Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
2:44 PM | 
Posted by
kender
Those that adhere to socialist ideals are thieves of Freedom and Self Determination. Lazy cowards that fear failure and believe in the inherent goodness of everything, they refuse to see true evil and strive to anger none through policies of PC ideals of appeasement.
I despise socialists.
I despise socialists.
What a useless fake-ass fucker this piece of garbage is huh?
"Residing like God over life and death of a man....he's not fit to lick the boots off," Ward Churchill told the crowd of protestors.
He can go lick a goats ass.
"Residing like God over life and death of a man....he's not fit to lick the boots off," Ward Churchill told the crowd of protestors.
He can go lick a goats ass.
Way back when he said he would sign hi sform 180 and release it so that the American people could see his military record/
He still hasn't.
John Kerry is a LIAR!!!!
Go see Cao for more in depth info.
He still hasn't.
John Kerry is a LIAR!!!!
Go see Cao for more in depth info.
Rick Moran over at RightWingNutHouse, one of my daily reads, has the 25th Edition of The Carnival of the Clueless up.
Nobody is safe there at Rick's, a it should be. I lean right in my writings, (duh), but will skewer clueless people of any stripe when needed, it's just that I see much more on the left that I disagree with than I do on the right.
Anyway, go check out the Carnival, cruise the links. You won't be disappointed.
Nobody is safe there at Rick's, a it should be. I lean right in my writings, (duh), but will skewer clueless people of any stripe when needed, it's just that I see much more on the left that I disagree with than I do on the right.
Anyway, go check out the Carnival, cruise the links. You won't be disappointed.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but we will sue like hell everytime we feel that Christianity is daring to show its' ugly, exclusionary and morally indignant head. Further, we shall demand that tax payers cover our court costs.
AmendmentII
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but we don't really care and won't defend this amendment one bit, however we swear to work towards giving the criminals that prey on law abiding citizens more consideration.
Amendment III
The death penalty shall not be enacted upon those born and legally convicted of a crime. The unborn and citizens being preyed upon by criminals deserve less consideration than the victims of our uncaring Republican controlled world.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, no matter what circumstances may arise, and this applies especially to people that the government believes may be acting against the safety and security of these United States and its' citizens. This really, REALLY applies in the case of people suspected of trafficking in child porn or acting in support of "terrorist" organizations.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless that person is George W. Bush, then he shall be tried for War Crimes in the public arena using false information. Further, this Amendment shall extend to any person on the whole of the Earth that wishes to accuse the Bush Administration of any number of wild allegations such as claiming to have been captured by the CIA and held in Afghanistan.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,especially when we can use the trial for publicity. Further, people convicted should not only retain the ability to cast votes in elections, but should also be afforded those things which honest citizens must work hard to pay for, such as cable television and workout equipment.
Amendment VII
Child Porn, while being a heinous crime, should be, once created, a protected form of free speech, and should not be used as evidence.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless such fines are levied upon rich corporations that have been sued by our ideological bretheren in the militant enviromental movement. Cruel and unusual punishments include no cable TV, being forced to sleep on a floor, and being deprived of pornographic material.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, unless those "rights" need to have a new definition placed upon them due to changing social mores, chief among them being the Right to Not be Offended, ever.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, unless we feel it imperative to override the states right to choose and take an issue to the Supreme Court of The United States, thereby making a states right into a federal decree. In fact, the rights of the state are of little concern to us, as we believe that achieving our goals through judical activism is the only way we will ever get our purely seditous agenda enacted in this country.
There ya' have it. Any suggestions?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but we will sue like hell everytime we feel that Christianity is daring to show its' ugly, exclusionary and morally indignant head. Further, we shall demand that tax payers cover our court costs.
AmendmentII
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but we don't really care and won't defend this amendment one bit, however we swear to work towards giving the criminals that prey on law abiding citizens more consideration.
Amendment III
The death penalty shall not be enacted upon those born and legally convicted of a crime. The unborn and citizens being preyed upon by criminals deserve less consideration than the victims of our uncaring Republican controlled world.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, no matter what circumstances may arise, and this applies especially to people that the government believes may be acting against the safety and security of these United States and its' citizens. This really, REALLY applies in the case of people suspected of trafficking in child porn or acting in support of "terrorist" organizations.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,especially when we can use the trial for publicity. Further, people convicted should not only retain the ability to cast votes in elections, but should also be afforded those things which honest citizens must work hard to pay for, such as cable television and workout equipment.
Amendment VII
Child Porn, while being a heinous crime, should be, once created, a protected form of free speech, and should not be used as evidence.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless such fines are levied upon rich corporations that have been sued by our ideological bretheren in the militant enviromental movement. Cruel and unusual punishments include no cable TV, being forced to sleep on a floor, and being deprived of pornographic material.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, unless those "rights" need to have a new definition placed upon them due to changing social mores, chief among them being the Right to Not be Offended, ever.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, unless we feel it imperative to override the states right to choose and take an issue to the Supreme Court of The United States, thereby making a states right into a federal decree. In fact, the rights of the state are of little concern to us, as we believe that achieving our goals through judical activism is the only way we will ever get our purely seditous agenda enacted in this country.
There ya' have it. Any suggestions?
(this is an edited repost)
Current events dictate that I repost this with added info. This was written while the world watched the fight rage over Terri Schiavo, and the euthanasia and eugenics arguments were flying fast and heavy. The new info is that my latest transplant is slowly failing, and a return to dialysis is in the works. But this has always been a possibility, and there is no warranty on used parts. I think I received this latest kidney from a liberal. It has worked for three and a half years and is now wanting to retire. Hopefully it isn't trying to unionize the rest of my organs.
Anyway.
You may be asking yourself about that title.
My goal here is to explain why I am so personally AGAINST euthanasia, eugenics and health care "rationing".
If these things had been standard procedure when I was very young I would be dead.
You see, I was born with a very small birth defect. In the bottom of your bladder is a small flap that drops down to allow urination. My flap didn't drop down, it opened up, like a trap door in a floor.
By the time I was two and a half the constant backflow of urine had extended my ureters and caused hydronephrosis in my left kidney and destroyed my right kidney. When I wouldn't quit crying I was taken to emergency at childrens hospital in L.A. Rushed into the OR for exploratory surgery, the damage was found, the right kidney removed and as much repair work done as possible. I was in there for 12 hours.
When they wheeled me out I was, in my grandfathers words, "battleship gray", and the doctors tried to sedate my mother before they told her their prognosis.
Their prognosis was I would live a week, at most, and they gave her a card for a funeral home down the street from the hospital. Many months later the Doctors said I would need dialysis by the time I was seven, and if I didn't recieve a transplaant by the time I was 14 I would die.
I went on dialysis in my twenties.
I have had countless surgeries, mostly standard procedures every two years growing up as the scar tissue in my bladder needed cleaning out. That is how I know I stopped growing around 12 years old. I haven't needed that procedure since.
Side effects have caused me to have surgeries on both of my legs, (dome osteotomy of the lower extremities), my parathyroid taken out and a small piece implanted in my arm, a fistula for dialysis in my left arm, and two transplants.
Mothers day weekend this year is the three year anniversary for the current kidney.
All through this I have never taken what a doctor said about my prognosis or abilities as boundries or what would happen. I took it as what they THOUGHT may happen and as a challenge to prove them wrong.
Until I was six I had a nephrostomy tube in my side with a bag for urine output slung over my shoulder. I had the constant refrain during those years of "Be Careful" and "GET OUT OF THAT TREE!!!!!" and "You can't do that".
They were wrong. I could, and I did.
I have lived a great life so far, and have such fulfillment as to be almost unfair.
I have a huge group of wonderful friends.
A great son.
I am a great horseman, and the only thing I cannot do with a horse is surgery and slap shoes on them, and I am learning the latter.
I have seen history made, sometimes right in front of me.
I lived to see the Berlin Wall fall and the Soviet union collapse.
I cried when Challenger went down, and cheered when Baghdad fell.
I have seen the sunrise over the spires of Churchill Downs, and sink into the ocean from Del Mar.
I have known tragedy and heartbreak, love and contentment and everything in between.
I have watched friends die and my son be born.
In short I have lived.
My life kicks ass.
If health care had been rationed when I was a child all of this I would have missed.
Who are we to decide, as fallable humans, who lives and dies?
Current events dictate that I repost this with added info. This was written while the world watched the fight rage over Terri Schiavo, and the euthanasia and eugenics arguments were flying fast and heavy. The new info is that my latest transplant is slowly failing, and a return to dialysis is in the works. But this has always been a possibility, and there is no warranty on used parts. I think I received this latest kidney from a liberal. It has worked for three and a half years and is now wanting to retire. Hopefully it isn't trying to unionize the rest of my organs.
Anyway.
You may be asking yourself about that title.
My goal here is to explain why I am so personally AGAINST euthanasia, eugenics and health care "rationing".
If these things had been standard procedure when I was very young I would be dead.
You see, I was born with a very small birth defect. In the bottom of your bladder is a small flap that drops down to allow urination. My flap didn't drop down, it opened up, like a trap door in a floor.
By the time I was two and a half the constant backflow of urine had extended my ureters and caused hydronephrosis in my left kidney and destroyed my right kidney. When I wouldn't quit crying I was taken to emergency at childrens hospital in L.A. Rushed into the OR for exploratory surgery, the damage was found, the right kidney removed and as much repair work done as possible. I was in there for 12 hours.
When they wheeled me out I was, in my grandfathers words, "battleship gray", and the doctors tried to sedate my mother before they told her their prognosis.
Their prognosis was I would live a week, at most, and they gave her a card for a funeral home down the street from the hospital. Many months later the Doctors said I would need dialysis by the time I was seven, and if I didn't recieve a transplaant by the time I was 14 I would die.
I went on dialysis in my twenties.
I have had countless surgeries, mostly standard procedures every two years growing up as the scar tissue in my bladder needed cleaning out. That is how I know I stopped growing around 12 years old. I haven't needed that procedure since.
Side effects have caused me to have surgeries on both of my legs, (dome osteotomy of the lower extremities), my parathyroid taken out and a small piece implanted in my arm, a fistula for dialysis in my left arm, and two transplants.
Mothers day weekend this year is the three year anniversary for the current kidney.
All through this I have never taken what a doctor said about my prognosis or abilities as boundries or what would happen. I took it as what they THOUGHT may happen and as a challenge to prove them wrong.
Until I was six I had a nephrostomy tube in my side with a bag for urine output slung over my shoulder. I had the constant refrain during those years of "Be Careful" and "GET OUT OF THAT TREE!!!!!" and "You can't do that".
They were wrong. I could, and I did.
I have lived a great life so far, and have such fulfillment as to be almost unfair.
I have a huge group of wonderful friends.
A great son.
I am a great horseman, and the only thing I cannot do with a horse is surgery and slap shoes on them, and I am learning the latter.
I have seen history made, sometimes right in front of me.
I lived to see the Berlin Wall fall and the Soviet union collapse.
I cried when Challenger went down, and cheered when Baghdad fell.
I have seen the sunrise over the spires of Churchill Downs, and sink into the ocean from Del Mar.
I have known tragedy and heartbreak, love and contentment and everything in between.
I have watched friends die and my son be born.
In short I have lived.
My life kicks ass.
If health care had been rationed when I was a child all of this I would have missed.
Who are we to decide, as fallable humans, who lives and dies?
It seems in Turkey a man ran off with the wife of his friend and called that friend the next day to say "I've run off with your wife, take mine."
Seems the man whose wife left still wants her back and doesn't want the wife of his now, I imagine, ex friend.
Smart man.
If you are gonna be a stinker of a friend and run off with a mans wife, do you really need to rub salt in the wound by trying to give your old friend that nag of a wife you ran away from?
Insult to injury man.
Seems the man whose wife left still wants her back and doesn't want the wife of his now, I imagine, ex friend.
Smart man.
If you are gonna be a stinker of a friend and run off with a mans wife, do you really need to rub salt in the wound by trying to give your old friend that nag of a wife you ran away from?
Insult to injury man.
A tip o' me tam to Ric at Release the Hounds for the heads up on this bit of insanity. Over at Fjordman, a great blog to read if you want to keep tabs on one of the little known front lines in the Global War On Terror is a translation of a story regarding some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that "allegedly" put Mohammad, (pork and beans be upon him) in a bad light.
Beyond the story of bounties on the heads of cartoonists are several things I wish to address, namely the fact that the UN seems determined to order the Danes around in more ways than one. It is bad enough that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has pretty much declared war on Denmark, but then to be told by the UN that "closing it's borders to poor refugees" would be against international law must really sting.
It would seem that the UN is now running Denmark.
The UN is a corrupt organization that wants to run the world headlong towards it's socialist paradise, giving everyone the same standard of mediocrity (read poverty), and letting insanity be the rule of the day.
Moral Relativism and Situational Ethics seem to be the New World Order, where everything is opposite to reality and common sense. The belief that Islam is a religion of peace is a symptom of something seriously amiss in the way that some people think, for how can one consider any religion peaceful when it routinely calls for the deaths of its' critics? People that defend islam as a religion of peace are either sadly misguided, unthinking apologists or islamic.
When Pat Robertson called for the execution of Hugo Chavez, mainstream christians distanced themselves from him. Regardless of the clout he claims to have, or the power he supposedly weilds, I have yet to hear of one person being killed by a follower of Pat Robertson. Do you think that Hugo Chavez's security people are fearful that a christian "martyr" will detonate himself in an attempt on Chavez's life? I wager they lose no sleep over the hordes of Christian Terrorists that are at this very moment infiltrating Venezuela to wage Robertsons Crusade.
But at this very moment Islamic fundamentalists are planning, training and carrying out terrorists acts against who knows who this time, simply because a group of Imams have decided that this person or that group has defamed islam and must be killed.
And the UN calls that racism and xenophobia.
Is it irrational to fear people that follow islam? Maybe taken as a whole, but in the case of the Dutch, who have been under increasing attacks since Theo Van Gogh was killed, with tensions rising between the muslims and non-muslims becoming ever more pronounced, I don't think a fear of Muslims is irrational, nor do I believe that the Dutch should give up their sovereign rights to control their borders to the UN.
It boils down to this, folks. Islam stomps on free speech, by demanding that none speak against it in any form, and the UN, in a continuing seizure of political correctness that has paralyzed all common sense, is all too willing to help it along.
Islam is an enemy of freedom. The UN is its' ally.
Today the Danes, tomorrow Europe, next week the world.
Head on over to Fjordman and read the article.
Beyond the story of bounties on the heads of cartoonists are several things I wish to address, namely the fact that the UN seems determined to order the Danes around in more ways than one. It is bad enough that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has pretty much declared war on Denmark, but then to be told by the UN that "closing it's borders to poor refugees" would be against international law must really sting.
It would seem that the UN is now running Denmark.
The UN is a corrupt organization that wants to run the world headlong towards it's socialist paradise, giving everyone the same standard of mediocrity (read poverty), and letting insanity be the rule of the day.
Moral Relativism and Situational Ethics seem to be the New World Order, where everything is opposite to reality and common sense. The belief that Islam is a religion of peace is a symptom of something seriously amiss in the way that some people think, for how can one consider any religion peaceful when it routinely calls for the deaths of its' critics? People that defend islam as a religion of peace are either sadly misguided, unthinking apologists or islamic.
When Pat Robertson called for the execution of Hugo Chavez, mainstream christians distanced themselves from him. Regardless of the clout he claims to have, or the power he supposedly weilds, I have yet to hear of one person being killed by a follower of Pat Robertson. Do you think that Hugo Chavez's security people are fearful that a christian "martyr" will detonate himself in an attempt on Chavez's life? I wager they lose no sleep over the hordes of Christian Terrorists that are at this very moment infiltrating Venezuela to wage Robertsons Crusade.
But at this very moment Islamic fundamentalists are planning, training and carrying out terrorists acts against who knows who this time, simply because a group of Imams have decided that this person or that group has defamed islam and must be killed.
And the UN calls that racism and xenophobia.
Xenophobia: an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers
Is it irrational to fear people that follow islam? Maybe taken as a whole, but in the case of the Dutch, who have been under increasing attacks since Theo Van Gogh was killed, with tensions rising between the muslims and non-muslims becoming ever more pronounced, I don't think a fear of Muslims is irrational, nor do I believe that the Dutch should give up their sovereign rights to control their borders to the UN.
It boils down to this, folks. Islam stomps on free speech, by demanding that none speak against it in any form, and the UN, in a continuing seizure of political correctness that has paralyzed all common sense, is all too willing to help it along.
Islam is an enemy of freedom. The UN is its' ally.
Today the Danes, tomorrow Europe, next week the world.
Head on over to Fjordman and read the article.
Every year we watch as the secularization of the birth of Christ happens around us. This year people are being preemptive, and its been quite successful. Kevin McCullough has started a campaign to send the ACLU Merry Christmas cards. Another effort is out there as well called Operation Nativity.
Dr. Charles Nestor, director of The Truth Matters, is announcing a project called "Operation Nativity" with the goal of having Christians across the country set up nativity scenes on their own property.
Nestor states, "It's that time of year again. We're not even out of October and already the forces are aligning to prohibit the public celebration of the birth of Jesus.
"December 25 is the day in our culture that is set aside to acknowledge and to celebrate that Jesus of Nazareth was born. For Christians it is more than a day of feasting and the exchange of gifts, it is a holy and solemn time to join our voices in unison as the angels proclaimed on the hillside to the shepherds, 'Glory to God in the highest.'
"I am calling for Christians everywhere to join me in Operation Nativity. While we continue to support the public displays, let's flood the country with nativity scenes on our own properties!
"Think with me what could happen if on lawns in every community, on business property, on church lawns, at Christian schools, on empty land, and literally everywhere you looked, there was the depiction of the scene that recognizes the birth of Jesus.
"Simple cutouts are available. Many already own lighted sets. It could be a family project, filled with opportunities to teach children about the events surrounding the birth of the Savior.Source
We are all for this, and encourage everyone to join in this expression of Christmas. And we want to take this idea and run with it! Decorate your blog for Christmas with a nativity scene, in support of religious expression, and as a sign of your support for stopping the ACLU, and the secularist movement.
Please download the pics, and host them yourself...I can not afford the bandwidth of hotlinking. If you want to put the nativity scene pic in support of Stop The ACLU, and to decorate your blog for the Christmas season, copy the code below, and replace the URL of the pics with the downloaded pic that you host.
If you want to put the Homeland Holiday Advisory System, copy this code.
Here's to the Christmas holiday!
crossposted at Stop the ACLU
The husband from hell is BACK once again- he made so much money on the death of his wife, he wants to make sure he helps others do the same.
Well Michael, had there not been so many questions raised by nursing staff who overheard your nasty remarks all the time, people would have trusted your motives. Had you not spent all the money marked for Terri's REHAB on yourself and your NEW family, people would have trusted your motives. Had you not been so evasive and just allowed those tests to be performed on Terri, people would have trusted your motives. I have to ask you Michael:HOw much money are you getting paid to take on such an endeavor? And who is behind this? It doesn't take even an idiOt to figure this out.
I can imagine how Terri must feel about this. To know her name is being used to further promote the culture of death...
Schiavo, whose effort to end life support for his brain-damaged wife divided a nation, is starting a political action committee that will challenge candidates based on where they stand on government's reach in private lives.
Nine months after a fierce political and legal fight over Terri Schiavo, Michael Schiavo said his experience with political leaders "has opened my eyes to just how easily the private wishes of normal Americans like me and Terri can be cast aside in a destructive game of political pandering."
Schiavo described himself as a lifelong Republican "before Republicans pushed the power of government into my private family decisions."
Well Michael, had there not been so many questions raised by nursing staff who overheard your nasty remarks all the time, people would have trusted your motives. Had you not spent all the money marked for Terri's REHAB on yourself and your NEW family, people would have trusted your motives. Had you not been so evasive and just allowed those tests to be performed on Terri, people would have trusted your motives. I have to ask you Michael:HOw much money are you getting paid to take on such an endeavor? And who is behind this? It doesn't take even an idiOt to figure this out.
The political action committee, TerriPAC, will raise and spend money on Florida candidates as well as those running for Congress. Terri Schiavo suffered a brain injury in 1990 that left her in what some doctors called a "persistent vegetative state." Her parents sought to keep her feeding tube in place while her husband pushed to have it removed, citing her wishes and setting off a bitter court battle.
Congress, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his brother, President Bush, all tried to have the feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo died on March 31.
I can imagine how Terri must feel about this. To know her name is being used to further promote the culture of death...
No complete video to review, but some thoughts on Zawahiri's latest video.
Out of order from the actual report:
There are a couple of reasons that this was filmed in September and we're just now seeing it. My first theory is that these guys are so far and gone in the back and beyond, having to keep moving for the sake of safety and that their network of message movers in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area is so degraded that they simply must take this like by dent of travel and security to get it to a distribution point.
I feel this is backed up by the fact that his letter to Zarqawi was written in June but didn't get picked up until late August.
Next comment:
Now, why would Zawahiri feel the need to re-affirm OBLs leadership role? Keep in mind that Harry Reids latest oops regarding the potential that OBL was dead in the Waziristan area of Pakistan was only a week or so ago and the video was taped in September right as his last letter was making the rounds. I may not recall correctly, but I don't recall much speculation tht OBL was dead in September, usually the reason these guys feel the need to come out and say differently.
However, what was going on in September and the few months prior to that was that Zarqawi and Zawahiri were exchanging letters and video/audio. Zarqawi was taken to task by Zawahiri about his tactics in the letter and other questions; Zarqawi immediately responded (for him; it was about a week later) stating the letter was a lie and re-asserting that his operational choices were appropriate.
The Zawahiri letter also gave us very important details about the split within the groups that Zarqawi was attempting to coop, but at the same time he was busy giving them lectures about appropriate Islam, forcing them to live by his Wahabist doctrine when many were Ashari or Maturdi. Basically, he was ticking off the locals and other allies not to mention the Iranians who were getting quite nervous that their 900 lb gorilla on a 2mm wide chain was trying to eat their lap dogs in Iraq. Iran apparently sent a little message in the shape of a horse head in the bed reminding Zawahiri that they still had some folks as "guests" as leverage.
So, Zawihiri was re-affirming OBL's leadership role, even though OBL himself has not made but one message in the last year for one of two reasons:
a) Zarqawi keeps making bad choices and thwarting the authority of the central organization. This may be an attempt to reign him back, re-assert ideological control and remind others who are following the great warrior Zarqawi that their true loyalties lie with the Holy War as represented by "Prince" OBL.
b) Zawahiri's version of the "Wizard of Oz". He's telling people not to look behind the curtain, that the Wizard is before you and he is large and in charge even if you can't physically see him. Which means that OBL is no where near Zawahiri. Before the US bombed them out of Tora Bora, Zawahiri and OBL were want to appear together and now we only see them separately, if we see OBL at all, which has been at least a year. Now, it could be that they are both separately on the run in the Waziristan border and they have done this because their security has been compromised more than once. Sort of like putting the VP in one place and the President in the other in order to insure that governance can continue if one or the other is captured.
Remember in his letter he talked about al Faraj's take down being a blow to their ability to communicate and receive funds. But, more so, he talked about how al Faraj was taken down which was betrayal by a trusted insider. Of course, there are still 16 leadership elements in Iran, including known parts of OBL's family so I leave open the possibility, as I have in the past, that OBL is in Iran and that is why we and the mujihadeen can't see him.
Either way, they are separated and for all Zawahiris claims of success for the mujihadeen, the fact that they can't even be near each other for fear of capture is a sure sign of weakness in the group.
Then we have Zawahiri re-affirming what I have said before and that is that they are no simple ideologues functioning on a purely altruistic or religious construct, but are fully aware of the oil in the region and its importance (see, Al Qaida's war for oil and other things).
What's interesting about this statement is that, in the beginning they issued directives about saving these resources because the caliphate would need them in the future to pay for operational costs and use as a tool of leverage against all those who need the oil. It shows that these men can change tactics as needed, but it also shows that they recognize the fight is much harder than they expected to set up this caliphate or to damage the US. They thought they could do it while keeping these resources.
However, I've said before that these are no mean cave dwellers without political and financial savvy. They know how markets and economies work.
The other tell in the message (though I'd like to see the full statement), is that, once again, as in his letter to Zarqawi, Zawahiri asks for:
In other words, recruitment is down, the mujihadeen are not actually winning the glorious war and money is in short supply. It's interesting that Zawahiri who had just been making the plea for money to Zarqawi (and reminding him not to throw away the help they need on pointless discussions about proper Sunni doctrine), decided to skip the middle man and appeal right to the target audience.
Is that another sign of waning trust or did Zawahiri get the message that Zarqawi was having difficulties getting and moving money?
Aside from some propaganda about their winning streak and some cheerleading comments for the mujihadeen, there are three other statements that bear some intelligence (I'm sure there will be more when we get the full statement).
Zawahiri recognizes or states their intentions again for an American withdrawal:
Out of order from the actual report:
The tape appeared to have been filmed sometime during or after last September as Zawahri referred to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's re-election in that month, as well as Afghanistan's September 18 legislative elections.
The video showed Zawahri speaking against a white background to an interviewer off-camera who said the interview was to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities -- carried out by al Qaeda.
There are a couple of reasons that this was filmed in September and we're just now seeing it. My first theory is that these guys are so far and gone in the back and beyond, having to keep moving for the sake of safety and that their network of message movers in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area is so degraded that they simply must take this like by dent of travel and security to get it to a distribution point.
I feel this is backed up by the fact that his letter to Zarqawi was written in June but didn't get picked up until late August.
Next comment:
"Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may God protect him, is still leading its jihad (holy war)," Zawahri said.
Now, why would Zawahiri feel the need to re-affirm OBLs leadership role? Keep in mind that Harry Reids latest oops regarding the potential that OBL was dead in the Waziristan area of Pakistan was only a week or so ago and the video was taped in September right as his last letter was making the rounds. I may not recall correctly, but I don't recall much speculation tht OBL was dead in September, usually the reason these guys feel the need to come out and say differently.
However, what was going on in September and the few months prior to that was that Zarqawi and Zawahiri were exchanging letters and video/audio. Zarqawi was taken to task by Zawahiri about his tactics in the letter and other questions; Zarqawi immediately responded (for him; it was about a week later) stating the letter was a lie and re-asserting that his operational choices were appropriate.
The Zawahiri letter also gave us very important details about the split within the groups that Zarqawi was attempting to coop, but at the same time he was busy giving them lectures about appropriate Islam, forcing them to live by his Wahabist doctrine when many were Ashari or Maturdi. Basically, he was ticking off the locals and other allies not to mention the Iranians who were getting quite nervous that their 900 lb gorilla on a 2mm wide chain was trying to eat their lap dogs in Iraq. Iran apparently sent a little message in the shape of a horse head in the bed reminding Zawahiri that they still had some folks as "guests" as leverage.
So, Zawihiri was re-affirming OBL's leadership role, even though OBL himself has not made but one message in the last year for one of two reasons:
a) Zarqawi keeps making bad choices and thwarting the authority of the central organization. This may be an attempt to reign him back, re-assert ideological control and remind others who are following the great warrior Zarqawi that their true loyalties lie with the Holy War as represented by "Prince" OBL.
b) Zawahiri's version of the "Wizard of Oz". He's telling people not to look behind the curtain, that the Wizard is before you and he is large and in charge even if you can't physically see him. Which means that OBL is no where near Zawahiri. Before the US bombed them out of Tora Bora, Zawahiri and OBL were want to appear together and now we only see them separately, if we see OBL at all, which has been at least a year. Now, it could be that they are both separately on the run in the Waziristan border and they have done this because their security has been compromised more than once. Sort of like putting the VP in one place and the President in the other in order to insure that governance can continue if one or the other is captured.
Remember in his letter he talked about al Faraj's take down being a blow to their ability to communicate and receive funds. But, more so, he talked about how al Faraj was taken down which was betrayal by a trusted insider. Of course, there are still 16 leadership elements in Iran, including known parts of OBL's family so I leave open the possibility, as I have in the past, that OBL is in Iran and that is why we and the mujihadeen can't see him.
Either way, they are separated and for all Zawahiris claims of success for the mujihadeen, the fact that they can't even be near each other for fear of capture is a sure sign of weakness in the group.
Then we have Zawahiri re-affirming what I have said before and that is that they are no simple ideologues functioning on a purely altruistic or religious construct, but are fully aware of the oil in the region and its importance (see, Al Qaida's war for oil and other things).
"I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims' stolen oil, most of the revenues of which go to the enemies of Islam while most of what they leave is seized by the thieves who rule our countries," he said.
What's interesting about this statement is that, in the beginning they issued directives about saving these resources because the caliphate would need them in the future to pay for operational costs and use as a tool of leverage against all those who need the oil. It shows that these men can change tactics as needed, but it also shows that they recognize the fight is much harder than they expected to set up this caliphate or to damage the US. They thought they could do it while keeping these resources.
However, I've said before that these are no mean cave dwellers without political and financial savvy. They know how markets and economies work.
The other tell in the message (though I'd like to see the full statement), is that, once again, as in his letter to Zarqawi, Zawahiri asks for:
""I call on Muslims everywhere to support their mujahideen brothers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine with money, men and prayer ... especially (Muslims) in the countries surrounding these battlefields."
In other words, recruitment is down, the mujihadeen are not actually winning the glorious war and money is in short supply. It's interesting that Zawahiri who had just been making the plea for money to Zarqawi (and reminding him not to throw away the help they need on pointless discussions about proper Sunni doctrine), decided to skip the middle man and appeal right to the target audience.
Is that another sign of waning trust or did Zawahiri get the message that Zarqawi was having difficulties getting and moving money?
Aside from some propaganda about their winning streak and some cheerleading comments for the mujihadeen, there are three other statements that bear some intelligence (I'm sure there will be more when we get the full statement).
Zawahiri recognizes or states their intentions again for an American withdrawal:
"The (Iraqi) government is begging Americans not to leave because they know the day Americans leave is the day they are finished."
He tries to claim the same for Afghanistan, but since he is in Pakistan and the Pakistan army is after him, it rings kind of false:"If it wasn't for the Pakistani army's continuous support to Americans, they would have left (Afghanistan) a long time ago and they will leave soon, God willing."
And then it contains what can only be surmised as either recognition of their involvement in the July 7 bombings or is another threat for another large scale attack:Zawahri said Britons had only their government to blame for al Qaeda's suicide bombings in London earlier this year because it had failed to accept a truce offered by bin Laden in exchange for leaving "Islam's homes."
Those are the basics. Read what little else is available for some more propaganda about how they are winning the war, elections are sinful, yadda, yadda, yadda.
The Democrats want everyone to think THEY have THE solution for the illegal immigration crisis.They have new ideas and fresh thought...yeah right! Their plan amounts to nothing more than total amnesty for those who are here illegally.
The Democratic National Committee insisted Saturday that efforts to secure the nation’s borders shouldn’t shut out an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and their families already living in the U.S.
Typical for the Democrats. Take what is illegal and just make it legal. Change the rules of the game.
The DNC wrapped up its fall meetings in Phoenix by unanimously passing three resolutions related to illegal immigration, showing clearer unity on the issue than sharply divided Republicans.
The main document calls for more effective border security but also says immigration reform should allow illegal workers to "earn the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship."
The DNC stance echoes bipartisan legislation cosponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, and John McCain, R-Ariz., as well as House Republicans Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe, both of Arizona. That plan would allow immigrants who pay a $2,000 fine and back taxes to eventually seek permanent residency.
Uh huh...doesn't it always come down to paying money for freedom? The Democrats will use this issue and make money and votes off of it. They could care less if some of these illegals are here to harm America. They could care less about the resources being suckered up and taken away from Americans.
Dean is stupid. But I wish he was right about what the Bush plan calls for. We should round and deport every illegal in the country. Plain. Simple.
This is a joke. There isn't much that isn't mandated by federal law...any hospital that gets federal money has to accept patients, regardless of their national origin or alien status. Same with welfare. Same with most social programs.
The Democrats hate all who defend America- be them soldiers or peaceful border guards.
The DNC's Press Release about Illegal Immigration
Tom Tancredo:
We all watched President Bush' speech in Tucson last Monday with high hopes. Much of his rhetoric was on target. But when he says border security must go hand in hand with comprehensive immigration reform, he has it exactly backward. His proposal includes an amnesty for the 10 million to 15 million illegal aliens already in our country, and that step will render any new border security effort useless and laughable.
In 1986, Congress passed a general amnesty for more than 2 million illegal aliens on the promise that border security would be achieved and laws against employment of illegal workers would be enforced. Neither of those promises was kept, and the Congress will not be tricked a second time.
Any honest and sensible immigration reform must start with border security and interior enforcement. When those two things are achieved, we can debate what kind of new temporary worker program makes the most sense.
But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution.
The Democratic National Committee insisted Saturday that efforts to secure the nation’s borders shouldn’t shut out an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and their families already living in the U.S.
Typical for the Democrats. Take what is illegal and just make it legal. Change the rules of the game.
The DNC wrapped up its fall meetings in Phoenix by unanimously passing three resolutions related to illegal immigration, showing clearer unity on the issue than sharply divided Republicans.
The main document calls for more effective border security but also says immigration reform should allow illegal workers to "earn the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship."
The DNC stance echoes bipartisan legislation cosponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, and John McCain, R-Ariz., as well as House Republicans Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe, both of Arizona. That plan would allow immigrants who pay a $2,000 fine and back taxes to eventually seek permanent residency.
Uh huh...doesn't it always come down to paying money for freedom? The Democrats will use this issue and make money and votes off of it. They could care less if some of these illegals are here to harm America. They could care less about the resources being suckered up and taken away from Americans.
Dean suggested Bush wants to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. In truth, the Bush plan would allow a guestworker program. But immigrants would have to return to their home countries when their work visas expire after six years.
Dean is stupid. But I wish he was right about what the Bush plan calls for. We should round and deport every illegal in the country. Plain. Simple.
A second resolution adopted Saturday condemns a proposed Colorado constitutional amendment that would deny illegal immigrants access to all nonemergency government services not mandated by federal law. The Colorado proposal was inspired by Arizona’s Proposition 200, which state voters approved in 2004 by a wide margin.
This is a joke. There isn't much that isn't mandated by federal law...any hospital that gets federal money has to accept patients, regardless of their national origin or alien status. Same with welfare. Same with most social programs.
The third resolution condemned as vigilantes civilian anti-immigration groups such as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The Democrats hate all who defend America- be them soldiers or peaceful border guards.
The DNC's Press Release about Illegal Immigration
Tom Tancredo:
We all watched President Bush' speech in Tucson last Monday with high hopes. Much of his rhetoric was on target. But when he says border security must go hand in hand with comprehensive immigration reform, he has it exactly backward. His proposal includes an amnesty for the 10 million to 15 million illegal aliens already in our country, and that step will render any new border security effort useless and laughable.
In 1986, Congress passed a general amnesty for more than 2 million illegal aliens on the promise that border security would be achieved and laws against employment of illegal workers would be enforced. Neither of those promises was kept, and the Congress will not be tricked a second time.
Any honest and sensible immigration reform must start with border security and interior enforcement. When those two things are achieved, we can debate what kind of new temporary worker program makes the most sense.
But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution.
How To: The Al-Qaida Guide to Kidnapping - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
Kidnapping is okay -- so long as it serves political or financial goals for a terrorist organization. It's also fine if it draws attention to a political issue like, say, Chechnya. You should also stay distant from hostages -- literally -- lest you get to close to them, both physically and mentally. These are just a few of the parting tips offered by a top al-Qaida strategists before he was killed in 2004.
Stop The ACLU
The ACLU is up to their anti-US, anti-defense, anti-security litigation again. This time they are suing the CIA based on "secret prisons" and the allegations of one man.
First off, I don't know how the ACLU got details of this particular man's case, and I'm not advocating torture if it happened, however, that's not what they're arguing. They are instead fighting the use of secret prisons across the globe. What if the ACLU had tried this in WW2? In World War Two, we had prisons camps across the country, and in some cases overseas, and they were secret. It's a necessary action, not only for our safety, but for the safety of the prisoners. If we release the location, terrorists and enemies could attempt to assault it, or, angry Americans could attempt an attack. In the wake of 9/11, there was an extraordinary amount of anger, and I could easily imagine groups of disgruntled Americans attacking holding camps of Al-Qaeda members.
So what's the ACLU's argument? It's not about torture, but rather about the fact that they are having a hard time defending the terrorists because they cannot locate them or communicate with them. The ACLU refused funds from groups that said their money can't be used to defend terrorism. That's what this is about. The CIA is doing this for the safety of our troops, the safety of the average American, and even the safety of the prisoners. The ACLU wants to assault that safety.
The ACLU is up to their anti-US, anti-defense, anti-security litigation again. This time they are suing the CIA based on "secret prisons" and the allegations of one man.
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.
It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.
Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.
'Extraordinary rendition'
"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him in incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release. SOURCE
First off, I don't know how the ACLU got details of this particular man's case, and I'm not advocating torture if it happened, however, that's not what they're arguing. They are instead fighting the use of secret prisons across the globe. What if the ACLU had tried this in WW2? In World War Two, we had prisons camps across the country, and in some cases overseas, and they were secret. It's a necessary action, not only for our safety, but for the safety of the prisoners. If we release the location, terrorists and enemies could attempt to assault it, or, angry Americans could attempt an attack. In the wake of 9/11, there was an extraordinary amount of anger, and I could easily imagine groups of disgruntled Americans attacking holding camps of Al-Qaeda members.
So what's the ACLU's argument? It's not about torture, but rather about the fact that they are having a hard time defending the terrorists because they cannot locate them or communicate with them. The ACLU refused funds from groups that said their money can't be used to defend terrorism. That's what this is about. The CIA is doing this for the safety of our troops, the safety of the average American, and even the safety of the prisoners. The ACLU wants to assault that safety.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
In a victory for National Security, and the American citizen not to be blown up, a judge ruled today against the ACLU, and for NYC Subways in their effort to protect their citizens.
Well of course they plan to appeal, they wouldn't want common sense to prevail! I understand the ACLU's concern on this. No one wants to live in a police state. However, I think they are completely overzealous in this. The majority of people do not mind being searched if it means they will live another day. Besides, the ACLU would have another fit if we were to try to implement profiled searches. And they have even proven through their lawsuit in Tampa against Raymond James Stadium that they are against searches across the board. The irony is that on their own building they have a sign that says you may be subject to search upon entering. The ACLU have twisted a legitimate attempt to protect NY's citizens into a scare tactic method completely overexaggerated. Why can't they see what most people can? The threat of being blown up is a greater risk, than the far fetched idea of a police state.
In a victory for National Security, and the American citizen not to be blown up, a judge ruled today against the ACLU, and for NYC Subways in their effort to protect their citizens.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Friday that police had a constitutional right to randomly search passengers' bags on the New York City subway to deter terrorist attacks.
U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ruled the searches were an effective and appropriate means to fight terrorism, and constituted only a "minimal intrusion" of privacy.
"The risk to public safety of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is substantial and real," Berman wrote in his opinion.
"The need for implementing counter-terrorism measures is indisputable, pressing, ongoing and evolving."
Random bag searches began on July 22 after a second set of bomb attacks on London's transit system.
In a statement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the ruling, calling bag searches a "reasonable precaution" that police would continue to take.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), which had sued to stop the searches, plans to appeal, Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. She said the "unprecedented" bag search program violated a basic freedom.
Well of course they plan to appeal, they wouldn't want common sense to prevail! I understand the ACLU's concern on this. No one wants to live in a police state. However, I think they are completely overzealous in this. The majority of people do not mind being searched if it means they will live another day. Besides, the ACLU would have another fit if we were to try to implement profiled searches. And they have even proven through their lawsuit in Tampa against Raymond James Stadium that they are against searches across the board. The irony is that on their own building they have a sign that says you may be subject to search upon entering. The ACLU have twisted a legitimate attempt to protect NY's citizens into a scare tactic method completely overexaggerated. Why can't they see what most people can? The threat of being blown up is a greater risk, than the far fetched idea of a police state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)