An Iran declaration of war!

 Amusing  Comments Off on An Iran declaration of war!
Oct 312005
Notice the location of the USA in the bottom of the hourglass.

The speech by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad at the “World Without Zionism” conference contained some chilling text that was left out of the Main Stream Media’s account of it.

Why haven’t we seen this?

What the N.Y. Slimes left out.

 Amusing  Comments Off on What the N.Y. Slimes left out.
Oct 292005

Michelle Malkin has an story about what the N.Y. Slimes left out in reporting the death of Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

On Wednesday, the NYTimes published a 4,625-word opus on the “2,000 dead” milestone–a “grim mark,” read the headline–on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here’s an excerpt from the Times’ passage about Cpl. Starr:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents’ home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ”I kind of predicted this,” Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ”A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”

Last night, I received a letter from Corporal Starr’s uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story–and the parts of Corporal Starr’s letter that the Times failed to include:

Yesterday’s New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey’s story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: “If we (Americans) don’t do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can.”

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: “Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what’s going on. It would honor Jeffrey’s memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

Mr. Lickness also told me: “Even more than a Marine, Jeff was a man of God. At a recent memorial service at Camp Pendleton for the 16 Marines from his unit killed in Iraq we got to meet the men who were with him when he died. They told us of his bravery under fire, his leadership, his humor and his humanity. America lost the best it has, but the family knows he’s with his Heavenly Father and we will see him again.”

Now you know what the Times left out. Now you know the rest of Corporal Starr’s story.

You can pay proper tribute to Corporal Starr here.

More about Corporal Starr from his uncle

Thank God for men like him.

As for the Times, what do I always say? It’s always more informative for what it leaves out than for what it puts in.

The real abuse at Club Gitmo.

 Amusing  Comments Off on The real abuse at Club Gitmo.
Oct 242005

The real abuse at Gitmo is not being reported in the “Main Stream Media”. There is an article at that details the abuse the guards are taking from residents of “Club Gitmo”!

While we observed absolutely no evidence of torture of prisoners at Gitmo, it is clear that the daily atmosphere is rife with harsh abuse: The prisoners are constantly assaulting the guards.

Our young military men and women routinely endure the vilest invective imaginable, including death threats that spill over to guards’ families. All soldiers and sailors working “inside the wire” have blacked out their name tags so that the detainees will not learn their identities. Before that step was taken the terrorists were threatening to tell their al-Qaida pals still at large who the guards were.

“We will look you up on the Internet,” the prisoners said. “We will find you and slaughter you and your family in your homes at night. We will cut your throats like sheep. We will drink the blood of the infidel.”

That is bad enough, but the terrorist prisoners throw more than words at the guards. On a daily basis, American soldiers carrying out their duties within the maximum-security camp are barraged with feces, urine, semen, and spit hurled by the detainees. Secretly fashioned weapons intended for use in attacking guards or fellow detainees are confiscated regularly.

When food or other items are passed through the “bean hole”–an opening approximately 4 inches by 24 inches in the cell doors–the detainees have grabbed at the wrists and arms of the Americans feeding them and tried to break their bones.

When guards enter the cells to remove detainees for interrogation sessions, medical visits, or any number of reasons, detainees sometimes climb on the metal bunks and leap on the guards. They have crammed themselves under the bunks, requiring several guards to extract them. Some have attacked unsuspecting soldiers with steel chairs.

Determined to inflict maximum damage, detainees have groped under the protective face masks of the guards, clawing their faces and trying to gouge eyes and tear mouths.

Keep in mind that our soldiers–young men and young women–are absolutely forbidden from responding in kind. They are constrained to maintain absolute discipline and follow humane operating procedures at all times, at risk of serious punishment.

Hell… these bastards get better treatment than someone housed in the French prison system!

Proof that we are winning the War on Terror.

 Amusing  Comments Off on Proof that we are winning the War on Terror.
Oct 132005

Zawahiri’s letter lays out al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq and the world. It demonstrates al Qaeda’s growing unpopularity, its weakness and its vulnerability to American intelligence.

Now is not the time to cut and run as the liberals suggest!

Showing Weakness

 Amusing  Comments Off on Showing Weakness
Oct 102005

While Bush was detailing the threats posed to the free world by Islamic radicals, 90 members of the U.S. Senate were voting on some sort of a bill to place limitations on how American troops can treat these terrorists once they’re in custody. I think that an argument can be made that there should be no limitations on how those trying to keep us safe can keep a terrorist in captivity., Pull their damned fingernails out if you have to in order to get information that can save innocent lives. Screw them. They’re walking around in civilian clothing with bombs hidden under their coats. They want to kill as many women and children as they can. Don’t send them a message that they’ll be treated as honored guests once they’re captured.

I agree with Neil Boortz on this one.

Harriet Miers a decoy? Shh… don’t tell anybody.

 Amusing  Comments Off on Harriet Miers a decoy? Shh… don’t tell anybody.
Oct 042005

There is something fishy about the nomination of Harriet Miers. Come on, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are happy with this pick! Is George W. Bush setting everybody up?

Here is my prediction. Harriet Miers may not make it to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush may have not even intended for her to get there. She may be a well chosen decoy. I say lets sit back and watch the liberals and conservatives destroy her while making themselves look bad in doing so. Maybe, after the side show is over, Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right – will not dare to behave badly over, again.

How many times has he run circles around the Democrats?

A Great Reagan quote.

 Amusing  Comments Off on A Great Reagan quote.
Oct 032005

I was reading a list of Ronald Reagan qoutes and thought this one applies to the current situation.

“The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas – a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.” Ronald Reagan

Bush has 64% Approval on the war.

 Other  Comments Off on Bush has 64% Approval on the war.
Oct 032005

Contrary to the media’s coverage of the “War on Terror”, just 23% belong to Anti-War Movement This is from the Rasmussen Reports.

23% Belong to Anti-War Movement

September 28, 2005–Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans consider themselves part of the anti-War movement. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 61% say they are not part of that movement. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of Democrats say they’re part of the anti-War movement while 40% are not.
Just 7% of Republicans identify themselves as part of that movement along with 26% of those not affiliated with either major party. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 55% of unaffiliateds say they are not part of the movement.
Earlier surveys have found that 38% of Americans favor bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq at this time. The gap between this number and the 23% who are part of the anti-War movement may have to do with perceptions of the movement on other issues.

Overall, 57% of Americans believe most members of the anti-War movement are politically liberal. Among those who are not part of that movement, 68% see its members as liberal. This includes 44% who believe most members of the anti-War movement are very liberal.

In a nation where only only one-out-of-every-five people see themselves as politically liberal, this perception of the movement limits its appeal
The single most distinguishing characteristic of the anti-War movement is a dislike of President Bush. Ninety-one percent (91%) of those in the movement disapprove of the way the President is doing his job. That figure includes 83% who strongly disapprove of the President.
Among those who are not part of the anti-War movement, 64% give the President their Approval.
Just 9% of those in the anti-War movement say the U.S. economy is in good or excellent shape. Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s in poor shape.
Among those who are not part of the movement, 42% rate the economy as good or excellent and 24% say poor. (Rasmussen Reports measures perceptions of the economy on a daily basis.)

Fifty-two percent (52%) of those in the anti-War movement have a favorable opinion of the United States. Thirty percent (30%) have an unfavorable opinion.
Among those who are not part of the movement, 84% have a favorable opinion of the United States and 10% have an unfavorable view.
Related surveys have found that Americans are divided as to whether the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror or a distraction from it. Just 40% of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Rasmussen Reports was the nation’s most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry’s vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During Election 2004, was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

The antiwar movement!

 Other  Comments Off on The antiwar movement!
Oct 012005

Charles Krauthammer has one of the sharpest minds. He has a good artical over at Townhall on the antiwar movement.

“Harry, what the hell are you doing campaigning for that crippled son-of-a-bitch that killed my son Joe?’ (Joseph P.) Kennedy said, referring to his oldest son, who had died in the war. Kennedy went on, saying Roosevelt had caused the war. Truman, by his later account, stood all he could, then told Kennedy to keep quiet or he would throw him out the window.” — “Truman,” by David McCullough, Page 328

WASHINGTON — A large number of Americans feel deep and understandable unease about the war in Iraq, and want nothing more than to pull out. But the antiwar movement is singularly disserved by its leadership, such as it is. Its de facto leader is Cindy Sheehan, who catapulted herself into that role by quite brilliantly exploiting the media’s hunger for political news during the August recess, and by wrapping herself in the courage of her son Casey, who died in Iraq. Her loss and grief deserve sympathy and respect. However, Sheehan believes that it entitles her to special standing in opposing a war in which her son served, about which he (as far as we know) expressed no misgivings, and for which he indeed re-enlisted.

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times claims that Sheehan’s “moral authority” on the war is “absolute.” This is obtuse. Sheehan’s diatribes against George Bush — “lying bastard;” “filth-spewer and warmonger;” “biggest terrorist in the world” — have no more moral standing than Joseph Kennedy’s vilification of Franklin Roosevelt. And if Sheehan speaks with absolute moral authority, then so does Diane Ibbotson — and the other mothers who have lost sons in Iraq yet continue to support the mission their sons died for and bitterly oppose Sheehan for discrediting it.

The antiwar movement has found itself ill-served by endowing absolute moral authority on a political radical who demanded that American troops leave not just Iraq but “occupied New Orleans.” Who blames Israel for her son’s death. Who complained that the news media went “100 percent Rita” — “a little wind and a little rain” — rather than covering other things in the world, meaning her.

Most tellingly, Sheehan demands withdrawal not just from Iraq, but from Afghanistan, a war not only just by every possible measure, but also remarkably successful. The mainstream opposition view of Iraq is that, while deposing the murderous Saddam was a moral and even worthy cause, the enterprise was misconceived and/or bungled, too ambitious and unwinnable, and therefore not worth expending more American lives. That is not Sheehan’s view. Like the hard left in the Vietnam War, she declares the mission itself corrupt and evil: The good guys are the “`freedom fighters” — the very ones who besides killing thousands of Iraqi innocents, killed her son too.

You don’t build a mass movement on that. Nor on antiwar rallies, like the one last week in Washington, organized and run by a front group for the Workers World Party. The WWP is descended from Cold War Stalinists who found other communists insufficiently rigorous for refusing to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Thus a rally ostensibly against war is run by a group that supported the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan; the massacre in Tiananmen Square; and a litany of the very worst mass murderers of our time, including Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. You don’t seize the moral high ground in America with fellow travelers like these.

For all the Vietnam nostalgia at the Washington march, things are different today. In Vietnam it could never be plausibly argued that Ho Chi Minh was training commandos to bring down skyscrapers in New York City. Today, however, Americans know that this is precisely what our jihadist enemies are pledged to do.

Moreover, Vietnam offered a seeming middle way between immediate withdrawal on the one hand and staying the course on the other: negotiations, which in the end did in fact take place. Today there is no one to negotiate with, no middle ground, no even apparent plausible compromise. The only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq or to call an abject retreat that not only gives Iraq over to the tender mercies of people who specialize in blowing up innocents, but makes it a base of operations for worldwide jihad.

The very fact that Cindy Sheehan and her WWP comrades are so enthusiastic for the latter outcome tells you how difficult it will be to turn widespread discontent about the war into a mainstream antiwar movement.