Why Democrats will not win 2006, 2008

Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.

How stupid are Democrats? They have been decimated and they don’t even know it! And the sad but true fact is that they’ve done it to themselves again! And because of their hatred for Conservatives and their propensity for lies and deceit they will lose the 2006 and 2008 national elections.

Democrat Senators leaked the NIE report to their allies in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the New York Post and told the papers that the report was proof that the war in Iraq is causing an increase in terrorist.

• Leaked intelligence report says Iraq war is increasing Islamic radicalism
• Democrats say report proves that U.S. war strategies must change
• White House says media reports mischaracterized full report
• Leak comes as terrorism, war in Iraq are top election issues

This was meant of course to show that the war in Iraq is wrong on every level.

Leaking classified information is a crime punishable with prison time. The statutes are on the books, folks. Those who leak classified information and those who publicize it should go to jail but this is an election year and if the leakers are Democrats they are considered Whistleblowers but if Republicans are accused of leaking they are called traitors al a Valerie Plame. (By the way President Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove have been completely absolved of these spurious charges which were advanced by Democrats!)

The latest example: the selective leak from a National Intelligence Estimate – on the war on Iraq. According to the media's version of what was leaked, Americans are less secure now than before Iraq was invaded. It is not inconsequential that this report was leaked just over a month before national elections: In order to challenge these allegations, President Bush as forced to declassify a very sensitive NIE document.

It has been alleged that Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi is responsible for this leak; nevertheless, the intent for this leak was purely political and shows a long sustained pattern of disregard for national security, (at a time of war no less!) for the sake of political gain for those in the Democrat party.

As previously stated, this dangerous act of Democrats playing politics with American secrets forced the President to release a de-classified version of the intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign. But ironically the report refutes the original claims of the Democrats who point to it! The very report exposes those Democrats, and the liberal favoring MSM Papers, as Dan Rather liars who are again attempting to affect the outcome of an American political election by broadcasting unfounded lies about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.

* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."

Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.

This is not the first time Democrats and main stream media have collaborated to hurt the U.S. Iraqi war effort. There was the Abu Ghraib leaked report, a leaked report from the US army’s internal investigations.

There was the Leaked CIA secret prisons information leaked by CIA agency employee Mary McCarthy which bears directly on the way we conduct investigations into terrorism and how we gather terrorist information.

Finally there is the NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program leaked to The New York Times and, first reported by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, which impacts the way in which America protects itself from terrorists plots.

It is not only these Democrat’s leaks that put America’s security at risk, but also out right false Democrat generated committee reports meant to put the Bush administration’s war on terrorism in the most negative light possible.

Jack Kelly reports such an instance in which a report when read is totally opposite of the reported conclusions drawn by Democrats who claimed that the report advises against the war. Kelly reports that after reading the whole 205 pages, he was stunned by the degree to which the "findings" in the body of the report did not support the "conclusions" made by Democrats at the end of it.

Two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine -- joined with Democrats to adopt "conclusions" designed more to abuse Mr. Bush than to convey what committee investigators actually found.

The committee voted, 8-7, to strip from the report this statement by Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks describing an American raid on Salman Pak, an Iraqi base about 21 miles southeast of Baghdad:

"This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between (Saddam's) regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests."

The reference to what was found at Salman Pak had to go because it clashed with the committee's "conclusion" that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaida. Saddam "was resistant to cooperating with al-Qaida or other Islamist groups," the committee majority concluded.

To come to that conclusion, the Democrats not only had to drop Gen. Brooks' statement down the memory hole, they had to ignore a mountain of other evidence of Iraq's links to terror groups

Democrats have undermined America’s war effort in all instances to attempt to show that the Bush administration is not effectively waging productive war against terrorism.

They have leaked information, often classified secret documents, in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people concerning the war in Iraq.

The truth is it is Democrats who have made us less safe from terrorism and terrorists threats not Republicans as they are charging.

The last sad and finally point is that Democrats have proven that they are willing to lose the war in Iraq in order to win the hearts and minds of the American people by turning Americans against the war on terror.

That is the reason why Democrats will lose in 2006 and 2008, because a Democrat win would mean that America would lose. Not only a loss in Iraq but a loss of the hearts and minds that the Democrats are so desperately vying for which would be a lost of the very soul of America, alas the very soul of America would be lost too!

Backhanded Regards to Karl Rove

More on the Chris Wallace Fox news interview where former President Bill Clinton continued to give insight into the political machinations of his mind. In the interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton took time to complement (though tongue in cheek) Karl Rove.

Clinton said that he honors Karl Rove because he is good! Yes good according to the former President. It was like Socrates paying Plato a complement. In that subtle bit of admiration the former President tells a lot about himself. Mr. Clinton shows that he believes it is good to dis-inform the American people to win elections, that’s what he means with that complement to Rove. What else could he mean?

This writer doesn’t think that Mr. Rove is purposely deceiving the American people but apparently Democrats and President Clinton do. Clinton said, “That’s their job their job’s to beat us, I like that about Rove but our job is not to let them get away with it and if they don’t then we’ll do fine.”

What Clinton was referring to is getting away with making the Democrats appear to look like they don’t care about terror or make it seem that Democrats are weak on terror. Clinton seems to think that the Republicans have the power to make Democrats look as if they are not serious about terror and the security of this country. Not John Murtha, John Kerry or any of the Cindy Sheehan Democrats.

The White house and the Republicans want to make the America people afraid according to President Clinton. Not Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or the defeatist Democrats who constantly cry that we can’t win in Iraq.

However here is a key mistake that the former President made in this interview, Clinton tipped the Democrat’s hand by suggesting that the Democrats stacked their political deck with military candidates this time around. Clinton said that Democrats have nine candidates that are Iraq war veterans who are running for house seats. Humm? I wonder if any of them or all are like Rep. John Murtha?

He also bragged that, “We've got President Reagan's secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.”

All of this is to give the appearance that Democrats have a huge military appearance in the 2006 elections. What this means is that the Democrats know that they are weak on defending America and they are adjusting cosmetically to appear strong.

This of course is Democrat transparent election strategy to off-set any Republican advantage on the war on terror as was Democrat’s recent effort to connect with Christians by having Senator Barack Obama invoke his religious beliefs in the media and on the campaign trail.

Clinton then began to outline political the machinations of issues and counter issues which he seems to believe is all a big game of “us against them” a game where it’s who is more successful in framing the political argument before the American people, you know, the Clinton game of spin and triangulation that he “is is” so famous for.

According to Clinton his only worry is that the Republicans may come up with a rhetorical devise that would put the Democrats in a box that they can’t get out of.

See to Clinton politics is all about the spin it’s all one big political game whoever’s deal works just keep on working it. It’s the spin stupid!

Spin, triangulate and frame the argument the way you wish it to be perceived by the America people. That’s the reason the former President was on Fox news Sunday.

This was an attempt to go right into the heart of Conservativism, that’s what Democrats perceive Fox to be, and do damage control on the questions that the movie “A path to 9/11” raised on the way the Democrats handled terrorism for eight years of the Clinton administration and if the other side can do it better than Clinton on framing the argument, then caudles to them from President Clinton.

Even if your name is Karl Rove!

The Orwellian Truth According to Bill Clinton

According to former President Clinton the vast right-wing conspiracy got it all wrong and he’s going to set the record right! President Clinton believes that Chris Wallace was attempting to move his bones in yesterday’s Fox news interview, he also believes that ABC and Fox are a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to defame him regarding what his administration did to prevent terrorism in the eight years of his presidency. And finally Mr. Clinton believes that Richard Clark is the sole authority on terrorism in the world. You got all that? But wait there’s more.

Also President Clinton says that it was the FBI and the CIA’s fault that he didn’t kill Osama bin Laden and Chris Wallace’s interview was a conservative hit job set up to deflect criticism from Rupert Murdock’s support of Clinton’s work on climate change. You believe that? Well if you’re a Democrat you might.

What is so incredible about this exchange is that in the span of four questions Clinton transformed from a cool in control former President into a radical partisan hack, all on the posing of one fatal question, why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business?

Using partisan hack language like neo-Cons and right wingers, language that one would find on any Liberal anti-Conservative internet chat board the former President became argumentative and combative while leaning forward into Wallace as he attempted to defend his administrations failure to deal with terrorism.

Clinton said, “I worked hard to try to kill him (Osama bin Laden), I authorized the finding the CIA to try to kill him we contracted with people to try to kill him I got closer to killing him than any one’s gotten since.”

The former President then went on the attack by impugning Chris Wallace and the Fox networks integrity he said, “You set this meeting up because you’re going to get a lot of criticizisms from your viewers because Rupert Murdock supported my work on the climate change and you came here under false pretenses and said that you would spend half of the time talking about you said you spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise 7 billion dollars plus in three days from 215 different commitments and you don’t care.”

Whew! Then I realized. To President Clinton fighting terrorism is a little like playing football for the Detroit Lions. You know, after one day after Detroit lost 9-6 to Seattle and failing to score a touchdown Detroit wide receiver Roy Williams thought that it was, “ … stupid how close we were to putting 40 points on the board." President Clinton probably thinks that it was stupid just how close his administration came to killing Osama bin Laden!

I’m betting that President Clinton, like Williams, would do well in a game of horse shoes!

It wasn’t the former President’s fault, he authorized the CIA to kill bin laden and the CIA failed.

President Clinton said that he didn’t do anything about the bombing of U.S.S. Cole because the FBI and the CIA did not certify that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the bombing while he was President. Boy those FBI and CIA guys just aren’t doing the job are they?

And though the 9/11 commission report shows that his administration was at fault in many failed attempts to get bin Laden according to Clinton the 9/11 commission report is just a political document. A political document?

The former President said, “ After the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan over throw the Taliban and launch and full scale attack and search for bin laden but we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11 the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there they refused to certify so that meant that I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in in helicopters to refuel at night and even the 9/11 commission didn’t do that, now the 9/11 commission is a political document too.”

So let’s count the excuses. There was the, At least I tried excuse, the vast right-wing Neo-Cons is out to get me excuse, the I got closer than anybody else excuse, the FBI and CIA don’t certify bin Laden did it excuse, the CIA don’t kill him excuse, and the 9/11 commission is a political document excuse. Did I get them all?

So I’m thinking that Clinton like ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey has a truth that is solely his and for him. Mr. Clinton can say in the same fashion of McGreevey, My own personal truth is that I am a President that has done more to try to kill bin Laden then any other President and failed. Now all he needs is for anyone who is not a Democrat to buy his spin.

Hey Oprah you gonna do that interview?

see related story

The Devil, Hugo Chavez and Jim McGreevey

This week Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in the most diplomatic language that he could manage expressed his dissatisfaction with the United States of America.

To a chorus of jiggles and grins from an anti-America United Nations audience Mr. Chavez defamed the United States of America by ad hominem attacks against our president.

On Oprah Winfrey this week disgraced ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was showcased as he self promoted his new book “Confessions”

What do these two things have in common? Why they are two despicable men, two despicable acts. There was a time that despicable human conduct was frowned upon but today it’s celebrated, adored and put before the world.

In a world with standards Hugo Chavez’s speech would have been shouted down and he would have been removed from the podium from which he stood by the U.N. sergeant-in-arms for undiplomatic conduct.

Only Reps. Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi and Chaka Fattah have the wherewithal to stand up for America! Later former President Bill Clinton denounced Hugh Chavez’s remarks too.

In a world with standards McGreevey would be vilified for two failed marriages, cheating on a current wife, putting his current wife in a very embarrassing public light, exposing their private sexual lives, that’s not even to mention the embarrassment of McGreevey’s political corruption and malfeasance in public office which lead to his stepping down from elected office. Yet he is applauded on Oprah.

After O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman he vowed to look for the “Real” killer. I say that Mr. Chavez was wrong about who the devil is because al Qaeda called President Clinton the devil when he was in office, so any president would have been called that by Chavez.

I think if the America people would look for the “Real” devil they might find him standing in the United Nations speaking profane words against America and its leaders while he is plotting to kill Americans with planes and bombs.

Or on the Oprah show hawking his corruption and perversion to hundreds of thousands of American people.

His imps are all of those who jiggled, grinned and applauded his profane remarks that were to and against America!

For Peace Pope must Convert to Islam

Well friends if you didn’t understand what the western world is actually dealing with make no mistake that really the only thing that will completely satisfy Muslims is that the whole world converts to Islam.

Now that certain Islamic elements have money and weapons, they have abilities that were not available to them hundreds of years ago in the past. Without these resources they would simply be running around in the deserts only threatening one another.

However oil money and countries like China and Russia selling weaponry to Islamic countries has set the stage for conflict that will ultimately involve a face off between Islam and the Non-Islamic world.

At a press conference in Gaza City, a number of Muslim clerics said the pope's statements were "the result of his hatred for Islam and not the result of ignorance."

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

It is foolish to think that this situation concerning the Pope is an isolated insular incident. Rather it is a warning. A grave warning that the world is only years away from answering the questions of whether it will accept Islam, migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs or if they refuse to migrate they must accept the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims. If the just mentioned options are reject then the non-Muslim world must be destroyed.

In essence for peace to exist not only the Pope, but the world must convert to Islam. If you don’t think that this is the meaning of all of the things which we are witnessing now you are indeed naïve!

Of Infallibility and Islamic Hypocrisy

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."-- Anjem Choudary

If Infallibility means never having to say you’re sorry then being a religion of peace must mean never calling for the death of a leader of another religion.

There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians world-wide of which 1.1billion are Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of those 1.1 billion Catholics.

There are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and a fraction of them are participating in the corrupting of a major world religion. Their religion, Islam.

In his sermon yesterday at the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Pope Benedict spoke amid strengthened security.

He said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

No other Pope is thought to have made such an apology. Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

Adherents of Islam are now defaming the Pope and threatening to murder the religious leader of the Catholics. They have burned him in effigy called him “…dog of Rome” and threatened violence against him, his followers and all of Christendom.

Why would Muslims threaten, defame and insult the living leader of the Catholic faith especially when they would not allow such regarding any of their leaders. Why? Because they claim that the Pope insulted their dead Prophet Muhammad.

They are saying in essence; you said we are violent; we’ll kill you for saying that we’re violent! (Hmmm?)

The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasized by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

If the Pope’s apology is not good enough for Muslims, some are saying that it is not, then that would be the second thing that Pope Benedict has done wrong in the span of a couple of days. So much for the doctrine of infallibility.

Should Muslims continue on this path of unwarranted violence, protest, murder, and terrorism it must be recognized that they are not a religion of peace, they will have to be rightly considered a religion that causes destruction of governments, countries and religions; their own religion and countries and also the destruction of Catholicism and the world.

The Pope Submits to Islam

Is exactly what a Pope apology is in the face of this present Islamic vitriol. Right before our eyes we are witnessing the west acquiescing more and more to senseless Islamic demands for apologies and special concessions to Islam.

In the Danish editorial cartoon flap the whole western media world submitted to Islam by not republish cartoons that where deemed offense to Islam even though American media has repeatedly publish National security leaks that have jeopardized the U.S. war effort against Islamic terrorism. U.S. media has publish war secrets under the veil of first amendment rights but those same first amendment defenders made puny excuses for not publishing cartoons when face with perceived threats from Islam.

Islam is now controlling the world. You don’t believe it? What do you have when the world media refuses to print anything truthfully negative about Islam or what do you have when all other world religions pay homage to Islam? After the Pope apology for offending Islam no other religious leader will dare speak against the Prophet and his religion of tyranny even thought Muslims are wrong!

During one rally gunmen in Gaza city opened fire at the Greek Orthodox church; no injuries or damage were reported. An unknown organization named “The sword of Islam claimed responsibility for the incident.

“We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches,” the group said in a statement.

Do Islamists think that people of world are stupid? Muslims are the ones threatening violence and war yet they think that they can blame the Pope for this latest show of Islamic intolerance? This is totally despicable!

Should speech in the whole free world be regulated because Muslims may be offended? Allow me to answer that… NO!

That’s called tyranny by any one’s standards. Muslims are threatening Islamic tyranny, Western media has already acquiesced to Islamic totalitarianism. Now Muslims have forced psychological submission on the Pope by succeeding to force Catholicism’s figurehead, the Pope, to apologize where there is no apology warranted. Muslims are attempting to force a psychological submission to their faith on the entire free world.

Muslims are out of control and they are solely the reason for the present unrest in the world. This Muslim raging must no longer be tolerated by the world community.

The world community must demand that Muslims stop the 7^th century theatrics and join the 21^st century. Any further threats against Jews, Christians or Catholics should be met with unified world rebuke and these world-wide puerile Islam temper tantrums should not be accepted by the world community.

This must stop and it will not be tolerated. The Pope may not be able to say it and the media is afraid to say it but all of Islam is corrupted when some of Islam acts this way!

Muslims continue to see offense where there is none!

Holy cartoon wars! I can’t believe that the Main Stream Media would propagate such a story after the puerile behavior of Muslims world-word over the Danish editorials that rightly showed a connection between Islam and world conflict and violence.

But here we go again playing into the Muslim victimization game while Muslims themselves cut off heads of those who oppose them. Why they have even threaten to assassinate past popes.

That being said here is the latest offense against the Ummah (the world-wide community of Muslims). Pope Benedict XVI in a lecture quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

That was it in a lecture the Pope read a quote from a book and Muslims worldwide are upset the that Pope would have the nerve to read something aloud from a past record that seems to them negative to Islam.

When are Muslims going to grown up? And when is the MSM going to stop placating this type of nonsense?

Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz was quoted as saying by the state-owned Anatolia news agency. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini."

Come on! These were not the Pope’s remarks he quoted them from a book during a lecture. If this is a problem then every College Professor in America and abroad should be beheaded because this has been done every day of the year for thousands of years in the civilized world. It’s called education!

Muslims should not be allow to deflect their inability to answer rightful criticizisms of their faith by attempting to pretend that they are offended by the slightest remark or quote in this case.

On Thursday, Turkey's top Islamic cleric, Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict to apologize for the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity.

In Beirut, Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks Friday and demanded the pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.

Here’s a question, why does Ali Bardakoglu feel that he can attack Christianity and at the same time demand an apology for what he considers an offense against Islam?

Islamic clerics and Imams have been defaming Judaism and Christianity since Islam’s inception and they continue to do it daily with the hate that they preach against Christians and Jews.

This all seems like Muslims want to do evil unto others but kill others if they seem to be doing something unto you! (I bet that’s not in the Quran…or maybe it is.)

No apology is warranted by the Vatican but the world is still waiting on the countless apologies that Muslims owe the world for daily acts of violence against humanity!

And Islam is an Insult unto itself!

First Muslim to Congress in Minnesota?

Does it matter if a Muslim is elected to Congress? Will a Muslim show allegiance to America first or to Islam first? Will a Muslim write laws to favor Islam? Are exstremist Muslim organizations backing his candidacy and do they see this as a foot in the door into American Politics?

In Minneapolis Democrat voters are preparing to send a Muslim to Congress because they agree with his message of peace, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and universal health care, but the question is does he value America over Islam?

Many America Muslims have problems with allegiance to their faith opposed to allegiance to their country when asked the question.

The question is, is this the beginning of the balkanization of American politics?

Feckless Dems Politicizes 9/11

President Bush spoke on Monday 9/11 to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of the attack against America and Democrats according to their plan to neutralize the Bush administration attacked President Bush’s speech saying that the speech was partisan and that it politicized 9/11.

These polarizing Democrat ideologues are also calling for network television to give them equal time. Equal time?

Just what office in the Democratic Party is equal to the Presidency of the United States of America? Are the Democrats suggesting that they have the equivalence of a Confederate Presidency? Just who is the Democrat’s President? Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? Gore? Dean?

The way it works in America comrade Democrats is that a party wins the Presidency (there’s only one Presidency) and that party leads the nation.

What the Democrats have attempted to do since President Bush has been in office is created a co-Presidency one which they are equal to President Bush and that’s wrong.

Democrats contended the president used a prime-time address commemorating the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make partisan arguments bolstering support for the Iraq war.

Wait a minute… is there something wrong with the President of the United States of America paying tribute to the nearly 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and described the enemy as a global network of extremists who hate freedom and tolerance? No! There is nothing wrong with that.

The president said "The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict," he said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Much of the speech described the administration's foreign policy following the attack and the decision to go after enemies before they could harm Americans.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat."

According to Democrat strategy no Republican statement will go unanswered or unchallenged. Any fair minded person can see that this kind of political tactic is what is causing the divisiveness in Washington D.C. and American politics.

Senator Harry Reid and Representative Diane Pelosi circulated a letter they sent to the television networks and cable news channels asking for equal coverage of Democratic viewpoints on terrorism and Iraq. "There has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues," they wrote.

In the Democrat’s attempt to displace Republican elected Senators and Representatives they have created an absolutely unworkable climate in Washington D.C. After 6 years and two failed attempts to defeat President Bush at the polls Democrats think that their hatred, obstructionism and counter-political terrorist tactics will win them control of the Senate and House of Representative and eventually the White house.

All of this has been done at the expense, safety and security of the American people. Democrats in their pursuit for political control and power have obstructed government, hindered the war effort and endangered the troops, and finally they have caused the current political uncivil wars in America.

If the Democrat’s would focus on the people who have declared war on America (al Qaeda) with the same ferocity as they attack Republicans, their fellow countrymen, al Qaeda would be defeated, the insurgency in Iraq would cease and the split in America would be healed.

Instead Democrats join with the enemies of this nation working from the inside as our enemies plot America’s destruction from the outside.

If Democrats want time to be equal then let there be reduced liberal time on broadcast and cable television and add Conservative programming in equal amounts to liberal programming. Also let’s change liberal news broadcast on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and Fox news to give the conservative view equal time.

If Democrats really want “equal time” then they owe Republicans half of every movie, sit-com, cable-show and news broadcast and Conservatives are owed back broadcast time too!

I figure Liberals owe Conservatives 20 to 30 years of back broadcasting time to make things equal!

Ahmadinejad Wishes to Debate Bush

Oh Boy the debate of the century President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad verses President Bush and what shall they debate? They would debate democracy of course, world affairs and the ways to solve world issues.

Well just how much do you suppose President Ahmadinejad knows about Democracy? The last I checked he takes orders from a religious mullah and Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that would constitute a theocracy and knowing that Iran has never been a democracy seems to me Ahmadinejad’s information regarding democracy would be a tad lean.

But nevertheless Ahmadinejad is insistent, “Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" He asks. But Iran’s government is not a democracy neither does the people of Iran enjoy equal rights under the religious rulers of Iran so why do you suppose the President of Iran would appeal to international democracy and equal rights of nations if his country does not offer those opportunities for his own citizens?

Here’s something else that is interesting President Ahmadinejad wishes a debate between he and President Bush be televised for the America people to see. Ahmadinejad says, "I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.

"The debate should go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

Okay anything funny about that request? Yes you’re right if you said that it’s a bit one sided. Ahmadinejad wants the American people to “hear the truth” but there is no mention that the people of Iran should be able to hear the debate so that they might hear the truth also.

Why? Because Ahmadinejad is not interested in Democracy silly! He is only interested in “the mockery!” The mockery of Democratic ideas as he does his part to ensure that Shari law is established world-wide as he helps bring about the defeat of any form of western government.

According to Sharia law a Muslim can enter into any agreement with an infidel, he can sign any contract knowing full well that he intends to break his contractual word because the Muslim does not owe the truth to an infidel.

That is all the more reason that a debate would be nonsensical Muslims know that by Sharia that it is permissible to lie to those that they consider infidels. If that is the case why would a Westerner go through an exercise of futility that a debate would be with a Muslim?

There is a long history of U.N. resolutions that have been ignored or disregarded by Muslims. Could it be that Muslims don’t find U.N. resolutions binding according to Sharia law?

It is becoming increasingly clear that Muslims are manipulating Democratic ideas only to use those ideas against people who believe in truth, justice and equal rights so that the knife that slits the throat of Western Democracy will be the wests own knife the knife of Democracy. And then after that Muslims will simply bind the hands of the rest of the world with Sharia law.

If President Ahmadinejad wishes to debate why not talk about the rights of women under Islam, the civil rights and personal liberties of Islamic citizens in his own country and overall religious freedom in the Muslim world, that’s the discussion about democracy that we should have and let’s have it televised so the Iranian people can hear the truth!

Well Mr. Ahmadinejad how about that debate?

9/11, Paper Tigers and Shameful Defeat

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."—Osama bin Laden, May 1998 (Link)

The Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia October 3 and 4, 1993 in which eighteen American soldiers died and 73 were wounded After terrorists attacked U.S. troops Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S. Bin Laden said that the low military morale under President Clinton and President Clinton’s order for American troops to withdraw from Somalia proved to the Muslim world that the U.S. is a paper tiger unable to withstand the hardships of war.

Since 9/11 five years later bin Laden has demanded several times that America submit to Islam or be destroyed. The reality is bin Laden is counting on the paper tiger that he once talked about to leave Iraq with it’s tail tucked between it’s legs, dragging it’s corpses behind it in shameful defeat and if we listen to the likes of Rep. John Murtha again bin Laden’s vision shall be realized.

Bin Laden was correct in 1998 when he made that fateful assessment of America’s Leadership it was in fact a paper tiger. It took the political elections of 2000 and 2004 to remove the big fake cat from the American psyche and it will take the elections of 2006 and 2008 to prevent him from coming back to retake his territory.

As 9/11 has taught Americans today’s world is no place for paper tigers, today world demands that America’s leaders show the ferocity that a mother tiger would demonstrate when protecting her young from those who would harm them.

In today’s world there are many predators who have stated that they are attempting to harm the young of America. No mother tiger is going to run and leave her cubs abandoned unless of course they are the kind of tigers that Osama bin Laden is talking about.

Paper tigers, John Murtha and Democrats are the kind of tigers that Osama bin Laden knows that he can cause to have a shameful defeat. He would have had it already were it not for the American’s people rejection of defeatism in 2000 and 2004.

To keep America strong we must once again, in 2006 and 2008, reject the defeatism of the paper tigers or we must submit to Osama bin Laden's vision. According to bin Laden those are the only options that he will accept.

Europe is in the process of submitting even now and if America is a paper tiger then we are next!

I didn’t have sex with Osama bin Laden

That’s what this demand to censer the ABC made for television Docu-drama is shaping up to be about.

And just like his claim that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky President Clinton is attempting to claiming that he had little or nothing to do with the events that lead up to 9/11. The Democrats have been intimating and some claiming that international terrorism is the direct result of policies of the Bush administration.

The fact that the 9/11 commission report blamed the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration and this docu-drama will serve to remind Americans, of the events and philosophies of a Democratic administration that was partial distracted by its own immorality and also focused on the threat of Saddam Hussein, that Clinton completely failed to deal with the menace of Osama bin Laden event when repeated opportunities to either capture him or kill him presented.

What is also telling about this whole outrageous partisan attempt to censer television content from the American people is that the Docu-Drama is just as hard on the Bush administration if not harder but not one protest has come from the right!

Surely there are things enacted that the Republicans don’t say or do exactly as the film portrays so why aren’t the Conservatives suing and why isn't the Republican Congress writing ABC demanding editing at least or withdrawal of the film?

I’ll tell you why, the Democrats have much more to lose if average Americans, ones who didn’t read the 9/11 commission report, see this Docu-drama those America who just assumed that Democrat partisans where telling them the truth about how this is Bush’s war, and all the other Bush lies, those Democrats will be exposed for the partisan hacks that they are.

Even if this mini-series is quashed by the Democrats enough interest has been created that fair-minded people will do the work of buying a copy of the 9/11 report and read for themselves what the Democrats don’t want you to see.

No Clinton didn’t have sex with Osama bin Laden but no one said that he did. But neither did he capture or kill bin Laden when he had multiple opportunities to either that's what the Democrats don't want you to see. Holy Tora Bora!

CENSORSHIP !

Democrats the purveyors of free speech rights and movies for informing the general population a al Fahrenheit 9/11, have absolutely gone crazed as a movie drama depicting the events leading up to the attacks on America is prepared to air on ABC.

The admitted liar in Chief Bill Clinton and the convicted liar and thief Sandy Berger have no creditability and can not tell us what is or was actual in the events leading up to 9/11.

Bill Clinton is an admitted lair and Sandy Berger was caught red handed stealing documents pertaining to 9/11 from the U.S. National Archives. Berger destroyed some of those documents.

These same people along with Senator Harry Reid, who lied about Democrat involvement with Jack Abramoff saying that no Democrat received one cent from Abramoff when Reid himself received hundreds of thousands of dollars connected with Abramoff, now want you to believe them?

Clinton and Reid are liars and Berger is a thief and a lair and if ABC changes one line in this movie to comply with the Democrats ABC will further damage its already weak reputation and confirm suspicions that ABC is a Liberal biased news organization.

ABC should resist Democratic calls for censorship and show the unredacted version of the movie which is based on the 9/11 commission report a report that reveals the very same things that the original film would show anyway.

All Talk and No U.N. Action

Iran has managed to defy resolutionU.N. Security Council which calls for the stoppage of it’s processing of uranium. It has supported Hezbollah in its attack against Israel and it has questioned the reality of the Holocaust yet when called into account for these actions Iran has been able to turn the responsibility for their actions on Israel and the United States.

Kofi Annan has been snobbed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding uranium processing and did not appear with the U.N. Diplomat at the post meeting news conference. Also Iran announced during Mr. Annan’s visit that it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust.

Tehran hid it's nuclear program for 18 years as well as Tehran's continued lack of full cooperation with U.N. inspectors has increased suspicions about Iranian aims. Iran insists the program is peaceful, intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.

Iran's slowness in responding to the incentives package prompted the Security Council to issue a resolution July 31 ordering it to halt uranium enrichment by the end of August.

Iran claimed that any resolution by the Security Council would be pressured by the United States or Britain thereby making any sanctions by the six member body tainted by Western influence.

Here’s the outrageousness of Iran’s thinking. They hide their nuclear program for 18 years and they now claim that it is the West that must repair relations with Tehran?

"Iran's trust has been undermined during the past three years," Iranian Foreign Minister Moocher Mistake said. "They (the West) should try to win our trust to solve the issue."

Outrageous! Instead of the Secretary General representing the world’s interest by demanding Iran’s compliances with U.N. resolutions he has allow Iran to use his visit as a propaganda campaign against the U.N. the West, Israel, the United States and Britain.

What’s clear is that Iran has figured out the weaknesses in the diplomatic approach of the United Nations. The United Nations is all talk and no action which gives Tehran all the room it needs to keep the West at bay while Iran gains time and resources to arm itself with nuclear weaponry.

The blame falls squarely on Russia and China who are the members on the Security Council that keep any U.N. resolution weak or useless because of their support for Iran as well as their low grade cold war against West.

DEADLINE MEETS DEFIANCE

The United Nations, which is supposed to be representative of the world, verses Iran.

The U.N. says that Iran must stop refining uranium but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the President of Iran says, "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights.”

The United Nations has set a deadline for Iran to stop its uranium refinement today, Thursday August 31, 2006 and has offered many incentives to this end but Iran has disregarded the deadline and continues to refine uranium.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered Iran earlier this summer a package of incentives in exchange for a commitment from Tehran to freeze enrichment so talks could begin.
But Tehran's response earlier this month made clear the country was not willing to suspend enrichment before talks, let alone consider a long-term moratorium on such activity.

My question is what’s next for all the experts that believe in negotiating with terrorists and nation states that support terrorism.

It is plain to see that negotiations only work if there are two parties that are willing to work toward a mutual goal. So what is that goal? To the U.N. it is world peace and the nonproliferation of nuclear weaponry but apparently that is not the case with Iran. And isn’t negotiation supposed to be about compromise?

"At the moment, Iran has no use whatsoever for enriched uranium - unless it is planning to build the bomb," so says German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier

The West has struggled for years with incentives to persuade Iran to roll back its nuclear program. But Tehran has negotiated by its own rules and kept its eyes constantly on a long-term prize: forcing the world to accept its nuclear ambitions.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, defiantly refused to compromise as a U.N. deadline for his country to stop enriching uranium arrived today saying Tehran would not be bullied into giving up its right to nuclear technology.

Today's International Atomic Energy Agency report said that after three years of inspections, the agency still has not been able to confirm "the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program" because of a lack of cooperation from Tehran.

Why this is Saddam Hussein all over again! Maybe Jimmy Carter would like to try his hand at negotiating with Ahmadinejad. The last time Carter negotiated with Iran, Iran was holding 52 American hostages. Iran held them for 444 days but when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States suddenly Iran released all 52 hostages.

Then again maybe not Carter… and if the United Nations can’t do this deal what good are they?

Plame-gate is OVER

Plame-gate is OVER

Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

This was leak enforced the Bush lied us into war meme that was started by Joseph Wilson IV and the MSM.

Since then Joseph Wilson has been revealed as the one lying and no one in the White house has been connected to outing the identity of his wife for vengeance.

All Bush bashers owe the President apologies for three years of lies and conspiracy theories.

Wronging every Right Normalization is the Agenda

What an auspices occasion the nations first same-sexcivil union has officially split up to which Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force said the union's end shows that the state's civil union law is working.

Thus according to Robinson this exercise in propaganda was only to convince the America people that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals.

"One of the goals was to create a mechanism to protect people in a relationship and create a mechanism to help people dissolve relationships," she said. "Same-sex relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. Sometimes they last, sometimes they don't."--Beth Robinson

In an Orwellian world a homosexual relationship equals a heterosexual relationship. While this statement is not true Machiavellian forces are propagating this, as well as, the idea that wrong is right in American society.

All this time you thought it was your own progressiveness and open-mindedness that lead you to accept homosexuality. You didn't know that you had been manipulated by Madison Avenue propaganda.

David Ehrensteinwriting for the Capitol Times,Madison, Wisconson believes that homosexuality is now apart of the American mainstream. Ehrenstein believes that even though the gay agenda has suffered tremendous and devastating losses this year in the Courts, an institution which homosexuals had counted on to be gay friendly, homosexuality is now embraced by a majority in the society.

He cites movie and television homosexual shills who now openly engage in their unusual sexual proclivitist relationships while he negatively refers to "traitorous" Ann Heche who was hetero turned homo turned hetero again he believes that Ms. Heche’s social rejection is her come uppenance for betraying the big lie that once homo you can never go back to hetero.

Ehrenstein then exposes his ignorance regarding the homosexual agenda he names the AIDS epidemic as the turning point in social acceptance of homosexuality.

While the epidemic was the catalyst for social acceptance of homosexuality the actual cause for acceptance of homosexuality in American public life was the result of two Homosexual advocates.

Marshall Kirk a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen a Harvard PhD of Politics and an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, these two men used sophisticated Orwellian psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques in the 1980’s to change the social perception about homosexuality in America and as a result of their work homosexuality is gaining acceptance and a status of normality in the American society.

A recent Reuters report suggest that 56 percent opposed giving gays the right to marry, but 53 percent favored allowing gays to enter into legal agreements that provide many of the same rights as married couples. "There has been an increase ... in the proportion of Americans who believe homosexuality is innate 36 percent, up from 30 percent in 2003. Similarly, 49 percent believed homosexuals cannot be changed to heterosexual, compared to 42 percent in 2003."

Many homosexual advocates and their supports see this as the tide turning regarding social acceptance of homosexual behavior in America. These changes in social percept regarding homosexuality are results of the work of Kirk and Madsen.

Nevertheless, the fact that the society has been brainwashed by homosexual shills is no reason to preen politically correct feathers while completely disregarding the fact that homosexuality has virually ended marriagein ultra Liberal Scandinavia where homosexuality is embraced and gay marriage is allowed as a civil right.

Will American heed the warnings of socially bankrupted Scandinavia? Unfortunately, if not, what has happened in Europe portents to be the fate for America once the the brainwashing of America by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen is complete.

Harry Reid the most powerful man in Washington

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., objected to allowing a vote on the bill. He spoke only a few moments before uttering the name of disgraced influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

"Washington has been run by the lobbyists. The Jack Abramoff scandal is no surprise," Reid said in his opening remarks.

Corporations that without the bill might be required to pay billions in legal awards to victims should be "jumping with joy," Reid added. "They were able to buy their way into the Senate paying for a bunch of lobbyists."

"Slander!" responded Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the bill's sponsor, whose stewardship of the bill for more than two years helped it survive the committee process to become the first new legislation considered by the Senate this year.

"To accuse us of being the pawns of the lobbyists is — is — is beyond slander, beyond insult," Specter stammered. "It's beyond outrage."

Even Specter isn't predicting success here. He made the argument that in forcing a test vote — the way the Democrats did on the USA Patriot Act and judicial nominees — Reid is acting on politics rather than the substance of the bill.

"What he's seeking to do is obstruct, and he's had a lot of practice at that," Specter said.
For his part, Reid offered a hat-in-hand apology for casting aspersions on the motives of "my friend from Pennsylvania." As evidence of his high esteem for Specter, Reid offered a distinctly senatorial — if backhanded — compliment.

"I'm one of the few people around who have read his book," Reid said. "I enjoyed reading his book."

Link


That exchange is typical for Harry Reid, former pugilist but ever the fighter, the most powerful man in Washington D.C.

Senator Reid is a master obstructionist and his obstructionism shames the likes of former Senator Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) Daschle was a soft spoken leader who did not carry the big stick that “Givem Hell Harry” carries. Daschle repeatedly failed to hold the Democratic conference together but in contrast that’s not a problem for Senator Reid. Reid is tough; he was willing, perhaps determined, to slap down the likes of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) recently when the former presidential candidate implicitly challenged his leadership. According to one account, Reid went so far as to belittle Kerry’s presidential campaign.

Reid has also accused Alan Greenspan of being “one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington” because the iconic past Federal Reserve chairman gave it as his opinion that Social Security reform is “overdue.” The stance of the Democrats is that it is, rather, wholly unnecessary.

Senator Reid, therefore, quite willing to be savagely blunt in his rhetoric and is spoiling for a fight. He has suggested he regrets his extraordinary criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas in January, but that attack, too, put down a marker for the Democrats. And his threat to shut down the Senate in the event that the GOP deploys the nuclear option of changing the rules to end the filibuster of judicial nominees appeared to have rattled the Republican leadership.

As for holding the Democrats together in opposition to President Bush and stopping the President’s agenda Reid has stopped cold Social Security reform. Reid’s absolute determination to prevent President Bush from winning a major policy victory with Social Security, and his sharp tongue and elbows have made it plain to his conference that there will be a price to pay for stepping out of line. No Democratic senator looks likely to back reform without two or three others for company.

"As far as I'm concerned, there will be no privatization" of even a small portion of workers' Social Security contributions, he said, rejecting what the president trumpeted as a priority at a White House conference. And Senate Republicans, he said, "will rue the day" they try to carry out a threat to end a senator's right to filibuster judicial nominees.
Those are the words of a battler, not an appeaser, say those who know Reid, Link

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. knows how tough Sen. Reid is. Sen. Santorum, said every attempt to reach across party lines on Social Security had "met with a partisan obstructionism that is as rock-solid as the marble before me on the rostrum" in the Senate chamber.
Initially, he said the president and Republican supporters "tried to throw the long ball." Now, "we're just going to try to run off-tackle here ... to see if we can get the ball down the field."
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid blocked Santorum's effort to force a full floor debate on the measure. "This legislation is a sham. S-H-A-M," he said. "Social Security benefits are guaranteed today. ... It's the law of the land." And with that Senator Reid killed the President’s Social Security plan.

After tying the 109th Congress up with procedural tricks the Democrats are now criticizing the Republican controlled Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress and guess who that charge is coming from?

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who is urging "Bush Republicans" to stop playing politics and address the "real challenges the American people face every day."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid noted that the Senate is running out of time to address "serious issues" such as gasoline prices, health care costs and the minimum wage.Link

Senator Reid has stop the Bush Administration’s efforts to bring legislation forward in Congress, stolen the momentum of the Republican controlled Congress and blamed the President and the Congress of being a “do-nothing” body.

Senator Harry Reid is clearly the most powerful man in Washington D.C. he sets the agenda and the President and Congress are stymied by his every move.

So much for a Republican controlled Congress we all know who is in control in Washington D.C. and it isn’t Alexander Haig who wrongly assumed that he was in charge after President Reagan was shot. No “Givem Hell” Harry Reid is in charge of Washington D.C.

And nothing will get done in Washington if Senator Reid doesn’t approve!

Quid pro quo Impeach, Impeach, Impeach

Rep. John Conyers
They’ve already had mock impeachment hearings in the basement of the Congress building June 16, 2005 John Conyers presiding over the festivities.

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.


Rep. John Conyers Jr., center, and other Democrats held a mock Judiciary Committee hearing as a protest against the war in Iraq.
Rep. John Conyers Jr., center, and other Democrats held a mock Judiciary Committee hearing as a protest against the war in Iraq.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

Link


So it is not surprising neither is it in doubt that Democrat pay back is inevitable if Democrats take control of the House that they will impeach President George W. Bush.

But that’s kind of talk is supposed to be kept on the downlow can’t rile up unsuspecting Conservatives with that kind of talk so Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are attempting to keep that kind of talk under wraps.

But if Democrats manage to take the House this November America is in for the most explosive and divisive times this side of the civil war.

After Democrat all out war against the Republican lead government starting with the 2000 presidential elections there is no question that Democrats will move against the Republican Icon George W. Bush if they are given the opportunity this November.

Democrat vitriol and loathing of Conservatives doesn’t leave anything to the imagination there can be no doubt that if Democrats are given the opportunity they will Impeach President Bush Quid pro quo to answer the William Jefferson Clinton Impeachment.

But if Conservatives catch wind of the stench of this kind of Democratic partisan putridcy there will not be any Democratic control in the House neither will Democrats gain power for quite a long time.

Democrats will be confined to play acting in the basement of Congress where Congressmen John Conyers can call for impeachment, reparations or fried chicken since he continues to use race and hatred to divide this nation.

1000’s of Cell phone bombs in the United States?

Disposable cell phones have become a tool of terrorists for good reason they are untraceable, can be used to contact members of a terrorist cell and can even detonate explosives. Not to mention the buying and selling of the phones can be used to fund terrorism. However it has been discovered that in Caro and Ithaca Michigan disposable cell phones are being purchased by the thousands.

While police aren't saying yet that's what these phones would have been used for the mass amounts purchased are causing concern.

Around 1:00am August 11th the three men purchased cell phones from the Wal-Mart store on M-81 near the corner of M-24 in Caro. Wal-Mart places a limit on the number of cell phones that can be purchased at once, that number is three. The three men allegedly bought 80 by purchasing them three at time so that an alert wouldn't be triggered by the cash register. They also paid cash.

The three men are described as being of Palestinian descent but live in Texas. Police say the three, ages 19, 22, and 23 appear to be naturalized citizens.

One man was driving while the other two were in the back opening the phone packages with box cutters throwing the phones in one box, batteries in another and the packaging and phone charger in another container. The suspects had 1000 other cell phones in the van. There was also a bag of receipts showing that someone was in Wisconsin the day before.

The three suspects are now facing two counts each of Homeland Security Terrorism charges. All three suspects are due to be arraigned August 12th

While FBI agents pour into Caro another incident breaks out in Gratiot County. At approximately 11:35am August 11th police were called to the Dollar General Store in Ithaca after a" clerk in Ithaca became suspicious after two men came into the store, and became upset when they were turned down while trying to buy several disposal cell phones.

In light of the recent foiled terrorist plot to blow up eleven flights from Britain bound to the United States incidents such as the aforementioned, in the next days and months, should be regarded with extreme caution by the National Homeland Security agency.

What happened to the Culture of Corruption?

Maybe we should ask Nancy Pelosi , Jack Murtha or Harry Reid. The Culture of Corruption was the Democrat Mantra and key to winning in 2006 and 2008. So where is it?

Christina Bellantoni reports in the Washinton Times that Democrats have gone mum on the term but why? Bellantoni believes that the Democrats stopped the COC talk when FBI officials revealed they found $90,000 in marked $100 bills in Louisiana Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson's freezer. Rep. Jefferson was videotaped accepting $100,000 that officials say was a bribe.

And then there was also Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia Democrat, has been accused of directing $178 million to nonprofits in his state whose leaders were donors to his campaigns.

According to Bellantoni those two corrupt Democrats forced House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, to change the corruption claim into one saying only that Republicans are incompetent and beholden to special interests. (That's quite a down grade!) She told the Hill newspaper in June that Democrats' "culture of corruption" message was ending, and it was "time to talk about us."

Okay I'm with that let's talk about them. Remember Senator Harry Reid's claim that not a penny of Jack Abramoff money went to any Democrat? This is what Senator Reid said on PBS:

“This is a Republican scandal. Jack Abramoff gave a quarter of a million dollars to Republicans and Republicans only.”

At a televised press conference in Phoenix, where Mr. Reid was promoting the Senate candidacy of Jim Pederson, he was hit by a barrage of questions that challenged his assertion that the Democrats did not receive any money in connection with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. To which the good Senator replied:

"Not a single penny of the money from Jack Abramoff ... went to a Democrat. Now he has lots of clients. But the fact of the matter is that any money that I've received has come from people who have given me money over a period of time, and Jack Abramoff's fingerprints [are] not anywhere,"

But upon examination it was found that, Mr. Reid received $30,500 from three Indian tribes for whom Abramoff lobbied during an recent election cycle, according to a reassessment of political contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has compiled campaign funds given to lawmakers by Abramoff, his associates or clients he represented.

Also, other public-interest groups report that Mr. Reid has received about $61,000 between 2001 and 2004 from clients represented by Abramoff, contributions that the senator has refused to return because, he says, they were not illegal.

Joe Cannon a Utah Republican Chairman during Senator Reid's stop in the state indicates that Senator Reid received much more than a penny, Cannon said:

"One of the biggest beneficiaries of Jack Abramoff is Harry Reid,"

In a Washington Times Editorial June 21, 2006-The real Jack Murtha- it is reported by the Los Angeles Times that Rep. Murtha, the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee over saw defense appropriations to his brother Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Finally, in the 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Culture of Corruption? No I'm thinking that the Democrats don't want to travel to far down the road of, “The Cultural of Corruption” because Dems are sure to run into themselves on that road. But as for the Pelosism, “Republicans are incompetent and beholden to special interests ” that is a road that can be well traveled by Democrats because like Democrats the Republicans ARE beholden to special interest only the Republicans are so incompetent that they allow Democrats to point an accusatory finger at them with no answer or rebuttal.

Walk “away” like an Egyptian

Or at least disappear like one. Why is it that 11 Muslim men who all fit the profile of potential terrorists are missing in the United States? According to the FBI this is a nation wide alert the specific region of interest is the eastern seaboard--from Maine to Florida.

On July 29, 2006 twenty Egyptian students scheduled to attend an English and academics skills program at Montana State University from July 30 to August 26, 2006. Six students arrived to the school, three students were denied entry into the United States for security reasons and eleven students failed to report to the University after entering the United States.

The FBI reports, the predicate for this alert is that these eleven men are in the U.S. illegally and are wanted for questioning. They advise if seen those men are to be approached with caution.

The men are:

1. IBRAHIM, EL SAYED AHMED ELSAYED; DOB OF 4/29/1986, PASSPORT 954757
2. EL DESSOUKI, ESLAM IBRAHIM MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/21/1985, PASSPORT 1002756
3. EL BAHNASAWI, ALAA ABD EL FATTAH ALI; DOB OF 04/02/1986, PASSPORT 934679
4. ABD ALLA, MOHAMED RAGAB MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/15/1984, PASSPORT 860972
5. EL LAKET, AHMED REFAAT SAAD EL MOGHAZI; DOB OF 09/01/1986, PASSPORT 943306
6. EL ELA, AHMED MOHAMED MOHAMED ABOU; DOB OF 02/02/1985, PASSPORT 595081
7. EL MOGHAZY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM ELSAYED; DOB OF 08/08/1986, PASSPORT 861073
8. ABDOU, EBRAHIM MABROUK MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 02/25/1984, PASSPORT 828682
9. EL GAFARY, MOUSTAFA WAGDY MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 07/01/1988, PASSPORT 861673
10. MARAY, MOHAMED SALEH AHMED; DOB OF 09/12/1985, PASSPORT 862634
11. EL SHENAWY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM FOUAAD; DOB OF 08/12/1988, PASSPORT 862534

These students arrived at JFK International Airport on 29 July 2006, but failed to continue on to Montana as scheduled.

Update:

Three Egyptian students who were being sought for failing to turn up for an exchange program at Montana State University were taken into custody Wednesday, more than a week after they arrived in the United States.
One student was arrested in Minnesota, and two others surrendered to authorities in New Jersey. They were among 11 students being sought by law enforcement after they failed to attend a monthlong program on the English language and U.S. history and culture in Bozeman, Mont., the FBI said.

Eslam Ibrahim Mohamed El-Dessouki, 21, was taken into custody in Minneapolis on an immigration violation. Two other students _ Mohamed Ragab Mohamed Abd Alla and Ebrahim Mabrouk Moustafa Abdou, both 22 _ surrendered to police in Manville, N.J., after hearing media reports that they were wanted, FBI spokesman Steven Siegal said.
Eight students remain at large.

They arrived in New York on July 29 as part of a group of 17 students. Six students reported to Bozeman on time.
The missing students pose no terrorism threat, the FBI said.

RADICALS!

Anti-war Protest NYC

On the defeat of three-term moderate Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary to Anti-Bush, Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont the Democrats have signaled that they are no longer satisfied with being part of the political mainstream. Democrats have turned to the dark side, the netroot hard leftist Anti-Israel radical dark side of their party.

There is no room in the party for moderates like Joe Lieberman or for that matter a Democrat Conservative like Zell Miller, the only good Democrat is a radical liberal Democrat that hates Bush and hates the war.

This is a party sired out of the George Soros moveon.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos movement and is driven by hatred and fanaticism. This turn to the hard left will certainly make it impossible to connect with Conservatives. And whether Democrats care to acknowledge it or not, they need Conservative cross over votes to win in 2008, but any Conservative liberal or moderate will have a hard time finding anything in common with the netroot haters on the radical Democrat left.

Any hope of connecting with Independents and Moderates of any type is virtually ended now too. Anti-Bush and anti-war radicals will take the Democrat party to a place that main stream America can ill afford to go.

America realizes that in the radical liberal mind anti-Bush translates to hate all Conservatives and conservative ideas while anti-war translates into a cut and run capitulation to terrorists.

The problem with radical Liberal’s reasoning is that terrorists officially started warring against America in 1996. It was then through a fatwa declared by Osama bin Laden that terrorist began acts of war against Americans and American interest. If American troops were withdrawn from Iraq today Islamic terrorist would still be at war with the United States.

Funny, even so, I haven’t seen Cindy Sheehan camped out in front of Osama’s cave entrance demonstrating for the terrorists to end the war! Osama’s 1996 and 1998 fawtas started terrorist attacks against America which lead to this war and only he can call for the war's end Cindy!

However, that fact will not deter the anti-Bush, anti-war radical Liberal haters from blaming America and President Bush for terrorist attacks made against us or for blaming America for the war that resulted from those attacks. Also this rejection of Lieberman could indicate that the Democratic Party is now embracing anti-Semitist elements within its party.

Look for a decisive loss for the Democrats in 2008 because their turn to the hard left will do nothing but further alienate themselves from the political mainstream of America as their radicalizism will continue to injure the political process in America in general.

Democrat’s play to fear and ignorance to win ’06 and ‘08

With control of the U.S. Congress at stake in up coming elections, many in the Democratic Party see a "sense of chaos" in the Middle East, their plan to obstruct government progress and blaming President Bush as their ticket to reclaiming the Senate and the House of Representatives from Republicans.

New York Democratic senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton who has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a list of "strategic blunders" she said had led to the crisis in Iraq and later called for his resignation.

"I think people want change in Iraq," said New York Sen. Charles Schumer who heads the effort to get Democrats elected to the Senate. An effort that has called for attempting to sabotage the Bush Administrations every move in the war while attempting to sway public opinion against the war effort.

Democrat strategy has seemed to work. Polls say that most Americans don't think things are going well in Iraq. In a CNN survey released on Friday, 36 percent approved of Bush's management of the war and 62 percent disapproved.

These percentages have given Democrat a great deal of buoyancy and hope for control of the House and Senate in upcoming 2006 elections as well as belief that they can win the White house 2008.

Influential congressional Democrats, many of whom voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, joined forces this week in a letter calling on the president to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year.
Led by the top Senate Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada and his counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California, the signatories included party centrists and liberals who have disagreed over the way forward in Iraq purely for political reasons.

"I think the American people found their voice, and they are listening to us," Reid said on Friday. "I think the American people are where we are.” It is interesting that Senator Reid equates the American people’s voice with listening to Democrats!

Since 2000 Democrats have attempted to create chaos in the American body politic in a number of political moves. They did this by first throwing the 2000 elects into doubt. Then by questioning the legitimacy of the Presidency and then disavowing a war that they voted for, they attempted to bring down the Bush presidency through baseless allegations and false scandals, and now they attempt to sabotage the war effort by withdrawing troops which will guarantee a Vietnam like result, an American loss.

If Democrats believe that pandering to fear and ignorance are keys to victory in 2006 and 2008 as they apparently do and if America is as fearful and ignorance as Democrats think they are then perhaps Democrats will win. If they do win they will still have to fight Islamic terrorism and as seen in Europe Liberal policies and beliefs are not working against the onslaught of Islamic fascism.

A Democrat majority in the House and Senate or a Democrat Presidential win will pave the way for Islamic terrorism’s defeat of the Western world first with an withdraw from Iraq and then with the United States acquiescing to all Islamic demands as Osama bin Laden as previously laid out.