition. Fortunately, they have yet to realize a "Super Majority" and have been forced instead to rely on endless investigations and hearings on matters leading up to the war, as well as public accusations of wrongdoing, even where there hasn't been any.

The "what does it matter" attitude resulted in a power shift in our government that not only may result in another war loss for us, but higher taxes and more restrictive laws concerning our day to day lives, well beyond the imagined infringements claimed for the Patriot Act.

Packaging their anti-war sentiment in soft words to lull the public into supporting their desire for defeat, the leftist often calls for "a new direction" in the war effort. Bolder ones come closer by just saying, "end the war." Not stated is that both calls mean abandonment of yet another struggling ally with no regard that our current enemy is not willing to "end the war" and will continue attacking us, as they have been for nearly three decades.

What should be of concern to all are words spoken by the Democrat front-runner in her obvious desire for Socialism. Her call of the failure of the free market and desire to take Corporate profits away from companies and place them in a fund at her disposal sounds more like Soviet Marxism than it does American Democracy.

Second runner in the Democrats is a charismatic speaker and person, but so naïve he is almost dangerous. As he says preventing genocide is not a good reason to finish the war in the Iraq theater, he speaks of the possibility of attacking an allied nation in this war, should they not act as he deems appropriate.

Republicans don't seem to present much better, although most seem to be more supportive of finishing the war in victory. One GOP candidate seems to have reasonable fiscal ideas, but is incredibly naive when it comes to prosecuting this war.

GOP front-runners seem to have some sort of baggage that could affect their chances of winning the White House, leaving us two candidates with strong conservative history. One is a popular actor who sounds good while the other is considered a long shot. I am speaking of Fred Thompson, with a moderate to conservative record and Duncan Hunter, who has a solid conservative record.

Speaking to co-workers and others of candidates, I again run into the "what does it matter" attitude with positive comments about both candidates, especially Hunter. Since Hunter is considered a long shot, many shy away from supporting him in favor of backing a more popular candidate, even if they must settle for less, should that candidate win in 2008.

I find it incredible that potential voters would support a candidate they feel is less in tune with their own views since we are only choosing who will be the nominee in next year's elections currently. Candidates from our party are running against each other now, not the Democrats. Should our chosen candidate not win the nomination we are still able to get behind whoever does in an effort to defeat the Democrat candidate in the 2008 election.

Many from both parties consider George W. Bush to be a poor President, having voted for him both times as the lesser of two evils. Both candidates offered up by the Democrat party in 2000 and 2004 were definitely poor choices on their part.

We have a chance finally to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and get behind a strong conservative and move him from long shot status to nominee, should we consider him to best represent our own views and values. He is the one trying to take action against Columbia University for their outrageous invite of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak before gathered students.

He was the only candidate from either party to show up in support of the Fight For Victory Tour in Washington D.C. this past September 15.

Why it matters should be obvious to all by now. It matters because we can longer tolerate 'lesser of two evil' candidates to be voted in. Popular Democrat candidates can and will be defeated in elections should we all put our support behind a candidate that best represents our values. We must choose the candidate we desire and now be swayed by a media sympathetic to the Democrat candidate.

What does it matter can no longer be an acceptable attitude from the majority of Americans.

Why it matters is that we are fighting, both at home and abroad, for the very soul of our country and way of life.


Friday, September 21, 2007

A Tale of Two Leftist University’s

Cross posted to Take Our Country Back & The Autonomist

September 21, 2007

With the announcement of former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, being appointed a visiting fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, a conservative public policy research center, alumni and faculty launched into protests and circulated petitions opposing the appointment on the grounds that “Rumsfeld clashed with the university's core values.”

Pamela Lee, an art history professor said, "He contradicts the fundamental standards of the university, which are order, morality, personal honor and most importantly, the rights of others. This person has played a critical role in a disastrously failed military policy. He has aggressively abused international law."

As is usual from our Socialistic left, exactly what “international Law” has been “aggressively abused” doesn’t get disclosed. Listening to anyone from the left discussing things as, “morality, personal honor and most the rights of others” makes me choke.

What “morality” is there in supporting the slaughter of unborn babies?

What “personal honor” is there in slandering a General Officer prior to his giving a report mandated by the leftists in Congress?

What “rights of others” are there when the left uses every tool available to them to stifle opposing views to their leftist indoctrination, especially in our University’s?

It should be noted that Mr. Rumsfeld would neither be teaching students nor taking up residence at Stanford and might possibly meet with other conservatives 2 to 3 times a year.

Psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo chimed in with, “It is unacceptable to have someone who represents the values that Rumsfeld has portrayed, in an academic setting.”

Could Zimbardo be any clearer that conservative thought is unwelcome?

Ms. Lee adds, “It’s extremely important for the Hoover Institute to know that their appointments are not in the mainstream of the Stanford community, as well as to send a very clear signal to the country that this is not what Stanford is about.”

Is this another example of the “tolerance” the left preaches to us about often? Tolerance of them and their views, while banning and censoring conservative thought?

Is this what we send our children to institutions of higher learning for, to be indoctrinated with leftist ideals and stripped of any values we may have taught them?

If you don’t think our University’s are infested with Socialists elites who hate what America actually has stood for, we need only to look east to New York to see the outrage of Columbia’s Lisa Anderson, dean of international and public affairs, who independently invited Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denier and head of a terrorist supporting state, for a question-and-answer session with Columbia’s faculty and students in their World Leaders Forum.

Last year Columbia had also invited Ahmadinejad to Columbia, but plans were dropped due to “security and logistics” concerns.

I fail to see the logic coming from our University’s when an American citizen of Mr. Rumsfeld’s stature is vilified and protested yet a tyrant like Iran’s Ahmadinejad would be embraced.

Lest you think I am being hypocritical and advocating a double standard, let me remind you that Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He over saw the successful overthrow of the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein and performed his job under intense fire from the Democrat party right up to his resignation. He would not be teaching or addressing students, but discussing matters with a campus based ‘think tank.’

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, would be addressing students and has been known for some of the most outrageous speeches denying the well-documented Holocaust of World War Two and calling for the total destruction of the nation of Israel. Former hostages have identified him as taking part in the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis where several of our Embassy staff were held hostage in Iran for over a year.

Our Troops in Iraq have identified several weapons seized there and that were being used to kill our Troops on the ground as having come from the Country of Iran. His regime also thumbs their nose at the world as they rush headlong into the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While being in our country, primarily to address the United Nations, he requested to visit ‘ground zero,’ the spot in New York where the World Trade Center Towers once stood, before being destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists, murdering nearly 3,000 of our citizens.

Why would a terrorist leader of a terrorist supporting nation desire to visit the site of their most successful attack? He may say it is to pay homage to those murdered individuals, but to use it as a photo op to gloat to fellow terrorists seems more likely, to me.

His visit to Columbia University would be like Columbia inviting Adolf Hitler to address Columbia’s students and faculty in 1944, at the height of World War Two.

After massive public outcry, Columbia’s President just today rescinded the invitation to have Ahmadinejad address students and faculty as a part of the university-wide leader's forum, but left open the invitation to speak at the school of international and public affairs.

In defense of Lisa Anderson, Columbia’s president Lee Bollinger said, “she has the right and responsibility to invite speakers whom she believes will add to the academic experience of our students."

Although two different University’s on separate coasts, I fail to see just how a terrorist supporter could be considered as “adding to the academic experience of our students," while a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, who wouldn’t even be addressing students or faculty, is said to “clash with the university's core values.”

It is little wonder why our children graduate these institutions with such a dismal view of the world and world conditions.


Thursday, September 20, 2007

Jackie Mason: "Democrats Have Gone Beyond Treason"

It should also be noted that our Senate passed an amendment today condemning's "pre-emptive" attack ad on General Petraeus. The measure passed by a vote of 72 to 25.

Very telling is that not one Democrat candidate for President supported this bill, either voting against it or refraining from voting at all.

For a party that keeps saying they are with the American People and not beholding to special interest groups, they sure seem to cower before far left, in the meantime, responded with the usual "Bush is a liar" rhetoric and announced plans for more ads bashing Republicans.

It leaves me wondering, who from ever traveled to Iraq for first hand knowledge about what is happening there? They openly bash Democrat Brian Baird, who changed his mind on the war, and any other politician who supprts the war, but I haven't seen any announcement of how many of them ever traveled there.

Jackie Mason's anger is well placed against any who won't denounce slanderous attacks on the integrity of the man that they themselves voted unanimously to lead the war effort there.

For you cowering Democrats out there, instead of crying about an "exit strategy," when do you help formulate a "victory strategy?"


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Ron Paul Continues Blaming America

September 19, 2007

It's all over now, but down in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida , located in the very liberal Broward County (and where I grew up), the Value Voters Debate was held. None of the so-called Front Tier candidates showed up, but the rest did, including Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.

As we all have come to expect, Paul blames America's Foreign Policy for terrorism, eliciting the reply from Hunter of, "Don't blame America first!"

Listening to Paul lay the blame for terrorist attacks on our Foreign Policies got me to thinking and led me to recall when I was in Germany during the 1972 Olympics Massacre of the Israeli Team. So, I dug a little more and found what is very interesting in regards to America's Foreign Policy causing Terrorist acts.

If we really are to blame, as Paul keeps saying, maybe he could explain the following;

Munich Olympic Massacre, Sept. 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany.

Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader-Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the airplane to land in Uganda, where on July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.

Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov. 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.

Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct. 6, 1981: Soldiers who were secretly members of the Takfir WalHajira sect attacked and killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during a troop review.

Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept. 14, 1982: Premier Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by a car bomb parked outside his party's Beirut headquarters.

TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a US Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, Sept. 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. One was killed, and three were later released.

Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov. 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several US citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal group.

Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four US citizens.

Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hezbollah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.

Air France Hijacking, Dec. 24, 1994: Members of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) seized an Air France flight. The four terrorists were killed during the rescue effort.

Jerusalem Bus Attack, Aug. 21, 1995: Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several US citizens.

Hamas Bus Attack, Feb. 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three US citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.

Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including two US citizens.

Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, Aug. 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the archbishop's meeting with the French foreign minister. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.

PUK Kidnapping, Sept. 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis.

Paris Subway Explosion, Dec. 3, 1996: A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a Canadian and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were one US citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected.

Egyptian Letter Bombs, Jan. 2-13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at AlHayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, D.C., New York City, London, and Riyadh. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kan. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the AlHayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept. 4, 1997: Three suicide bombers of Hamas detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual US-Israeli citizen was among the dead, and seven US citizens were wounded.

Tourist Killings in Egypt, Nov. 17, 1997: AlGama'at alIslamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor.

Somali Hostage takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a US citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a subclan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.

Greek Embassy Seizure, Feb. 16, 1999: Kurdish protesters stormed and occupied the Greek Embassy in Vienna, taking the Greek ambassador and six other persons hostage. Several hours later the protesters released the hostages and left the embassy. The attack followed the Turkish government's announcement of the successful capture of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan. Kurds also occupied Kenyan, Israeli, and other Greek diplomatic facilities in France, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, and Germany over the following days.

Manila Bombing, Dec. 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the US Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.

Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of Hamas detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in Kfar Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.

Tel Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing of a popular Israeli nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.

Hamas Restaurant Bombing, Aug. 9, 2001: A Hamas-planted bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 people and wounding more than 90.

Although some US Citizens were caught up in these attacks, none were against American Interests. Some of the countries attacked were directly opposed to America's Foreign Policy.

The question to Dr. Paul is, how does America's Foreign Policy cause terrorist attacks in countries that oppose America's Foreign Policy?

The Incredible Naiveté of Dr. Ron Paul


Congressman Duncan Hunter at Gathering of Eagles

Hat tip to CatHouse Chat

I like that Duncan Hunter speaks plain English, from the heart. He has an exceptional grasp on the complexity of our current enemy and sees the need to defeat them and protect our familes.

It should also be noted that Congressman Hunter was the only candidate from either party to show up and address this gathering of Veterans, Gold Star and Blue Star Families. Makes one wonder if the likes of Ron Paul is afraid to stand before a group of people as this.

Duncan deserves our support and he has mine.

A Little History, For Sally Field

Cross posted to The Autonomist

September 19, 2007

Not content with just accepting her Emmy Award Sunday Evening, September 16, 2007, Sally Field treated listeners and viewers to her anti-war rant of, "Let's face it. If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place."

The uproar over this wasn’t about her stance or choice of words, though. It was about Fox News cutting her off at the profanity. Totally missed in all this is just how wrong her statement was.

Someone as talented and able as Ms. Field surely must know a little history, but if she thinks it is only men who fight and lead wars, she is dead wrong.

Two names of prominent Women come to mind right away that led their countries in war, Golda Meir, who led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and Margaret Thatcher, who led Britain during the 1982 Falklands war with Argentina.

Another mother than Ms. Field seems to have forgot, although not really a national leader, but very prominent just the same, was Eleanor Roosevelt, who initially feared and opposed involvement in World War One but threw herself fully into the war effort once we committed to it. In World War two she would often admonish leaders and the public alike that we must win the war and the peace.

Throughout history women have played a pivotal roll in winning wars. Without the women taking up the manufacturing of war materials in World War Two, we may have lost that one.

The 20th Century alone is replete with Women Warriors who fought and led during wars their respective nations found themselves in.

For some time now we have been hearing Feminist Groups, such as NOW (National Organization for Women), demanding Women be given Equal Opportunity in the Military by being included in Combat Positions. Karen Johnson, executive vice president of NOW once said, “War makes no gender distinctions,” in her argument of, "Serving in the military is a right of American citizenship, and when you limit women's role in the military, you're limiting the opportunity of women to play a full and responsible role as citizens."

Women have willingly sacrificed their selves during war throughout history as well. The Viet Nam Veterans Memorial Wall contains the names of Women who gave their lives during that conflict. Women were imprisoned in POW Camps by Japan in World War Two and gave their lives as well.

The Soviet Union could never have pushed Hitler’s Nazi’s back from Stalingrad without Women fighting alongside the men, many of them leading.

Ms. Field assumes she has the right to speak for all Moms, but she ignores the multitude of Mothers who have lost their sons or daughters in this war and, although deeply grieving, also feel enormous pride that their adult child felt serving and protecting their country was the right thing to do. Those Mothers are rarely given the microphone though, the vocal minority claiming Moral Authority over them.

Making rhetorical statements as Ms. Field did may make her feel good, as if she did something, but it is obvious that the clichéd speech is misguided as well as erroneous. Wars come upon us and men and women fight them. Both men and women lead them. Both sexes sacrifice in them.

Wouldn’t it be better to get behind the men and women voluntarily fighting this war and bring them home VICTORIOUS?

Or, has that concept totally escaped her?


UPDATE: Michelle Malkin, also a Mother says Silly Sally Field doesn’t speak for me

Monday, September 17, 2007

Updated: Veterans, Warriors and Heroes, not Victims

September 17, 2007

“The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.” John Kerry, April 22, 1971

While not the beginning, the words spoken above by now Senator and failed presidential candidate, John ‘F’in Kerry (D. Ma), part of a much larger pack of lies given in “testimony” before the U.S. Senate, went a long way in perpetuating the commonly accepted myth of the “deranged Viet Nam Veteran.”

Television dramas of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s often featured as the villain, a Veteran so demonized by his experiences in Viet Nam that he was a danger to himself and to society. Movies portrayed us no better as they rolled out with scenes of drug use, rapes, wanton killing of women and children and love of killing, as was shown by Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now.

A few years later we were treated to Sylvester Stallone’s beginning of his successful “Rambo” series with the movie First Blood, where a troubled Viet Nam Veteran is arrested and abused in a small Washington State town for merely passing through and trying to get a meal. This of course triggers his “training” as he goes on a rampage against the Police and succeeds in pretty much destroying the town, single-handed, until Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna) intercedes and tells him it is over.

Rambo explains now of all the horrors he saw and the training he was given can’t be turned off with the mini speech, "Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war. You asked me, I didn't ask you!"

From the fairly wide acceptance of these two movies, we changed from being “drug addicted, baby killing, walking time bomb, deranged Viet Nam Veterans” to “VICTIMIZED” “drug addicted, baby killing, walking time bomb, deranged Viet Nam Veterans.”

Further reinforcing the “myth” was movies like 1985’s Cease Fire starring Don Johnson, of Miami Vice fame. While actually a mediocre ‘B’ film, Johnson’s notoriety on the highly successful Miami Vice series brought many viewers to see this movie that they otherwise would have passed on.

This film shows Johnson as a regular sort of guy, nice home, nice wife, 2 great kids, but unable to hold a job. He gets the runaround at the unemployment office, but meets another Vet, Luke. Together they clown it up until Johnson goes ballistic on a potential employer who compares Viet Nam to earlier wars negatively. Tim (Don Johnson) and Luke end up getting drunk and falling over each other in a football field where Luke speaks of serving in Viet Nam and how the “rules were changed in mid play.”

Luke, no longer able to deal with his own “Viet Nam Demons,” commits suicide while talking to Tim on the Phone, triggering an episode with Tim and his wife where Tim “flashbacks” to Viet Nam, taking his wife with him. This encourages Tim to finally open up with his “Veterans Readjustment” group and he finally releases his own “Demon” and receives the obligatory “Welcome Home” from a fellow Viet Nam Veteran while visiting the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.

The list of Books, TV Shows and Movies that have perpetuated the myth of the “deranged Viet Nam Veteran” is nearly endless, most having passed on into obscurity by now, but their effects remain. George Carlin, a very intelligent and prolific comedian unwittingly furthered the myth in his 1990 routine Euphemisms. In it, he begins by discussing the term “shell shock” and how it progressed to the softer sounding “post traumatic stress disorder,” ending with the statement of, “I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time.”

With all due respect to Mr. Carlin, who I immensely enjoy listening to and watching, what would really have helped would have been to be given a little respect or at least a small thank you instead of the cat calls of “baby killer,” “Murderer,” or “monsters,” as stated by Senator Kerry.

What would have been even better would for the public to actually understand we are no different than earlier Veterans who have been held up as heroes and warriors our entire lives. Even the earlier Veterans shamefully looked down upon many of us, telling us we were losers for not “winning the war.” They fail to recognize that we never lost a battle, even with the lack of public support. This led to many of us labeling them as “the class of ’45,” WW2 Vets who looked down upon Viet Nam Vets.

Viet Nam was lost, but not by the Military. It was lost by politicians in Washington D.C. and by the anti-war left who were being led around by the nose by agents of the KGB from the former Soviet Union. Many of the protesters really didn’t care about the war, it was just that they were worried they may be drafted and sent to it.

Black Americans were told that they were sure to be sent to the front in a war that had no front lines. They were told that their numbers were being systematically eliminated in the war because they were Black. Of course, since this was happening as Civil Rights for them was at the forefront of our nations news, it was easy to believe, knowing that many Whites didn’t look upon them as equals.

Many myths abound about veterans and even the well looked upon World War Two Veterans had their readjustment problems, as depicted in 1946’s “The Best Years of Our Lives” movie, about three returning men and their lives immediately after that war. However, they were held up as heroes and any troubles many of them may have had have been long buried, while erroneous claims of Viet Nam Veterans have stuck, despite studies and Veterans claims to the contrary.

Some like Jerry Lembcke, author of the book The Spitting Image, tries to discredit true stories of the mistreatment of returning Viet Nam Veterans with substandard research, declaring our memories as false and planted by movies such as “First Blood,” listed above. Lembcke seems unable to say just how screenwriters dreamed up the claim of us being spat upon, though, and somehow it becomes we returning Veterans that spit upon war protesters, who now claim they supported us back then. While he says there is no evidence of it ever happening or being claimed prior to 1980, a dozen jpg copies of articles mentioning the treatment have been archived at For The Record, Spitting On Vets a Myth?

After Viet Nam, hearing many of these myths, the DOD (Department of Defense) surveyed records and compiled statistics discrediting many of the myths, Vietnam War Facts: Facts, Statistics and Myths Dispelled.

Some facts uncovered were, 97% of Vietnam Veterans were honorably discharged, dispelling the myth of us being so maladjusted we were drummed out of the Military.

Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups.

Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.

Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes, with there being no statistical difference in drug usage between Viet Nam Veterans and non-Veterans of similar age.

2/3 of those who served in Viet Nam and 70% of the casualties were enlistees.

Suicides are even less likely in Viet Nam Veterans today than in those who didn’t serve.

12.5% of the casualties in Viet Nam were to Blacks, a number proportional to their number in society and slightly lower in proportion to their numbers actually in the Military at the end of the war, dispelling the myth that Blacks were being systematically eliminated in that war.

Of the total number of men serving in the Military during the Viet Nam years, only about 30% actually served in Viet Nam with even less actually experiencing significant combat.

More debunking can be seen at Vietnam War Myths.

None of this is to say no one had troubles returning, some did, of course, as in all other wars. Some just tried to blend back into society hiding that they served for many years and not receiving the validation they needed and deserved for sacrifices made for an ungrateful country.

It has been said we didn’t have any parades, which is true. As I see it, parades wouldn’t have been a good idea due to public outrage and mistreatment of returning veterans and because we didn’t return as units, but individually and many were quickly released from the Military. Still, much good might have been realized by simple thank you’s being given to returning Veterans instead of all the vitriol leveled against us.

Sadly, today’s Viet Nam Veterans are still viewed as “victims” of an “illegal war” and claims for PTSD related illness abounds with claims that 1 in 3 of us are affected by it. Several claimants were discovered to have not even served in Viet Nam and, as in all war past and present, were phonies. Efforts to discover these phonies making false claims and drawing undeserved money from the Veterans Administration have been blocked by Democrats like Senator Patty Murray, falsely believing that any claim of Veterans makes them deserving victims entitled to repayment for life and earning her a vote or two from grateful recipients.

What Murray and others fail to realize is that the monies given out to possible phony Veterans or those without real PTSD prevents needed monies elsewhere that truly deserving Veterans could be receiving care they need.

I can’t and won’t accept that of the 72,000 claims and growing doesn’t contain false claims, as discovered by Viet Nam Veteran B.G. Burkett and published in his book, Stolen Valor, some are made up by wannabe’s drawing on easy tax dollars that would be better spent on real Combat Veterans with real wounds.

In my time since returning home from Viet Nam I have met a few wannabe’s also. War Stories they tried to convince me of were laughable to me, but to a gullible public, who can’t see adaptations of a screenwriters work before them, easily accept the “stories” and end up feeling sorry for us, when we don’t need pity. We are not victims but for the most part, are people who had a sense of duty and honor to country and willingly placed ourselves between America’s enemies and the civilian populace that scorned us.

Today’s Military is All Volunteer and they too are not victims, but heroes, warriors, just as those who went before them. They are not deserving of the scorn we received and if we that did actually serve in Viet Nam have anything to say about it, they won’t receive the widespread scorn we did.

Like us, today’s Veterans do not expect to be worshipped, just a simple thank you and acknowledgment of the sacrifice they made in their youth to protect your freedom. That is the least America can do for those that fight to protect her from enemies, foreign and domestic.


Thursday, September 13, 2007

When Democrats Acted Like They Supported America

Cross posted to Take Our Country Back

September 13, 2007

We have all listened to the heavy partisan rhetoric coming out of the Democrat party for some time now. It’s always Bush this and Bush that, as long as it is amounts to denigration of the President and his administration.

Ever since President Bush won the bitter recounts in Florida in 2000 and won the Presidency, in one form or another he has been under attack by Democrats, who have shared no expense or effort in undermining him and by extension, the War on Terror.

Constant calls for resignations, bashing of the Troops, belittling Cabinet members, endless investigations wasting millions of dollars of our taxes, creating scandals where none exists, all the way down to cleverly calling a highly respected Four-Star General a Liar, the onslaught has lasted and shows no signs of letting up. Indeed, it would appear to be increasing in intensity as news of the Troop Reinforcement shows signs of success.

Hard to believe that it wasn’t this way, once, for a few days. Democrats lined up behind the President and actually praised him, but it was short lived. Calls they made during that time have been forgotten as were pledges made by them. The show of unity they swore to the world fell by the wayside quickly as the thought of re-grabbing political power by once again portraying a war we were involved in, and they voted for, as well as those involved in fighting it glowed brightly before the then minority Democrat party, out of power for a few years after holding majority power for some 40 years.

Below I quote some of today’s powerful Democrats from early in the Bush term, the day after we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history. Just compare what they said then to what they say today and see how politics is what matters most to them.

“We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not.”

“I have expressed my strong support for the President. Not only as the Senator from New York, but as someone for eight years who has some sense of the burdens and responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of the human being we make our President. It is an awesome and an often times awful responsibility for any person. I know we are up to it. I know we are ready for it. And I know every one in this body represents every American in making clear we are united and stronger than ever.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9288.

“I commend Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense for his efforts yesterday and for staying on the job while the Pentagon was burning. I know there were probably those on his staff and elsewhere who urged him to leave. I presume they made a good case for it. But I admire the fact that Don Rumsfeld stayed on the job yesterday to be with the men and women who were there the injured, those who lost their lives, not to mention those who are fighting the blaze and trying to bring that incredible scene under control.”

“The words ‘‘an act of war’’ have been used. I agree with that. We need to respond to this and to build the kind of society to sustain our democratic values, which we have embraced for more than 200 years, through trials and tribulations.”

Senator Christopher Dodd, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9291, S9292.

“As an American, make no mistake about it, we did wake up in a new world in America. It is a new era…”

“Yes, this was a 21st century Pearl Harbor but a little different because they aimed at civilians, as they know our military is too strong. They are ultimately cowards and bullies…”

“First, we are a resilient nation. We don’t take anything on our knees. We will not take this. I assure the enemies of America, the enemies of freedom, the enemies of progress, of that.”

“As with Pearl Harbor, we are affected directly. Unlike Pearl Harbor, there is no name or ZIP Code or address… But the one common thread is this: If we stay as resolute as we did after Pearl Harbor, we will win this war. We can and we will, if we keep our resoluteness.”

“We cannot go back to business as usual. We will not win this war against those who seek to destroy our very way of life in a day or in a month or even a year. It is going to take several. If we are resolute, we will succeed.”

“They have their weaknesses and their pressure points. I was glad the President said we will not only go after the terrorists but those who harbor terrorists.”

“I was proud to speak to the President yesterday. I assured him something, and I think I speak for all of us: partisanship. Divisions are out the window. He will be our leader. He will come up with a plan. We will have advice and offer suggestions. But once that plan is arrived at, we will unite.”

Senator Charles Schumer, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9285, S9286, S9287.

“Yesterday firmly establishes in my mind that the major threat and No. 1 national security problem facing the United States is the asymmetrical attack, the unconventional and unpredictable horrific act of terrorism.”

“I don’t believe America can be a paper tiger in response. I think the United States should spare no effort to uncover, to ferret out, and to destroy those who commit acts of terrorism, those who provide the training camps, who shelter, who finance, and who support terrorists. Whether that enemy is a state or an organization, those who harbor them, who arm them, who train them, and permit them must, in my view, be destroyed.”

“We Americans are a resilient, a determined, and a patriotic nation. We will not lose the spirit that makes us the greatest democracy on Earth by going after terrorist’s full scale. We have always been ready to respond in defense of freedom. And now that challenge is before us in a manner, shape and form that offers unprecedented challenges. We must respond.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9306, S9307

“We in Congress stand united in our resolve to ensure that President Bush has every necessary resource as he leads our great Nation forward in the coming days and weeks and months. I am very confident that every Member of the Senate views this as an American issue. No party affiliation, no partisanship, no attempt to gain political advantage—nothing—will erode our solidarity or undermine our united resolve as we respond to protect our country and our people.”

“We will do everything in our power to support President Bush in his efforts to ensure that those who have done such evil and perpetrated these despicable acts do not go unpunished.”

“As we mourn the loss of our fellow Americans, we must focus on the task ahead. Yesterday’s barbaric attacks against the United States were not just acts of terror; they were acts of war perpetrated by the uncivilized.”

“Moreover, I stand firmly with the President on this crucial point: Those who aid and harbor perpetrators of terror must also be held accountable. Make no mistake about that, they will be.”

“When diplomacy and economic sanctions fail, as they do on occasion, our resolve to fight terrorism must not waiver. We must use military force in the war against terrorism—and not just in response to terrorism but also to prevent future attacks.”

Senator Harry Reid, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9285

“A further reality is that no one could have undertaken this very well planned, and regrettably well executed, terrorist act without an extensive network, without a place in which to plan it that was within earshot and eyesight of some country, without some people who, by their inaction at a minimum and their complicity, allowed this to occur.”

“Today, as it has for 212 years, the U.S. Congress has convened. Two miles down Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush sits in the Oval Office leading the executive branch and the country in a wide-ranging investigation to find those who committed these barbarous acts…”

“I would be dumbfounded if you did not see black faces, Asian faces, Hispanic, every race, and every religion standing in that line. They stand united in support of the President of the United States, as do all of us here in the Senate.”

“Let there be no doubt that the United States and civilized nations of the world will unite and win this struggle.”

Senator Joseph Biden, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9289, S9290

“I commend President Bush for his leadership in this extraordinarily difficult time. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with him… From time to time, from issue to issue, the votes in this Chamber are divided, but when it comes to defeating terrorism and hate, the Senate will not be divided.”

“We need to do more to root out terrorism in the countries where it is tolerated, funded, and harbored, and the world can rest assured that we will.”

Former Senator John Edwards, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9312.

“But it is also critical that all of us remember, as we talk about responses, and war against terrorism, that our rhetoric be matched by our actions. If indeed there is a war against terrorism, I remind my colleagues that in a war the first shots are never the last, the first strike is never the worst.”

“What happened yesterday was terrible and horrendous, but we must prepare ourselves and steel ourselves for the possibility of worse until we achieve our goal. And to do that we have to be more prepared than we are today, and we have to take the fight wherever we need to, and in ways that we are, frankly, not yet prepared.”

“I will say, from personal experience, when you are in a war, you do not throw money at the enemy; it’s bullets or other actions that are real. We cannot guarantee that some fanatic is not going to find a way to upset civilized order. But we can guarantee that anyone facilitating or associated with such an act will pay the highest price.”

Senator John ‘F’in Kerry, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9299, S9300.

“Franklin Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, the day Pearl Harbor was attacked,” a date which will live in infamy.”

“Almost 60 years later, Americans face such another day and challenge to our democracy. Just as the people of this country became united in World War II, we must unite against the cowardice of evil and terrorism. As our leaders said this morning: We stand here not as Republicans or Democrats, we stand together.”

“We will be supportive of our President, our institutions and of each other because a challenge to our freedom is going to be answered by the strength of our democracy. Trial by fire can refine us or it can coarsen us. If we hold to our ideals, then it strengthens us. Our people, our values, our institutions are strong. President Roosevelt spoke of the arsenal of democracy. That arsenal— our ideals, our values, our freedom, our community, our humanity— sustains us and propels us forward. As much as our military weaponry these ideals are the arsenal of democracy.”

“Let nobody outside our shores have any question about this: Americans are united. All the free world, all civilized nations, all caring people will join together at this difficult time.”

Senator Patrick Leahy, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9296, S9297.

“In that context, I want to mention two elements of resolve and two cautions. The first resolve is that, obviously, this situation is almost certain to require military action. As a number of people have said today, this is not about simply bringing people to trial or finding a legal standard. I agree with those who say that these were ‘acts of war.’”

“As one who has frequently questioned our military intervention and the wisdom— for example, our intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia, whether we really went about it the right way—this situation is different. It requires a strong and aggressive military response when we are able to determine exactly who we should be going after, and I understand we are pretty close to being certain of that.”

The second resolve relates to the suggestion by some that perhaps the
American people will grow weary of our involvement in the Middle East and our concern about the Middle East.

“We will not retreat from our commitment to peace in the Middle East and, more specifically, we will not reward these terrorists by reducing one iota our support for the State of Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East, which is our steadfast ally militarily and otherwise. If those who committed these deeds believe this is the way to destroy Israel or destroy the link between our two nations, they have just made a very large mistake.”

Senator Russ Feingold, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9318

“This is a massive tragedy for America, and we must make clear that our national resolve will not be weakened. Our country has been tested and tried in the past, and we have always emerged stronger and wiser. We will do so again now. America’s commitment to the values of freedom and justice has not been shaken in the past. It will not be shaken by these acts of terrorism.”

“I commend President Bush for his strong statement last evening about finding and punishing the perpetrators of this atrocity. Those who murder American citizens must have no safe hiding place, and those who shelter terrorists must be punished as well. America will do everything possible to apprehend the perpetrators and to identify and punish those who give them aid and comfort.”

“Just as the Pearl Harbor attack galvanized the American people in their resolve to prevail in the war against fascism and tyranny, I am confident that yesterday’s attack on the American people will galvanize our citizens and strengthen our spirit to prevail in the ongoing war against global terrorism.”

“It is tragic that these criminals were able to succeed in carrying out the most brutal terrorist attack in history on American soil. I pledge to work with the President, the Congress, and the families of the victims to seek answers to the many questions that exist, and to do all we can to strengthen the security of our people and to prevent such atrocities in the future…”

Senator Edward Kennedy, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9314, S9315.

“Our fury at those who attack innocence is matched by our united determination to protect our citizens from more terror and by our resolve to track down, to root out, and to relentlessly pursue terrorists and those who would shelter or harbor them.”

“The President, last night, spoke for all Americans and all civilized people everywhere about his commitment to recover, to deter, and then to root out and destroy the terrorists.”

“Debate is an inherent part of democracy. And while our democratic institutions are stronger than any terrorist effort to shake them, in one regard we operate differently in times of national emergency. We set aside our differences to join forces together, with decent people everywhere, to seek out and defeat a common enemy of the civilized world.”

“Our unity is unshakable, and, God willing, we will persevere and prevail.”

Senator Carl Levin, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9302.

“The light that shines in America is going to be relentless when it is turned on those who have declared themselves our enemies. The dark forces that perpetrated these acts ought to make sure today that they are in their hiding places because we are going to come after them. The blinding beam of our determination and the long arm of the United States of America is going to expose them and extract justice.”

“Our entire Congress stands united behind the President of the United States and against our enemies and against those who would shelter them. Our whole Nation stands together with a very clear intention: To endure.”

Senator Ron Wyden, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9305

“We will stand behind our President as he brings our law enforcement, military, and intelligence forces together to find these murderers and their allies. And as he takes the steps necessary to demonstrate clearly to all the world that terrorism against our nation will not be tolerated.”

Senator Maria Cantwell, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9310

“Many Americans are fearful today. They are fearful for the future of their homeland, their communities, their families. We do not deserve to live in fear.”

“I dedicate myself, as a Member of this body, as an American, as someone who has seen combat and who has lived in fear, to make sure that I rededicate myself to the task remaining before us:”

“That we will work out, with the President of the United States and this administration, every aspect of a plan to rid ourselves of international terrorism and to work with other nations, other civilized nations, other nations committed to democracy and opportunity that believe in the four freedoms as we do, to work out with them, in coordination with them, an assault on terrorism.”

“Yesterday was a declaration of war by terrorists on this country. This resolution we pass today in a unanimous fashion is, in my opinion, a resolution of guts and courage that this body sends forth, that we declare war on international terrorism.”

Former Senator Max Cleland, September 12, 2001, Congressional Record, S9308.

Were these words spoken six years ago sincere? If they were, you surely can’t tell by words spoken today by many of the same.

Where has that resolve gone? Where has that unity gone? Where has that spirit to defeat terror and go after it wherever it is gone? Why has it been replaced by deep divisions and empty rhetoric, all for political gain?

Democrats, don’t you care about supporting and protecting America any more?


Monday, September 10, 2007

Viet Nam Memorial Wall Defaced, Spetember 7, 8 2007

Words fail me that someone would be so low as to actually deface something honoring our War Dead.

It is time to wake up and realize we are in the Second American Civil War. The left cannot be allowed to continue establishing a new Soviet Union in the unites States of America.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Democrats Fear Petraeus More Than Bin Laden

Jackie Mason lays it on the line. "Get rid of them or devoid the Democrat Party."

Pre-Emptive Attacks On General Petraeus and His Report.

Cross posted to The Autonomist

September 9, 2007

As we all know, General Petraeus is prepared to give the report to Congress on progress, or lack thereof, to Congress that required it. In what I can only call the left's pre-emptive strike against him and expecting there to be good news and progress in that report, all stops have been pulled out today to dengrate not only the report, but the man that Democrats in the Senate unanimously chose to lead our Troops and give the report they demanded.

Sen. Joe Biden today said, "I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong."

How much time has Biden spent with the Troops in Iraq?

In another interview, Sen John 'F'in kerry chimed in with his usual, "I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them. But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

CNN Reports that the far left George Soros funded group,, is preparing an ad for the New York Times saying, "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday asked Democrat Dianne Feinstein about attacks on General Petraeus' credibility and she replied, "I don't know what he will say. You can be sure we'll listen to it. But I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

Readers comments left on the CNN site aren't as diplomatic saying, "It's becoming clear that General Petraeus represents the military wing of the Republican Party."

"Remember Colin Powell! That's enough for me to question Petraeus's credibility!"

"General Betrayus will be out of a gig when this war is up. The longer the war, the higher his popularity and book and speaking fees will be. You can rest assured that is what this report will be based on."

"Just the fact that Petraeus and Crocker are going to do an exclusuve hour-long special with Britt Hume on Faux Snooze Monday after the report is given should tell you something. This lovefest ought to be something."

Obviously the left is afraid of General Petraeus's report, so they must seek dilligently to discredit it before it is given in true Bolshevik style to destroy any support for President Bush or the Troops fighting this war.

Pete Hegseth, Iraqi War Veteran and outspoken spokesman for Vets for Freedom said, " has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: 'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'"

Is Political Power so important to the Democrats and the left that they will once again work so hard to sell out, not only the Troops, but once again sell out a struggling ally as they struggle to gain the freedom we enjoy?

Apparently so!


UPDATE: The Republican party needs to grow some balls like this lady displays in the House. Rep. Jean Schmidt

The Incredible Naiveté of Dr. Ron Paul

September 9, 2007

Remember back when we offered up serious contenders for the office of President of the United States? Once was the time that wishy washy candidates like Jimmy Carter or Ron Paul we laughed out of any serious contention.

As we know, Democrat Jimmy Carter went on to win the Presidency in 1976 and by the time he was replaced in 1980 by Republican Ronald Reagan, the country had slid into trouble, especially that starting of the current wave of Radical Islamist Jihadists desiring to rule the world under their misguided interpretation of Islam’s Holy Book, the Qu’Ran.

Another potential Jimmy Carter is vying for the Republican nomination in the 2008 election, self professed lifelong Libertarian, Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas’s 14th District. Dr. Paul is the lone anti-war candidate vying for the Republican nomination out of a field of candidates that see the necessity of fighting the radical Jihadists that have continually attacked our foreign interests and us for nearly three decades now.

In the past, Dr. Paul came under fire for an article that appeared in his newsletter, ‘Ron Paul Survival Report.’ The 1992 article bearing his name claimed President Clinton had fathered illegitimate children, used cocaine and called fellow Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article advocated government lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults saying, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." His newsletter also claimed that "only about 5 percent of blacks had sensible political opinions," and "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," adding "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Much later, Dr. Paul admitted the words were in an article in his newsletter with his name attached to it, but said he didn’t write them, someone else did and it did not represent his views.

If I were serving citizens as a prominent Representative and publishing a newsletter, I would ensure what was sent out was representative of my views so voters in my district knew who and what they had voted into office. To me, it is incredibly naïve to allow a newsletter under my name to be sent out with no idea of what was in it, only to have to later have to try to slither my way out of what was published under my name.

In 2001 and again in 2007, Dr. Paul introduced legislation authorizing the President to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal as a tool to combat terrorists.

A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an archaic facility written into our Constitution way back when that basically allowed Congress, when we had a small Military, to “hire out” agents to go after those who may have committed violations against us and our laws. European nations had this ability long before we were formed as a nation, resulting in what we today often call ‘Pirates’ or ‘Privateers.’ Today, one might refer to them as ‘Bounty Hunters’ or even ‘Mercenaries.’

In 1856 European nations, like France and Britain, abolished their use with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Crimean War. America was not a signatory and did not ratify that treaty, leaving them legal in the U.S.

Although legal, would their use be practical today, as Ron Paul thinks?

To me, no, they wouldn’t. First of all, in regards the Letters of Marque and Reprisals, our Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11, “The Congress shall have Power to … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Therein lies the first problem for Paul, an admitted staunch Constitutionalist. His legislative proposals would grant the President, through Congress, the authority to issue such Letters of Marque and Reprisals. Our Constitution only grants Congress that authority. Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in 2002 said,

“Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one's citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President's responsibilities under the Constitution.”

Even if Paul’s proposed legislation were to be modified and only Congress were to grant ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” can you imagine the worldwide outcry above and beyond what we now hear? The left and even Paul himself have bellyached about breaking “international Law” in this current war. In the September 5, 2007 GOP Primary Debate, Paul said, “We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law.” If the war is illegal under international law, what do you think hiring bounty hunters to enter sovereign nations to seize, intercept, detain or kill individuals who committed acts of war against us would be considered?

And, what would these bounty hunters accomplish against the rest of Al Qaeda and radical Jihadists groups like them?

How naïve would it be for a President to “outsource” our security to hired guns faithful only to a reward of money? They are guns for hire and loyalties lie with whoever pays them more money. Could wealthy Muslims like bin Laden or Zawahiri counter offer the hired guns Paul proposes and turn them back against us, or against the President?

The left and many others cry today about “atrocities” committed by our Professional Troops. Would hired guns, mercenaries, be more cautious in regards ‘collateral damage? I think not. To get the target, my money says they would kill anything in their way.

Thinking on it, can you imagine someone like Wayne ‘The Dog’ Chapman traipsing around Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tora Bora seeking to blend in with locals to even get close to bin Laden?

I cannot think of anything more naïve for someone thinking they could be President to propose than the outsourcing of the security and protection of our nation to bounty hunters and mercenaries.

Paul additionally whined in the recent debate, “This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today.”

I’m surprised that man of his supposed caliber would stoop to such a misrepresentation of the words of one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin. If someone as blue collar and common as me can so easily discover the truth of the quote “Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security,” why is that it so readily escapes one as learned as Dr. Ron Paul, in his tenth session of Congress? Could a man who doesn’t understand the meaning of the words our Founders left us be trusted to properly lead the country today? I think not!

Paul wrapped his whining up with cry of, “We have -- we have a national ID card on our doorsteps, it is being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus. We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on. That's un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.”

Everything he whines about has been found to be legal and in the case of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, constitutional. In the case of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

If he cannot see that public safety comes before battlefield detainees supposed right to a speedy trial, he is even more incredibly naïve than I ever thought.
Rabid Paulites who blindly fall in behind someone like Paul, mostly, in my personal estimation, because they are afraid that one day they may be called to fight these radical Jihadists who threaten us. They cry they would fight if our shores were breeched and we were threatened at home.

What the hell do they think happened on September 11, 2001?

Were we to pull back and follow the isolationalist policies advocated by Dr. Paul and were soon invaded again by roving sleeper cells of Muslims radicals or others, I doubt these rabid cowards would stand up then, either. My money says they would cry it is someone else’s job or try to make deals with the radicals, just as did the Quakers who would not join in with protecting the frontier of the Pioneer Front from roving murderers that prompted the above quote often given by them from Benjamin Franklin.

Dr. Ron Paul is just too incredibly naïve to ever be trusted with the reigns of leadership over the Free World.


UPDATE: A Brit adds his comments seeing Ron Paul as a phony who does not deserve the GOP nomination The Clue Is In The Party

Will Ron Paul Now Convert To Islam?

September 9, 2007

In the debates held in South Carolina this past May, Dr. Paul was quoted, “I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it…”

Two days ago, September 6, Usama Bin Laden released a video addressing all of America. In that video he states, after castigating Democrats for their ineffectiveness and Republicans for their devilishness, "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped.” Towards the end he adds, after telling us we cannot win and he is willing to continue escalating to kill us, and speaking of the prominence the Muslim Qu’Ran places on Jesus and Mary, "To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - ie., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life.”

My question to Dr. Ron Paul, since he encourages us to “listen to those who attacked us,” is, will you be the first to now convert to Islam, Dr. Paul?

Bin Laden’s latest communiqué mirrors many of your own calls, Dr. Paul, so are you listening? Are you ready to accept the “invitation” for “peace?”


Saturday, September 08, 2007

The End Of America? In Ten Easy Steps?

September 8, 2007

Rising early this morning and turning on Fox and Friends Saturday I viewed a brief “interview” with a Naomi Wolf, left-winger noted for writing a couple books “warning” us about the evils of the traditional America most of us have loved for years. She was hawking her newest endeavor, the book “The End of America,” outlining ten steps the Bush Administration is using to instill a dictatorship on us.

Sensing the usual left-winged, kool-aid sipping, tin foil hat wearing rants I have come to expect from the Socialist left, I embarked upon discovering just what these ten steps were and if there is any truth in her claims. What I am about to write is not to be misconstrued as a review of her book, as I don’t intend to waste my hard earned cash on yet another ‘blame America first’ rant, but a review of these ten steps she outlines. Just who dreamt up and compiled the list is unstated, leaving me to believe she did it herself.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

Arguing that the President, after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, had the Patriot Act pushed through Congress with members having little chance to “debate it,” Wolf condemns passage of the act some 43 days after 9/11. It should be noted that there was one lone dissenting vote in the Senate, Russ Feingold (D. WI). I don’t know about you, but 43 days after a major attack upon our soil doesn’t sound all the rushed to me. As I recall learning in history class, we were attacked on December 7, 1941 and Congress voted to Declare War the very next day, again with one lone dissenting vote.

We won that war and thrived afterwards, even though several sacrifices were made, habeas corpus was constitutionally suspended, liberties were restricted and our enemies of the time were demonized in print, radio and movies.

On the other hand, today just who is being labeled as an enemy? Who is it we are constantly told is out to destroy the liberty we love? Who is it we are always told is causing America to be hated? Who is it being demonized today? Is it not the ‘Vast Right Winged Conspiracy” we continue to hear of?

We are repeatedly told that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others decided for war even before Bush won the 2000 elections, that he stole that election, that he started the war to enrich his oil buddies and even that he conspired to cause and bring the 9/11 Terrorist attacks to American soil. And now, Ms. Wolf reminds us that Bush is leading America towards Fascism.

She, like the rest of the left, neglects to recall or mention the increasing terrorist attacks against American interests since the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. Instead, they divert your attention to their political opponents as they work diligently to undermine both the current administration and our Troops as they fight this enemy that has been fighting us for nearly 3 decades.

Listening to the left, it is they who have invoked a terrifying enemy, George W. Bush and the Republicans in general.

2. Create a gulag

Gulags are defined as, “1. A network of forced labor camps in the Soviet Union. 2. A forced labor camp or prison, especially for political dissidents. 3. A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp.” Of course, the “gulag” she alludes to is our prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and anywhere else terrorist suspects have been held and, as she puts it, “Where torture takes place.”

The excesses of a few at Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad are often cited as “proof of torture,” neglecting that trials were held, convictions were won and sentences were imposed. Also neglected and unmentioned are the out of balance beheadings of civilians and mutilation of bodies of our Troops and civilian workers abducted by terrorists.

As for “secret prisons,” Ms. Wolf leads us to believe that everyday average America citizens are being snatched off our streets and sent to these prisons. Her kool-aid induced delusion ignores that only the most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information were selectively targeted for this program and even then were "carefully controlled and lawfully conducted."

Results of the “carefully controlled” program have been the disruption of terrorist networks and no terrorist attack upon American soil in six years. Results of the interference in, misrepresentation of and publicizing of the program have been a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and emboldening of terrorists in Iraq.

In the effort to convince readers that innocent Americans who may disagree with the administration are being snatched in the dead of night to be sent to “secret gulags,” Ms. Wolf also ignores that several have been released from Guantánamo, at the urging of the left, with many returning to the battlefields to kill more American Troops and others fearful of leaving and being returned home to face real abuse and torture.

3. Develop a thug caste

Here Ms. Wolf tries desperately to convince us that the Bush administration has hired “mercenaries” to “terrorize citizens.” While it is true that some of the work traditionally performed by our Military in wars past, has been passed over to hired civilians, she neglects to state that we have been left with a severely down-sized Military in comparison to past wars.

In citing “thugs” firing on innocent unarmed civilians after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and “Groups of angry young Republican men menacing poll workers counting in Florida in the 2000 election (which was prior to Bush even being elected), Wolf ignores that the storm ravaged Gulf region after hurricane Katrina was very susceptible to gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13 due to the hiring of many outsiders to rebuild the region and the lack of manpower available to established Police and Sheriff personnel. Initially, these “thugs” were hired by business owners and wealthy persons desiring their property to be guarded from looters and gang members.

If Wolf’s argument is that our Military should be doing the Policing of this zone, she should study the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which substantially limits the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement. Had President Bush imposed Martial Law in Louisiana and placed Federal Troops in charge of Police, can you imagine the outcry that would have ensued over his innapropriate conduct then? It would be our Troops being denigrated as “armed thugs” had he done that.

I question the quote of “one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city.” If true, why was this man not reported to the Police and prosecuted? That I recall, one group of Private Security Guards did fire on “civilians,” but they were gang members that first opened fire on the guards. The incident was duly reported to both the Police and the Military in the area and considered justified.

Claims of voter intimidation in the 2000 Florida election have been discredited, but that doesn’t prevent the kool-aid sipping left from crying about the “jack-booted thugs” of the right preventing Socialists from “winning” elections.

Not mentioned by Wolf or the leftists seeking Socialism in America is the “disenfranchisement” of overseas Military personnel whose ballots were challenged and not counted due to efforts of the leftist Democrats who used technicalities to deny our Troops their right to vote!

Unmentioned also are groups of leftists who storm stages, induce near riots, send nasty letters and emails to celebrities and businesses who show public support to the President or protesters who burn effigies of our Troops or defecate on a burning American flag, as was done in Portland, Oregon in March of 2007.

The identity of the real “thugs” apparently escapes Ms. Wolf.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

Ms. Wolf tells us here that a New York Times article “revealed” a secret state program to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions. We are led to believe that the Bush administration imitates Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist East Germany and Communist China where secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbors to spy on neighbors.

To quote a respected American General, this is pure Bovine Scatology!

She is of course referring to the NSA Eavesdropping program that has listened in on overseas calls and emails between terrorists and persons within the U.S. Gross misrepresentations of this program and public revelations of it have interfered with it’s effectiveness at discovering potential terrorist attacks within the country.

Applying it to everyday regular citizens has been an irresponsible report of an effective program essential to protecting human life in America and elsewhere. From the beginning it was narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at Al Qaeda and related groups.

On the other hand, Ms. Wolf selectively once again ignores that the authority to eavesdrop under these circumstances has been legal for sometime now and has been used by past administrations to combat crime and terror. Up until the time of President Bush utilizing the program there has ben no outcry at all.

Under the Clinton administration, a domestic eavesdropping program, Echelon, was called a “necessity” by the same media that condemned the Bush administration of utilizing a far more restrictive program.

Ms. Wolf does not address the “necessity” of one administration utilizing the program and the “condemnation” of another suing it. Perhaps she is agenda driven to mask who it is we really need to be leery of?

5. Harass citizens' groups

Wolf would have us believe that “innocent” protesters and those opposed to the Bush administration are regularly exposed to harassment and infiltration of their groups to undermine them and counter their opposition to the imposition of the new Fascism Bush and Republicans are bring on to America. She goes on to say that peaceful political activities of such groups as animal rights activists are being listed as "potential terrorist threats.”

Funny, but I don’t ever recall President Bush or any other Republican ever crying about a Vast ‘Left-Winged’ Conspiracy.

The “animal rights groups” she alludes to aren’t all the peaceful, either. We have groups such as the animal-rights/liberation (ARL) movement, Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and more than have increased their “activity” to the point that respected groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center began scrutinizing their activities. Joined by the environmental group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), groups have employed "death threats, fire bombings, and violent assaults" against those they accuse of abusing animals.

In Britain, the drug-testing facility, Huntingdon Life Sciences had one managing director was badly beaten by three masked assailants swinging baseball bats, while another executive was temporarily blinded with a caustic substance sprayed into his eyes.

Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College said in an October 2003 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, “It is a sick era when "environmental terrorist" is a label used for people who destroy Hummers and fight urban sprawl…” Apparently, the “professor” has no problem with the wanton firebombing and arson of other people’s property, so long as it is not his.

Maybe there is good reason these “peaceful political activities” are now under the scrutiny of anti-terrorist groups.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

Wolf almost touches some truth here, almost. Of course she lists a couple of extreme cases of names showing up on a Terrorist Watch List wrongfully. The list, estimated to be some 325,000 in all, most likely does have a few innocent names on it, as is not unusual when dealing with the bureaucratic red tape we have come to see in government.

That does not mean it is deliberate nor does it mean that innocents remain listed or are targeted simply because they disagree with the administration. In the case of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney that the FBI mistakenly linked to fingerprints found on a plastic bag in Madrid, after the train bombings there. The mistake was rectified within a couple weeks, Mayfield was released and made the usual accusations of Islamophobia and promptly sued the FBI in true fashion, gaining $2,000,000.00 of our tax dollars for his “inconvenience.”

Once again, though, she neglects incidents of those women who accused the former president of sexual misconduct of being audited for the first time by the Internal Revenue Service, while he was still sitting in office. Can we assume they were ‘mistakenly’ audited when it was every single one of them as well as groups who were considered as “political hostiles” to the left?

7. Target key individuals

Referencing a lone and unidentified CIA contract worker, a lone Military Lawyer and eight US Attorneys fired by the administration, we are to believe that the Bush administration is targeting “key individuals” who disagree with them. In the fashion of Mussolini, Joseph Goebbels, Chile's Augusto Pinochet and the Chinese communist Politburo we are told by Wolf that “pro-democracy students and professors” are constantly being “punished” for not coordinating with the Fascist Bush!

Maybe she feels that the firing of Ward Churchill over plagiarism, false claims on his application to Colorado University and outright lies was unjust?

Completely ignored by Wolf is the steady drone of accusations and calls for the resignations of President Bush, Vice-president Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Security Advisor and current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove and several other actual “key individuals” of the Bush administration, by prominent members of the Democrat party and their willing accomplices in the left leaning mainstream media.

Perhaps she is so busy stretching her imagination to claim the perfectly legal firings of eight US Attorneys for not properly performing their jobs of prosecuting illegal immigrants and government corruption that she fails to notice the pre-emptive effort at discrediting the upcoming report to be given soon by General David Petraeus, the Commander of US Forces in Iraq, as demanded by the leftist Democrats in Congress.

8. Control the press

We are told of a couple incidents of a blogger arrested by local Police for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war protest and a reporter who had a “criminal complaint” filed against him for filming “victims” of Hurricane Katrina as proof of the out of control Bush administration. Laughingly, she even claims the totally discredited liars, Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson as being “punished” for opposing Bush in his quoting of a British report of Saddam Hussein trying to acquire material for building nuclear weapons from Niger. If she hasn’t noticed, no one has ever been charged with any misconduct towards the Democrat operatives and the only prosecution was of L. ‘Scooter’ Libby, not for “outing” of Plame but for perjury in that his memory wasn’t the same others.

On the other hand, one news network, Fox News, strives to actually present both sides fairly and they are continually castigated by the left to the point that key Democrat candidates for president in 2008 refuse to appear at a debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus because they planned to have Fox News air it. Their refusal is due to extreme pressure from far left kook groups such as Democratic Underground, DailyKOS, and such.

Additionally, we are hearing the call for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” for Talk Radio where conservative voices are predominant. That is the only avenue that right-winged voices are dominant and left-winged pundits cannot drown out. So, they now demand a “Fairness Doctrine” to counter that one source of right-winged information.

Wolf claims “journalists” and staffers of Al Jazeera and CBS have been drug off to harsh prisons in Iraq by US Forces and even fired upon by our Troops. In true left-winged fashion, she cannot refrain from some bashing of the Brave Troops that place themselves between our enemies and us.

In the fog of war innocents are mistakenly hit, in spite of every effort to avoid it. Still, if you were hit by an I.E.D. in an ambush and as you exited your destroyed vehicle, stunned and bleeding and saw a film crew that had prior knowledge of the ambush and who didn’t warn you, wouldn’t you be a bit incensed?

We are at war with a very brutal enemy and personally, I have no use for a media that will give the words of our enemy precedence over the word of our Troops and who willingly film ambushes of American Troops when they had prior knowledge of the ambush but refused to report it to our own people so they could “get the story.”

9. Dissent equals treason

Only a blame America first leftist could classify the publishing of classified material used to discover planned attacks us as anything less than treason. But, what is what Ms. Wolf does. Of course, she compares it to “dissent” and “criticism.” It is not! Revealing State Secrets knowing they are useful and are saving American lives and helping in the war is treason, plain and simple.

Supporting your countries enemies isn’t “dissent.” Try that in nations like Iran and North Korea or Cuba and you will see how they treat and respect “dissent.”

If Wolf’s concern were true, would she be allowed to publish this book? Wouldn’t she and many others who daily cry about all the abuses of the Bush administration have disappeared already?

No Ms. Wolf, masking “treason” as “dissent and criticism” is what is wrong and reprehensible.

Referring back to steps 6 and 7 we can see how those she prefers to be in power handle opposition to their agenda.

10. Suspend the rule of law

After pillorying President Bush for not acting fast enough to relieve beleaguered New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed and Bush signed what is known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The outcry from the left over this and that coming from leftist Democrats like Patrick Leahy would lead one to believe that life and liberty as we know it has ceased.

Of course, they neglect to ever mention the stringent conditions that must be met to impose martial law in the U.S., even under this new bill, or that subsequent Presidents, even if Democrats, would hold the same power in case of National Emergency.

Critics and Bush haters like Wolf cry that it violates the Posse Comitatus Act mentioned earlier when in reality it does no such thing. The bill, as “an act of Congress,” complies with the Posse Comitatus Act.

Wolf continues to claim, “our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.” In this, she is correct. Our liberties of Freedom of Religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from excessive taxation, freedom to cater to the clientele a private business may desire, freedom to purchase and drive the vehicle you desire, to eat the foods you wish, to own and build on your own private property, to freely speak without fear of repercussions, to raise your children with the values you desire, to tap our own natural resources, to be employed without forced membership in Unions, to seek the medical treatment you desire and many more freedoms too numerous to list are assaulted daily. But, not by the Bush administration, by the Socialist Leftists like Naomi Wolf and those like her.

Ms. Wolf was hired by the 2000 Gore Campaign to “target female voters” at a salary of $15,000 a month. Apparently, her expertise was no better there than in this book and article and as we all know, Gore lost and not by the election being stolen from him.

What Wolf and others like her in their ‘Bush is Hitler’ mode fail to see is that if what they claim were true, would they be able to make these outlandish claims and go on public television and radio to express them, freely without their own fear of repercussions? No!

Like leftists throughout history, Wolf is the one to cry wolf!