Saturday, December 4

Thank You Black Watch

I'd like to personally thank the members of the Black Watch for relieving some of our American Soldiers south of Baghdad so they could take the fight to the enemy in Fallujah. Five members of the Black Watch gave their lives while at Camp Dogwood. Words can not express how grateful my country men and I are for their sacrifice.

Story about the Black Watch's move south.

Black Watch Home Page

French Hatred Runs Deep

Bob Novak wrote an interesting article about the French

It reads in part:

One French intellectual described anti-Americanism to me as ''a cancer that is sweeping across the country.'' It may not be as deadly as cancer, but it surely is not healthy for France.

The chronic nature of French hostility toward the United States contradicts claims by Bush's domestic critics that his unilateral policies caused deterioration of Franco-American relations. It is less the United States with a French problem than France burdened with a serious American problem.

On his recent visit to London, Chirac pressed for ''multipolarity'': a return to international rivalries that produced the carnage of the 20th century. He also suggested there was no point trying to repair his country's difficulties with Washington and taunted British Prime Minister Tony Blair because ''our American friends'' do not ''pay back favors.'' Mocking Donald Rumsfeld's designation of France as ''Old Europe,'' he pretended not to remember the secretary of defense's name and referred to him, sarcastically, as ''that nice guy of America.''


It's a sick country whose most important Political issue is how much you can hate another county.

There is some hope in France thou:

The lone potential breath of fresh air viewed by internal critics is flamboyant populist Nicolas Sarkozy, who is resigning as finance minister to seek leadership of France's governing party and then perhaps run for president. Although Sarkozy is unabashedly pro-American, it has not hurt him so far. But his opponent is likely to be Chirac, still waving the bloody American shirt and still hard to beat.


Novak is right, however, Chirac will be hard to beat.

Democracy Wins in Ukraine

From Fox:

The Supreme Court declared the results of Ukraine's disputed presidential run-off election invalid Friday and ordered a new run-off be held on Dec. 26, sparking a burst of cheers and fireworks from tens of thousands of opposition supporters rejoicing in Kiev's main square.

The ruling, made after five days of hearings by the court's 21 justices, was a major victory for opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, who had rejected the government's demands that an entirely new election be held.

And it was a stinging blow to outgoing President Leonid Kuchma and his powerful ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who wants to preserve Moscow's centuries-old influence in Ukraine in the face of Yushchenko's followers' desire to move closer to the West. Only a day earlier, Putin had sharply derided the idea of holding a new run-off.

The opposition had pinned its hopes on the court's ruling in its bid to overturn the results of the Nov. 21 run-off vote, in which Kuchma ally Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner. The opposition said the vote was rigged to cheat Yushchenko of victory.

"Today Ukraine has turned to justice, democracy and freedom," Yushchenko told the throng of supporters...

Al Qaeda's next Target: Europe

Experts are saying that Al Qaeda's next target is likely to be Europe. The experts mention one reason:

Europe's threat is growing from the inside
But there's another reason too. The Terrorists know that, if they attack America, we’ll go after them militarily where ever they are, but as we saw in Spain, Europeans will seek appeasement as the first option.

Friday, December 3

Shut Up Putin

From Yahoo

Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticized the United States on Friday, accusing it of a double-standard in fighting terrorism and questioning whether any election in Iraq can be democratic when fighting is raging in the country.


"Raging" I never thought Putin would join the left wing Propagandists

Putin, who has been angered by U.S. and European denunciations of the Ukraine election as rigged unacceptable, began a three-day visit to the Cold-War era ally with continued criticism of Washington, saying it seeks a "dictatorship of international affairs."


What a hypocrat. He's turning Russia into a dictatorship.

"Even if dictatorship is wrapped up in a beautiful package of pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be in a position to solve systemic problems," -Putin


-cough- Russia -cough-

Tuesday, November 30

Infanticide in the Netherlands

Infanticide is apparently acceptable in the Netherlands now.

A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation


The problem is not euthanasia per say. It's that the child has no choice in the matter. It's like an abortion after birth.

Transvestite day for kids?

It's amazing how low some people's sick minds go. Take this for example:
a grade (and middle) school in Carrier Mills that held an “Opposite Sex” Day in which students were encouraged to come to schools dressed as members of the opposite sex.
Of course you can't mention God's existence in a public school, but let’s dress little boys up in skirts for the sake of diversity.

So the question is which one of these people came up with this idea and who supported it? All those that are involved in this should be fired.

I Got My First Death Threat!

From a little Australian piss ant:

If all americans were like you mate i would agree with OBL, i could even spare a 20c donation for your bit of lead.


He was my first though. I'll always remember him. LOL

Monday, November 29

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Here's an example of what LGFs calls Bush Derangement Syndrome.

From turnyourbackonbush.org:

The election is over. The fight is not.

Elections are only one part of democracy. We need to think strategically about direct action, learn from a rich history of nonviolent activism, and develop new tactics to take on this administration.

Let's start from the start: Inauguration Day.

On January 20th, 2005, we're calling for a new kind of action. The Bush administration has been successful at keeping protesters away from major events in the last few years by closing off areas around events and using questionable legal strategies to outlaw public dissent. We can use these obstacles to develop new tactics. On Inauguration day, we don't need banners, we don't need signs, we just need people.

We're calling on people to attend inauguration as they are: members of the public. Once through security and at the procession, at a given signal, we'll all turn our backs on Bush. A simple, clear and coherent message.


OMG these people are geniuses!!

Can you imagine the conversation that lead to that site?

"Man, Bush sucks, and he beat our guy Kerry. What are we going to do?"

"I got a great idea, man. Let's go out in on freezing cold day and then when we see Bush we'll turn around."

"That's great! It will be like showing him our backs."

"Isn't it great?"

"Yeah!"

"Sweet! Yo man, pass the pot."

Sunday, November 28

Why We Are in Iraq

I found this exteamly interesting article about the War in Iraq and the Left's attempt to revise the history leading up to the war.

"The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders." -- OBL

Their goal was to prevent the United States and Britain from toppling Saddam Hussein. They chanted "no blood for oil"; they called the United States "the world's greatest terrorist state"; they called the American government an "Axis of Evil"; and they compared the American president to Adolph Hitler.

It was the left's rear guard attempt to produce the result that their protests had failed to accomplish: an American defeat in Iraq. With the resources of the left squarely behind him, Howard Dean was propelled to the front of the presidential pack until his nomination appeared so inevitable that just prior to the Iowa caucuses he was anointed by the titular heads of the Democratic Party, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. So leftist had the Party become.
Horowitz is drawing a very interesting nexus here. He is not trying to show that the left and say OBL are meeting in some backroom drawing up plans to attack America, but rather that these to groups have similar interests with respect to Iraq and the War on Terrorism. Namely, they want us to lose.

In the first place, if the charge of "treason" is really an issue, Democrats are clearly the preemptive aggressors. Al Gore has already called the President a traitor, while President Bush hasn't even mentioned Gore's name. So far, the Democrats' attacks on Bush are that he lied to the American people and misled them into war; and that he is sacrificing American youth to line the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton. These are accusations of treason. And there is almost nobody on the left, high or low, who hasn't made them in some fashion or another.
This is an observation that I have had in the past. Liberals through a tantrum went someone even suggests that they are undermining the war, but they see no problem accusing the President of the United States of Treason.

So let's not pretend there is any real threat in the word "treason" that would serve to chill the criticism of current foreign policy. If there were, Michael Moore would be in jail instead of being on the short list for an Academy Award. When leftists complain that their patriotism is being questioned to stifle their criticism, the claim is little more than a red herring designed to stop others from thinking about issues that affect our national security, implicit in the positions they are supporting.
Red Hearing indeed. If people's freedom of speech is being violated, why are there people on the streets with signs that read "BUSH = HITLER"

Treason is really not that difficult to define. Treason is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win...

Michael Moore comes to mind. Moore is on record saying that the terrorists in Iraq who are beheading our citizens and are killing our soldiers are "not terrorists." According to Moore, they are "patriots" and -- in his words -- "they will win."
That fits the definition nicely.

It should be self-evident that these are not people for whom "peace" is a high priority. There were no demonstrations at the Iraqi embassy to get Saddam to disarm, just as there were no demonstrations against the genocide the Communists carried out in Indo-China after America withdrew. The priority of the leftists who organized the anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam and the anti-war demonstrations with respect to Iraq is the same: whatever the war, America should lose.
The Hypocrisy of demonstrating against the US in support of a mass murder is palpable.

Michael Moore is a self-conceived enemy of America. Michael Moore denies that there is a War on Terror. Of course he does. In his eyes, America is an aggressor responsible for the attacks upon itself. America is the root cause of the War on Terror.
Moore and people like him will always be enemies of America. That is how they define themselves as people.

But everyone understands -- or used to understand -- that in time of war there are other considerations that affect (or should affect) the tone of criticism and even the substance. "Loose lips sink ships" was a slogan memorialized on posters during World War II. It was an appeal to Americans to voluntarily restrict their own exercise of free speech to save their fellow citizens' lives. It was a recognition that there are expressions that support and strengthen a democracy at war, and there are those that weaken it and undermine itself defense.

In a war like the present one, where the enemy walks among us and can kill thousands of civilians at a stroke, it is important to recognize the difference between criticism that supports the war effort and criticism that undermines it, even if the actual line between them is not always easy to discern. Some criticism is maliciously intended, and some criticism in itself can constitute an assault on America that weakens our democracy and undermines our defense.

...To portray Iraq -- a country which had invaded two sovereign nations and in which a million people had been murdered -- as Michael Moore did in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, as an idyllic place into which American marauders intruded under false pretenses using their advanced technologies to blow innocent and "defenseless" people to bits is no longer criticism. It is an attack that serves to undermine the authority and credibility of the Commander-in-Chief, sabotage the nation's war on terror, and soften us up for the kill...
There was another reason that dissent was lessened during WWII, namely the government enforced sedition laws so that individuals couldn't make up lies about the war as they do today.

...Among other gestures to the Islamic jihad, Saddam had inserted into the Iraqi flag the proclamation "Allahu Akhbar." Saddam did not adopt the mantra of Islamic martyrs because he had a religious revelation. He did it because Islamic terrorists had adopted the slogan as their war cry and Saddam wanted to join their war.
Amazing how something as obvious as that is ignored by the media as they dismiss Saddam's connection to terrorism.

Among other gestures to the Islamic jihad, Saddam had inserted into the Iraqi flag the proclamation "Allahu Akhbar." Saddam did not adopt the mantra of Islamic martyrs because he had a religious revelation. He did it because Islamic terrorists had adopted the slogan as their war cry and Saddam wanted to join their war.
This is mainly want caused the war in the end. Saddam did think we would attack. So he thought he could do whatever he wanted. He was wrong.

...The only reason we haven't been attacked in this country since 9/11 is because George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have taken the war to the enemy camp.
I think everyone should think about this and try to come up with another reason. I did, and I couldn't come up with any.

But in his book he clearly states that UN resolution 1441 was diplomatic language for an ultimatum of war. The deadline for Saddam's compliance was December 7, 2002. On that date, Saddam Hussein delivered a 12,000 page report that was smoke and mirrors. In his book, Hans Blix himself says that it was smoke and mirrors, that the information submitted was from deceptive reports that Saddam had submitted in the past, that thousands of weapons were unaccounted for, and that it did not in fact fulfill the requirements the Security Council had laid down.
The question is, "How could Blix not support the war?"

In a world in which terrorists have the means to kill 3,000 Americans in one attack, we can't wait around for the enemy to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he means us harm.
This is the guiding principle of foreign policy for a new century.

It is a curious hatred, suggesting that Democrats have collectively flipped their lids in their zeal to win this election. You may say many things about George Bush, but this is a decent, capable man. You may differ with George Bush, but he is not a "moron" or a bumbling incompetent. No one runs a successful national election campaign and a successful presidential administration without judgment that is fundamentally sound. This is a man you can disagree with, but you can't belittle or hate George Bush without those attitudes reflecting on yourself.
The hatred of the President is an interesting thing. It's really self-defeating. It's is an impossible task in a democracy get a majority of people to hate their own leader in a time of war.

The Muslim martyrs in Palestine kill their own children by strapping bombs to them, to 14-year-olds, and telling them if they blow up Jewish 14-year-olds -- and if they are lucky enough to bemale -- they will go straight to heaven and get 72 virgins. They're committing mass murder to get into paradise. That is exactly what the left does. Why does the left want to destroy America? To get into paradise. Call it socialism, call it Communism, call it social justice. It's a dream of paradise that is so enticing it will justify any crime necessary to achieve it.
The logic of the jihadists is impeccable as usual.