Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

No, Dinner-jacket, if you didn’t believe that a large chunk of the U.S. was stupid enough to listen to your bullshit and you didn’t think someone soon will do something about your quest for nukes you would not have felt that “urgency” to “dialogue” with the citizens of the U.S.  About that crack regarding “the many wars and calamities caused by the U.S.?”  Of all of the trouble spots around the world there is ONE unifying and common factor between all of them and guess what?  It is NOT the U.S. Military.  It is the muslims.  People like you.  People that believe islam has some “divine mandate” to take over the world.  If you are going to write us a letter PLEASE keep it FACTUAL.

>> Read more

Said Kender @ 4:42 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

First, let me get this out of the way:  A very large number of members of the muslim religion DO want to take over the world.  They want their law in place and enforced by government agencies.  If you don’t believe that, feel free to stick your head back in the sand.

Now, Always on Watch has outlined one way they’re doing that in England.  They are instituing Sharia law.  They ARE forcing their religion on everyone else.  But they’re not stopping there.  FrontPage Magazine and The Washington Post highlight an area of Maryland where Muslims are gathering.  These are relatively peaceful muslims, in that they’re not openly beheading their opponents (yet).  Instead, they’re trying to work within the American system to take it over.  And yes, they’re working with Democrats.

The problem is that their system of law is simply not permitted in this country under the Constitution that formed this country– or is it?  Now, they, with the aid of terrorists in CAIR, are trying to claim anything that prevents them from instituting their law in America is a supression of their religion, which they claim under the First Amendment.  So we have a rather unique situation.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Therefore, based on that text, muslims claim they are free to exercise their religion.  And their religion requires them to “behead those that insult Islam.”  In addition, there are dozens and dozens of laws that need to be enforced by government, in order for them to exercise their religion.

However, this conflicts with Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Well, they simply overcome that idea by having “elections.”  You know Saddam was “elected,” don’t you?  That’s where Democrats and Republicans are moving with Gerrymandering, and the muslims are moving right along with them.  Both the muslims and the Democrats agree that if the majority vote for no freedom, then you get no freedom.  After all, there is no higher power in their minds than government.

So, what’s to stop Maryland and Dearbornistan from insituting Sharia law if they simply vote it in?

>> Read more

Said Ogre @ 4:25 pm Comments (15) | Permalink   

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Its that time of the year again. The time when the intolerant grinches like the ACLU start trying to fill their stockings with your tax dollars in their attempts to secularize Christmas. The ACLU try their best to deny their attacks on Christmas. They call those defending Christmas the well organized extremists out to make a buck in the guise of defending Christmas. This is of course false. The Alliance Defense Fund, just like last year, are offering their services to defend Christmas completely FREE! However, the lies continue again this year as the ACLU denies their attacks on Christmas. However, their actions speak louder than their words. Already the ACLU have began their attacks. They have already been successful in bullying the Berkley City Council into moving their Christmas nativity scene off public property. This, despite the fact that the display also included other religious and secular elements including a Star of David, Christmas trees, a Santa Claus figure, a Santa’s Mailbox, and a “Seasons Greetings” sign. In their latest attempt to censor Christmas they have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. because their Christmas program includes “Christian themes and songs.”

The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate.

The ACLJ is defending the school in this case. The ADF has a long list of attacks on Christmas from the ACLU and its allies dating back from 2002 to the present. Yes, its that time of the year again. The season that I get bombarded with emails encouraging people to waste their money on a stamp for a Christmas card wishing the ACLU a merry Christmas. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the sentitment behind the whole thing. I was all on board last year. If you really want them to have a Merry Christmas, or just feel like throwing your money away I won’t discourage it. It will be about as effective as barking at the moon. Your Christmas cheer will be tossed in the mail room shredder and never reach any those you intended to send a message to. I propose that your money could be spent in a much more efficient manner. Save the money you would throw away on the stamp for a message destined to fall on deaf ears. There are many organizations out there fighting to protect Christmas and the expression of its true meaning. Why not take the money you would be throwing away on a noble yet ineffective gesture, and put it to real use as a gift to the organization of your choice that is out there fighting the ACLU? See how you can help at Stop The ACLU

Said Jay777 @ 12:08 am Comments (4) | Permalink   

Schumacher Furs has been doing business in downtown Portland, Oregon for 112 years — but not for much longer. After an intimidation campaign that has lasted for months, animal rights thugs have managed to drive it away.

The situation is familiar to anyone who has lived in a city with a large moonbat population: sanctimonious kooks with far too much time on their hands single out a business upon which to focus their general hatred of civilization. They set up camp on the sidewalk, heckling and intimidating anyone who tries to go in the store. The police do nothing unless there is actual violence. Eventually the business is forced to close up shop, and moonbats can rejoice in their victory over economic productivity.

In addition to picketing Schumacher Furs, a cult calling itself In Defense of Animals has threatened the owner and his family. There have also been bomb threats against the store. Says the owner:

I don’t feel safe entering my own store.

He is not revealing the new location of his store publicly, except to say that it will be on private property so that moonbats can be kept away.

What will be next, after progressives have driven furriers out of business? Eight people were killed when Al Sharpton and friends decided to go after Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem for being owned by a Jew. Maybe moonbats will decide to firebomb hardware stores for selling American flags.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Said Van Helsing @ 1:22 pm Comments (17) | Permalink   

Or, Why Scaremongers Shouldn’t Predict the Weather.

Image from Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” attempting to make the connection between global warming and increasing hurricanes.

The 2006 Hurricane season ends officially on Thursday, November 30. It will go down as one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record. Good news for coastal residents like myself who faced anxiety or in some cases extreme loss in the previous season. Compare the maps of storm tracks from this year with last year. Quite a remarkable difference.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Readers may recall that at the beginning of the hurricane season alarmists took to the airwaves to insist that this year could be as bad as the previous year, or worse. Take a look back at the hurricane forecast from “Accuweather:”

One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center Forecasts Potential Ripple Effect for All Americans

May 15, 2006-The AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center, led by Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi, today released its 2006 hurricane season forecast. An active hurricane season appears imminent, which could have major repercussions for the U.S. economy and the one in six Americans who live on the Eastern Seaboard or along the western Gulf of Mexico.

For the 2006 Hurricane Season-which traditionally runs from June 1 through November 30-Bastardi and his team are forecasting that six tropical cyclones will make landfall in the U.S. Five of these landfalling storms are likely to be hurricanes, with three being major hurricanes of Category 3 or greater. …

“There are few areas of the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico that will not be in the bull’s eye at some point this season,” said Ken Reeves, AccuWeather’s Director of Forecast Operations. Ironically, though, the region that was hammered the hardest last year-the central and eastern Gulf Coast-has one of the lower probabilities of receiving another major hurricane strike in 2006.” …

How the 2006 Hurricane Season Will Compare to the 2005 Season Following on the heels of 2005’s record-shattering hurricane season, 2006 will feature fewer storms, but will still be a season of above-average storm frequency.

Well, they sure blew that one didn’t they?

But the weather forecasters were not alone. The shrieking high priests of environmental scaremongering used the unusually bad hurricane season of 2005 to launch another salvo in their bid to impose socialist economic principles on the United States masquerading as environmental science.

They lined up to insist that manmade global warming was the cause of the unusually bad hurricane season of 2005 and that we are all doomed unless we agree to their radical prescription for change. This same flawed reasoning was parroted by Democrats who have always had a weak understanding of science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went so far as to blame President Bush for the severity of Hurricane Katrina.

Let’s not forget the protestors who demanded the resignation of Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center because he and other serious climate scientists refused to endorse the scaremongering of “environmental” (socialist) activists.

Strong arm tactics haven’t stopped with Hurricane Center scientists. Richard Linzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT writes of a chilling campaign against scientists who fail to worship at the global warming altar:

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Opinion Journal
Wednesday, April 12, 2006

…Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. …

In 1992,[Al Gore] ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. …

 Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

The real alarming trend here is the active campaign to politicize science and punish scientists who commit the heresy of pursuing scientific research which questions the validity of global warming baloney.

One wonders if the scaremongers who blamed President Bush for the increase in violent hurricanes will now apologize? Don’t hold your breath.

Also posted at Mike’s America

Said Mike's America @ 10:57 am Comments (7) | Permalink   

Now here’s a post after my own heart.  mmmm.  Pheasant.

Said Cao @ 7:31 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

Time for the Christmas season and carols like “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men.”  Well, except in the middle east where the terrorist muslims continue to lie and kill their way to peace.

Yet AGAIN, the terrorists that call themselves Palestinians have lied.  They claimed they wanted peace.  They asked for peace.  They agreed to peace.  The next day, what did they do?  Fire rockets and kill people.  Why?  Because that’s what they do.  Israel continues to say that they will not retaliate and will restrain themselves.  One has to ask, “Why?”  What good does it do?

Yes, if Israel responds, the “world opinion” will be against them.  Well, that’s better than being dead, isn’t it?  Look folks, when muslims, terrorists, and Palestinians say “peace” they mean everyone ELSE should stop the killing, NOT them.  They will not stop until they are dead, as bad as that is.  It’s not my choice.  It’s not what I think they should do — but they didn’t ask me.

Terrorists will continue to kill until they are dead.  It really is that simple.

Said Ogre @ 5:21 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

One week ago tomorrow, the father of a friend of mine was brutally murdered at his home. He had gone outside to confront a burglar who was stealing from his boathouse. He fired some shots into the air, and the thief fired one of the homeowner’s own shotguns into his chest. The criminal then reloaded, and hit him with a second shot.

I should note that the victim was an excellent marksman, had won a spot on the U.S. Olympics team in 1952 for his shooting skill, and had won many awards for shooting during his lifetime. He could have easily killed the criminal, but saw no need to take a life over a few trifles — he merely wanted the man to drop what he’d taken and leave his property. The criminal had no such inhibitions, and my friend’s father lost his life.

This seems to be what is happening in Iraq. We are faced with lawlessness there, but in offering only a limited response, we’re putting ourselves and others at risk. The massacres in Sadr City this week are proof of that.

There’s no doubt in my mind that we could stop the violence if we would stop being so politically correct in the prosecution of this war. We haven’t had a declared war since World War II, and we’ve had all-too few instances of victory since that time:

• The Korean War ended in a cease fire, and the Korean Demilitarized Zone remains the most heavily armed border in the world
• The Vietnam War ended with U.S. politicians and peace-mongers abandoning South Vietnam to corrupt politicians and an overwhelming North Vietnamese force (who can forget the pictures of the last helicopter out of South Vietnam?)
• As part of the multi-national force in Lebanon, our part ended in 1984, shortly after the bombing of the Marine barracks the year before
• The invasion of Panama resulted in Manuel Noriega being deposed
• The first Gulf War resulted in Iraq’s defeat and forced withdrawal from Kuwait, but allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, leading to the Iraq War
• The war with Afghanistan resulted in the overthrow of the ruling Taliban, but the situation there remains volatile, with coalition forces still subject to bombings and other attacks
• The outcome of the Iraq War is still very much in doubt, as the situation is even more volatile than that in Afghanistan

With our technology, firepower, intelligence, and political will (which seems to be sadly missing at this point), we could easily overcome the problems in Iraq, but it seems as if we’re just “firing into the air” in many ways. This is not the fault of our service members stationed there, but rather of the politicians and possibly the operational planners who designed the force requirements and didn’t see the insurgency/civil war until it was way too late.

Are we to forever condemn our service men and women to ignominious defeats because we lack the political will to kill enough people and break enough things? Has it become a part of the national character that if we cannot overwhelm and subjugate a population within weeks that we must then retreat without further effort?

We’ve lost fewer combatants in this war than we lost in the invasion of Normandy, and that was just getting ashore and solidifying our positions over the following weeks, not liberating an entire country from a murderous dictator.

If we don’t develop the political will to do whatever it takes to win wars, we tell our enemies we are not to be taken seriously. If it’s worth losing one single life in a war, then that war is worth winning.

TD

Said tdillard @ 3:02 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

Liberty and morality walk hand in hand. And when they don’t, there’s trouble.

Contrasting orthodox religion with new age versions making their way around the globe, orthodox religion looks upon mankind as blessed, but also tempted. We all stand in the need of prayer and moral instruction; which should be applied in all areas of our lives, whether it be in business, at home with our sons and daughters, at school, in art or literature. These are all places where ‘right and wrong’ should be given separate identities.

Today give solemn thanks to our Creator for all that we’re blessed with; in the tradition of our forefathers. For even in times of strife, sacrifice and suffering, there is a greater plan.

Newt Gingrich said it well in the Real Meaning of Thanksgiving:

Said Cao @ 7:51 am Comments (2) | Permalink   

From the Artwork Submitted for “I LOVE AMERICA” Art Exhibit & Patriotic Rally

The leftists complaining and lamenting over the deaths of our soldiers and marines in Iraq is increasing to a fever pitch. They’ve shown up at the funerals of soldiers and marines, protesting the war, as if the families had something to do with the war. It just amazes me the screwed up mentality of these people.

In response, jcrue has a calm and reasonable in response. Take a look at his post:

Although every death is regrettable, let’s put things into perspective.

People who sign up understand the ultimate sacrifice they may have to make, and willingly do so. As Captain David Rozelle said:

“How do you feel about your freedom? If you aren’t willing to die for it, then you aren’t American!”

And he also said this in an interview with NRO:

NRO: If there was only one thing Americans could know about the enemy, what would you like it to be?

Captain Rozelle: They are cowards that hide behind women and children. We will destroy them.

Said Cao @ 4:38 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU From a Liberty Counsel email:

From Mat Staver Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel Jay, I just received wonderful news that Sen. Sam Brownback is urging his colleagues to allow a vote on the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA)–a measure that sailed through the House 244-173. Passage of PERA would eliminate the awarding of attorney’s fees to groups challenging the constitutionality of displays on public property. Groups like the ACLU have made millions of dollars using the threat of monetary awards to intimidate officials into removing Ten Commandment monuments, Nativity scenes, crosses, or the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. ++ Emergency Petition Presentation Announced! Jay, Sen. Brownback and others believe there is still time to pass PERA before Congress adjourns. That is why I am announcing an emergency petition presentation to Sen. Brownback’s office during the first week of December! I would like to present the Senator with a minimum of 150,000 petitions supporting PERA, but I need your help! Over the next two weeks I am asking members of our Liberty Counsel team to do two very important things: ++ Action Item #1–Alert Your Friends To reach our 150,000 goal, I am counting on your help in getting our message to your friends and family. Please forward this message to 25-30 friends urging them to be a part of this presentation by adding their name to our petition: Click here to sign: ++Action Item #2–Contact your Senators While Sen. Brownback is appealing to his colleagues to allow a vote on PERA, you can do the same thing by calling your Senators and urging them to support a vote on PERA. To contact your Senators, call the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Jay, passage of PERA represents an important step in defeating the ACLU. That is why it is so important that you rally your friends to be part of our upcoming petition presentation, and call your Senators! Thanks so much for standing with Liberty Counsel! From Mat Staver Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel

This bill is a very important and much needed peice of legislation. While it has an uphill battle to pass this Congress, if it is left to the upcoming Congress it is sure to die out. Take action now and contact your Senators to support PERA.

Said Jay777 @ 8:58 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Well, now, here’s a bit of news you’d think would qualify as ‘good’:

Date-rape drugs may not be as prevalent as first thought, research has found.
An Association of Chief Police Officers study has found many victims of sexual assault may have just been very drunk.
Of 120 cases from November 2004 to October 2005, it said 12 were suspected drug-assisted assaults - but none was linked to the date-rape drug Rohypnol.

… So this will please the feminazis? After all, they had been living in fear of a veritable legion of perverts stalking women with date-rape drugs. Now that’s been disproved, surely the sisterhood will be breathing a huge sigh of relief?

Campaign group Women Against Rape said the study was “unhelpful” because it was already difficult for women to prove they had been assaulted.

Come again? How on earth is the fact that women are safer now than previously thought ‘unhelpful’? Because if what it takes to ratchet up the conviction rate is the peddling of an urban myth, well, hey, the sisterhood are perfectly happy to see the truth distorted?

Though, of course, it’s hardly surprising that feminazis are feeling peeved about the loss of Rohypnol as a propaganda tool — After all, these are the people who’ve built entire careers out of peddling outrageous lies and distortions. Here’s one that many, otherwise sensible, people actually buy into:

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, told Today the research “hasn’t told us anything that we didn’t know already and the effect is really just to try to put the blame on women again.

This is the standard line leftists and femiloons alike run with whenever the subject of rape crops up. Only, here’s the thing: No one is actually saying this.

Like that other, great, leftist fantasy — that the majority of the white working-class are just itching to slaughter non-whites in an orgy of racist violence — the idea that vast numbers of Brits think women ask for, deserve or are to blame for being raped is sheer nonsense.

Why this point needs making, why it matters, is because of Hall’s next move:

“There is a lot of moralism about women drinking that doesn’t apply to men. People don’t think that when a man gets drunk he should expect to be raped, but when a women drinks, it is heavily used against her in court.”

Well, obviously, Hall’s a good leftist, and must therefore run shrieking from any kind of ‘moralism’ faster than a vampire from sunlight. But. Still. Are people really arguing that women who drink themselves insensible (and in Britain, many thousands do) ’should expect to be raped’? Isn’t it closer to the truth that most of us feel that downing twenty vodkas is likely to push a woman straight into the highest-risk category for all kinds of crime? And isn’t the advice that they avoid such behaviour a little lighter on ‘moralism’ and heavier on crime-prevention?

But, of course, any kind of sober debate on risk-reduction is lost on Ruth Hall. She is, after all the kind of person who regards the absence of an epidemic of drugged and raped women as an ‘unhelpful’ fact. Add to this her apparent insistence on the sisterhood’s right to binge-drink and pass out in the street (you know, as opposed to advising women to avoid high-risk behaviours for their own protection), and it’s difficult not to conclude that the effect, if not the intention, of Hall’s ravings is that if there really aren’t hoards of perverts armed with Rohypnol, the left’s fallback position should be for women to just drug themselves.

You could never lose money betting on the sheer lunacy of these people.

(Hat-tip House of Dumb)

Said RottyPup @ 12:59 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

One of the biggest problems facing illegally-imprisoned U.S. Special Forces soldier Jack Idema has always been the issue of ‘plausible deniability’; that is, the willingness of a few, extremely courageous, individuals to work without the ’safety net’ of their country’s support should they be captured. If this does happen, such men fully expect to have their own governments deny all knowledge of their missions, and to find themselves treated no better than common mercenaries or criminals. Moreover, soldiers serving in this capacity expect to allow themselves to be tarred with this brush; to maintain their government’s secrets and take a fall rather than reveal the nature of their (fully-sanctioned) covert missions.

These are the risks that Jack Idema, and the many others like him, accepted in their work during the War On Terror. They do so because they realise that, without the ability to put skilled soldiers and agents in situations where they are not ’supposed’ to be, no war can be effectively prosecuted.

However. ‘Plausible Deniability’ refers to how a soldier’s own government react to his capture by an enemy power. No soldier serving under such circumstances should expect his own government to collude with an enemy in his arrest, torture and imprisonment.

Honour, you see, has to cut both ways.

If we expect an honourable silence from our Special Forces soldiers, then our governments should, at least, not actively betray them for political gain.

This is, of course, something that those of us who’ve campaigned on behalf of Jack Idema have always accused the U.S. State Department of having been guilty of — That when it was politically-expedient to do so, they not only denied all knowledge of the mission they sent him on, but also, and shamefully, assisted the U.S.’s enemies in arresting, torturing and imprisoning Jack and his men.

So far, however, Jack Idema’s has been the only voice raised in protest against these shameful games of realpolitik, played by effete careerist diplomats, and with brave men’s lives. This week, however, that all changed:

Days later in a dingy room he had electrodes attached to his feet. “Admit you’re an American spy,” snapped the sinister general interrogating him.
“I shouted ‘I’m not… F***!’ The pain as the current went through me was excruciating,” says Berry. His torture went on for six months during which he was caged in a dark 4ft by 8ft cell with an earth floor and no bed or toilet.
When he attacked an officer and tried to escape, he was kicked to a pulp by other guards and then whipped across the back with a metal cable.
“I don’t know how long this beating went on, but I lost consciousness,” says Berry. He was so badly beaten he ended up in hospital where, at last, British Embassy officials visited him.

This, disturbing, extract comes from the recently-published account of one, Colin Berry, a British agent who found himself cut-loose in a manner similar to Idema.

For Berry, the ‘embarrassing’ situation the U.S. and Britain wished to cover up by feeding him to the Islamofascist wolves was that he survived an assassination attempt by killing his two would-be murderers.

For Jack Idema, the ‘embarrassment’ was that he arrested an ‘ex’-Taliban terrorist with too much political clout.

Only, here’s the thing: Do we really believe that the likes of Colin Berry and Jack Idema are expendable? Assets to be thrown aside whenever they become only slightly inconvenient? Or do we take a stand against the kind of people who think electro-torturing our own troops for minor political gain is the way we should fight wars?

>> Read more

Said RottyPup @ 12:56 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

Smokey mentioned here yesterday that the Draft has once again been proposed by Charlie “I know better than you” Rangel. Various people and blogs are talking about the draft. Fox News has it on the front page. Senator Graham (??-SC) has said he doesn’t support the draft unless we really need it, but we don’t because we have an all-volunteer force which is fine except we don’t have enough troops.

And Michelle Malkin says that this is nothing more than a political game and that the so-called draft proposal (which doesn’t really have anything to do with the military because it’s to include forcing volunteers to get paid for working at schools) isn’t going anywhere.

Is it?

I think this proposal may have more of a chance of passing than people think. You see, at it’s heart, the proposal that ‘ol Charlie is putting on the table is really a government giveaway. He’s trying to find a way to give more government money away to young people who volunteer to work (for pay) in schools and hospitals. He’s trying to create employment — and in today’s world, that’s the #1 job of government.

And while the official Democrat position is to cut and run from Iraq, what need would there actually BE for a military draft? After all, if the Democrats are reducing troop count, what would all the new conscripts do? I’m sure they can find somewhere in the world to send them with blue helmets and my money and food.

Sure, Charlie might be putting this out there as a political ploy, but with a House run by Nancy Pelosi and such strong-worded Republicans in the Senate as Lindsey Graham, don’t be surprised if this somehow sneaks past everyone before the press even notices. Then one has to wonder whether Bush would really veto this sort of bill. He’s tired, I’m not sure he’d notice it, either.

Said Ogre @ 10:44 am Comments (6) | Permalink   

It seems that once again the draft is on the table in Congress. Again, being introduced by Rep Charlie Rangel D-NY, there is a measure mandating military service for Americans. The previous attempt was a mandate for Americans between 18 and 26, but the new measure would be for all Americans between 18 and 42 (I’m pretty much right at the mid point of that bracket), and while I am not saying that I would not serve, I am compelled to ask if we really NEED a draft. The last time the draft was used was during the Vietnam War (and it WAS a war, not a “police action”), and we all know about that, don’t we? I also wonder about another claim by the DNC, that they will “double the size of the Special Forces”, but how is that possible without lowering the standards? Well, I can only say that I will watch this closely, and I am waiting for the cries of “the Republicans want to draft your sons and send them to war”.

Also blogging about this

GM’s Corner

Voice of the Pacific

Big Dog

Cross Posted at Smoke Signals Blog

Said The Smoke Eater @ 7:04 pm Comments (2) | Permalink