E Pluribus Reluctor --(those who resist)

John McCain (D), (R?), (?)

2008-02-01T08:18:00.001-08:00

As we look forward to the super-Tuesday primaries, those of us that consider ourselves conservatives of the Goldwater/Reagan model must pause before voting for any candidate in the name of expediency or pragmatism.

In my case, the last two elections were about defeating the greater evil. I never was overjoyed that another Bush family member would run the country. In 2000, I was a Forbes guy, then was forced to vote against Gore. Four years later, I was forced to vote against Kerry and the Breck Girl.

This election cycle, I find myself considering a sacrifice of even more of my core values to defeat either one of the outright Socialists running in Democrat's clothing. So I was left 'holding my nose' once again, throwing my support to John McCain. The John McCain who birthed McCain-Feingold, which squarely opposes the First Amendment to the Constitution. John McCain who cozied up with Ted Kennedy to allow twenty million illegal aliens to laugh at our laws, who gave us the 'gang of fourteen'-back room deal makers, who for decades has made bargains with liberals at the expense of principles he claims to have learned from Reagan, yet rarely applied in practice. In 2006, John McCain fought the Defense of Marriage Act and Rick Santorum every step of the way. And McCain know calls himself a Conservative when it's convenient?

And in light of our choices, remember this: John McCain in 2001 considered leaving the Republican party. In 2004, he is on record as having negotiated with JOHN KERRY to be his running mate. This is confirmed with audio recordings of both Kerry and McCain confirming this fact only four years ago. And that is why I have to throw my support to Mitt Romney. At least I know he will not ask to be Hillary's running mate to defeat the Obomination (spelling intentional).

Consider that before holding your nose and voting for the pragmatism of supposed 'electability'.

Why Rudy?

2008-01-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

Being a Californian, I always heard that NYC was a dangerous, dirty city run by the mob, with the the scraps being fought over by street gangs. Remember the movie "Escape From New York?" ...silly movie, but the image was somewhat accurate. Anyway, as a young kid, I remember some guy named Giuliani was always up front, putting mob guys in jail. Then later, I started hearing how much better NYC had become. People were often discussing walking through Central Park at night. I still don't know if I would do that, but it is clear that there was a major clean-up operation completed in NYC under Rudy's watch.

Flash forward to 9/11.

An outright act of war was declared on us by a theology. The world's financial hub was destroyed in an hour, our defense center almost suffered the same fate, and our center of government narrowly escaped total destruction as well. Rudy was up front immediately. He didn't hide out with protection details. He was grubby, tired, but solid and in control of information. This was clearly the result of previous years of good planning and knowledge of the departments of the city he operated. In short, on that Tuesday morning I saw the model of a President, and said it then. I knew we'd see him in this position some day, and that day is here. The threat has only retreated to the shadows momentarily, regrouping, planning, biding time. Remember, 9/11 was was put in motion five years before its execution. There will be other attacks, and no Democrat is prepared to take the action required. And most Republicans have become weak-kneed in the glare of world opinion, shaped by anti-US and liberal ideologies.

I believe the sole issue in this race is national security. Without it, health care, global warming, the economy, abortion, etc., are mere side shows for peace-era politics. I think Rudy understands this, and that is why had my vote before he even decided to run for President. Rudy has been my candidate since 9/12/2001, and will be our President on 1/20/2009.

Women Voters...

2008-01-09T22:42:00.000-08:00

"Feelings" are not a qualification....

"....Marianne Pernold-Young told CNN Wednesday she ultimately picked Barack Obama in Tuesday night's primary because of the Illinois senator's performance at a recent rally she attended.

"I was moved to tears. Not once, but twice," she said. "And he has this enormous electricity. And I was just taken aback. And I just had to go with my feelings."

Rudy's tax plan

2008-01-09T21:19:00.001-08:00

This makes sense. And it doesn't hurt to have a solid financial guy like Forbes sign on.

2008 Starts off with even more leftist bias

2008-01-06T17:02:00.000-08:00

Here's a little example of liberal media bias (yet again)....that's right, the same media that the MoveOn left claims is the lapdog of the right.

Today, January 6th, early afternoon, on MSNBC with Tim Russert and guests, analyzing the GOP:

Russert: ".......The Republicans are all over the place, divided, fractured and in disarray at this point. It seems like they need to go somewhere and get their act together if they expect to counter this Democrat momentum...(to female MSNBC commentator)....."

Female commentator: ".....(smiling gleefully).....where are the Republicans going to go?...somewhere up in the Appalachians?....."

Oh, ok. I get it now. Republicans are toothless backwoods neanderthals, only taking time off from incest and moonshining long enough to did up Jim Crowe and run him for President.

The liberal bias in the supposed 'mainstream' media is at this point not even subject to question. You just now have to pick between what flavor of liberal you want to watch.

In point of fact.....

2007-12-22T10:11:00.000-08:00

WATERBOARDING
IS THE ANSWER

Guns Save Lives------Again

2007-12-10T22:57:00.000-08:00

Of course the Leftstream Media will spin this two ways:

1-It's the presence of guns that enabled Murray to kill the people he did, not his own lack of control and hatred for others.

2-Stopping a murderer with firepower just perpetuates the supposed 'problem' of gun ownership.

...But what might have happened if a professor at Virginia Tech had had a gun on that horrible day when 32 were murdered? How many would still be alive today if a gun had been used to save lives?

____________

- "It seemed like it was me, the gunman, and God," said Jeanne Assam, describing her feelings as she confronted a man who charged into her Colorado Springs church Sunday firing a weapon.

Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience, fired her own weapon at the invader and stopped his attack, police say.

Police on Monday identified the gunman as Matthew Murray and said he was also responsible for an attack earlier Sunday at a missionary center some 80 miles away.

The two incidents left four people dead, in addition to the gunman, and five wounded.

Police said a man with a beard, wearing a dark jacket, glasses, and skullcap, entered the facility, got into a dispute with a staff member about whether he could stay there for the night, and then opened fire.

Two staff members, Tiffany Johnson, 26, and Philip Crouse, 24, died later Sunday from their injuries, Youth With a Mission co-founder Peter Warren said. Two other staff members were injured, and one was in critical condition.

Investigators tried to track the gunman through fresh snow with the help of dogs, but lost his trail in a heavily walked area, Deputy Chief Gary Creager of Arvada police said.

About 12 hours later, police say, Murray showed up at New Life Church as a service was letting out.

Police said Monday he had an assault rifle and two handguns, and may have had as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

He fired on a family who were in or near their car. Two sisters, identified by police as Rachael Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed, and their father, David Works, 51, was also shot and is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds.

Murray then entered the church, police say, where Assam was one of several volunteer security guards on duty.

"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it." Watch Assam tell how she stopped Murray »

Police said they were still investigating whether Assam's weapon killed Murray, or whether he might have died of a self-inflicted gunshot.

Assam extended her sympathy to the families of the victims "and of the gunman -- and I mean that very sincerely."

Phil Abeyta, who identified himself as Murray's uncle, appeared at another news conference and read a statement from the family asking for forgiveness.

"Our family cannot express the magnitude of our grief for the victims and families of this tragedy," he said. "On behalf of our family and our son, we ask for forgiveness. We cannot understand why this has happened."

Abeyta appeared with spokesmen from the Youth With A Mission center, who confirmed that Murray had been part of a training program five years ago.

Peter Warren, director of Youth With A Mission, said Murray did not go on the mission he was training for in 2002 because managers thought that "issues relating to his health made it unsafe for him to do so."

But a man who served at the center with Murray told CNN Monday that Murray was kicked out of the mission program for strange behavior. Watch more about Matthew Murray's background »

A source -- a long-time member of New Life Church -- said Murray had a falling out with Youth With A Mission after working with the organization a couple of years ago. The source said Murray sent antagonistic and threatening correspondence afterward.

Earlier Monday, Boyd said the gunman was unknown to parishioners there.

"He simply showed up on our property yesterday with a gun, with the intention of hurting people, and he did," Boyd said.

Boyd said the megachurch instituted security precautions after the shootings at the Denver area mission center.

Boyd said Assam was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church. "She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said. Watch pastor tell how guard saved lives »

"I give the credit to God. And I say that very humbly. God was with me and the whole time I was behind cover -- this has got to be God, because of the firepower that [the gunman] had vs. what I had," Assam said.

"I did not run away and I didn't think for a minute to run away, I just knew that I was given the assignment to end this before it got too much worse. I just prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide me."

She told reporters she had not slept since the shooting, "as I'm sure you can tell."

She said she was on the third day of a three-day regimen of fasting and prayer, wanting to know God's will for what to do with her life, when the shooting took place.

"I was weak, and where I was weak, God made me strong," she said. "He filled me and he guided me and protected me and many other people. And I'm honored that God chose me."

Assam was one of about a dozen volunteer security guards at the church, half of whom are armed, Boyd said. The guards are licensed, trained and screened, and are church members, not "mercenaries," he said. E-mail to a friend

The Left is honest once in a while

2007-07-31T08:43:00.000-07:00

A War We Just Might Win

MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

Published: July 30, 2007

Washington

Keith Negley

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Why Isn't This News?

2007-06-15T07:55:00.000-07:00

DOW

13,665.90
+ 112.18

Oil is high. We've got two wars draining resources daily. More war looks possible in the Middle East, with Iran continuing its nuclear efforts. Our debt piles up with China owning more of us everyday.

Yet our economy is like a nuclear powered steam-roller. Record day after record day, and no one, Democrat or Republican....mentions it. Yet whenever some liberal starts talking economics or mentions the halcyon days of Bill Clinton, it's "We had the greatest economy under Clinton"

We have become bored with our own success. But mark my words, when and if the Dow drops 2000 points, it will be Bush's fault. And by the way, a 2000 point drop would be a great opportunity for many.

Time To Beat Their Heads In

2007-06-14T16:06:00.001-07:00

Sorry......that's honestly the first thought that came to my mind when I read that our idiot President (whomI voted for twice!) has somehow managed to win over enough RINO's to revive the Thing that Wouldn't Die- 'comprehensive immigration reform'.

So here we are a week after millions of us pounded on those traitorous senators who were willing to sell out our country -again- for either votes (Democrats) or lobbyist contributions (Republicans)

Senate supporters of a comprehensive immigration reform bill reach a tentative agreement to revive the measure, senators involved in the talks told CNN.

I'm not sure how many times we have to tell the REPUBLICANS, of all poeple: NO DISCUSSION ABOUT PATH TO CITIZENSHIP UNTIL THE BORDER---ALL OF IT----is closed and secured.

NO SCAMNESTY!

* Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
* Cochran (R-MS)
* Coleman (R-MN)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Cornyn (R-TX)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Domenici (R-NM)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)Lott (R-MS)
* McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
* Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
* Warner (R-VA)

+ + Call to Action #1 -- Call these Senators and say you opposethis "Amendments for Amnesty" deal
Sen. Hagel (202) 224-4224
Sen. Nelson (202) 224-6551
Key Senators to call:
McConnell 202/224-2541
Lott 202/224-6253
Kyl 202/224-4521
Brownback 202/224-6521
Burr 202/224-3154
Chambliss 202/224-3521
Cornyn 202/224-2934
Hutchison 202/224-5922
Isakson 202/224-3643
Warner 202/224-2023
Webb 202/224-4024

I know a Great Musician

2007-06-08T22:39:00.000-07:00

The idiot Sheryl Crow thought it wise to chastise us into using one toilet paper square per 'sitting'.

So naturally, it was appropriate for my friend, Greg Hall, to wax poetic about it.

Below are the lyrics, you can also hear the song here:
Greg Hall

One Square's All It Should Take

I see there are storm clouds forming
I fear it might be global warming
I've got to do something to make you listen to me

Look at the habits we're keeping
Our poor Mother Earth is weeping
I thought about this when I sat down to pee

Don't you know, when I go
I start condescending
To the wasteful masses
With cleanup pending
When you go, don't you know
One square's all it should take

Judgment comes easy for me
And other opinions--they bore me
But you better listen, because of my fame

Now here comes Orwell's Big Brother
While you're on the throne, he will hover
I'm using one square, and you'd best do the same

[chorus]

Maybe you'll just say 'whatever'
Sheryl's tours abuse the weather
But those emissions aren't the problem
My plan's best for you and you'd
Better not dare to disobey

Don't you dare ask about
My plane or my limousine
These rules aren't for me
Your dirty ass will save a tree

Tell me as I walk on by
Is there something on my thigh?

'Cause one square's all it should take (3)

"Dissolve the Congress"

2007-06-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he has told the most virulent Republican opponents that he will not tolerate a raft of amendment votes designed simply to filibuster the measure, and he castigated his own party's senators for their vote switches.
"We're going to do this damned thing, and if we don't, I think we should dissolve the Congress and just go home," Lott fumed.

How We Got Here-Part 1

2007-06-07T14:36:00.000-07:00

Tired of hearing blathering liberals tell me 'it's all about oil' or 'American Imperialism', it occurred to me that once again we need a history review.

Present day Iraq has historically been something of a frontier zone. Because it served as an axis of trade routes and contact points between Asia and the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Semites, Indo-Europeans, Muslims, Christians, Jews and members of various syncretic groups have lived (and continue to live) there.

In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans embarked on a centralizing mission designed to impose imperial government on outlying provinces, including Iraq. The Ottomans found themselves confronting the British, who ruled India and looked toward the Persian Gulf for further trade; they were determined to control it either directly or by proxy.

The British entered Basra in October 1914 to secure control of the Persian Gulf and protect Persian oil fields and communication lines to India. The British lacked sufficient troops. Secret agreements were made with the French and with Sharif Hussein, who controlled the Muslim holy cities in what is now Saudi Arabia. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 divided the Middle East into French and British spheres of influence.

With the creation of the new Iraqi state, old conflicts came again to the fore. These included border disputes, tribal unrest along the frontier, and disputes over water from Persian streams which fed Iraqi rivers. In an attempt to force gains on these issues, Persia refused to recognize the new Iraqi state until 1929. At the Paris Peace Conference a Persian delegation pressed the British for border concessions, which were refused.

With Iraqi independence in 1932 the issue took on new urgency. By 1934 Iraq was driven to complain to the League of Nations about Persia's "flagrant acts of aggression," thought attempts to resolve the dispute in the League went nowhere. In 1937 both sides agreed to make concessions, and a Frontier Treaty was signed.
As the Persians viewed Iraq as a British fabrication, they did not attempt to engage the country as an equal, and only in the period after British influence waned were real attempts at negotiations made. So long as the border itself remained mostly quiet, the British were happy to occupy themselves with the more pressing issues of early statehood and violence on the Syrian border.

Britain, as the occupying power, allowed self-rule in inland Syria at the end of the war. By the summer of 1919 financial pressures in Britain forced the imperial power to withdraw from Syria, leaving he French and Faisal (son of the Sharif Hussien-no relation to Saddam Hussein, a Baathist) to settle matters. The militant Arabs of Damascus wanted the French out of Syria. The French wanted to rein in the militant Arabs. The Syrian border was determined between 1918 and 1920. The British agreement on withdrawal from Syria led to a revolt against British rule in Iraq.

While the British were instrumental in fighting for Mosul's inclusion in Iraq, other border determinations were not entirely in their hands. A decline in domestic public support for imperial adventures meant that funding and manpower in Iraq were severely limited. The British had expanded the empire and shrunken their pocketbooks at the same time. Thus, they were unable to fight every border contest, and in the case of Iran, its refusal to engage with the British government generally meant that the border issues there were not for the British to fully resolve. The case of Syria revealed the severe limitations on British power, and even uncoordinated Arab moments led to the transfer of Iraqi lands to Syria.

Why September 11th?

2007-06-04T21:17:00.000-07:00

This is a fact that is difficult to find, even on the internet. While many Americans assume this date was purely random, or simply convenient from a tactical standpoint, we should start understanding the islamic mind, in order to defeat the evil that most of its devotees espouse so plainly.

.."For the strategists of the Turks, including an old Algerian corsair called Dragut, Malta was more than just the remnant of an antique military order: it was the key to a proposed offensive in the western Mediterranean, an offensive that was to cow the Spanish and if possible carry the jihad to the very doors of St. Peter's. And in any case, since Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca, and southern Spain itself had once been Islamic lands, it was a duty imposed upon the Sultan, by the iron principles of jihad, as duly constituted ruler, the successor to the caliph, to recover them from the infidel. Lands where the banners of the Crescent had once flown proudly must be returned to the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). The presence of the Maltese Knights barred such a project; and therefore the reduction of the island would be a prelude to a wider war. Said Dragut: "Unless you have smoked out this nest of vipers, you can do no good anywhere." In March of 1565, a fleet of nearly 200 vessels, bearing some 40,000 soldiers (including 6,500 elite shock troops known as the Janissaries), assembled in the Golden Horn for the Sultan's inspection. Dragut made two astute recommendations: move against the isle early in the season, and detach a significant flotilla to menace the Spanish mainland, thereby preventing aid from the Emperor. Once the invasion began, the more confident among the Sultan's advisers anticipated the victory to come -- in a matter of days.

The victory never came. Across Europe news of the bravery of Knights -- outnumbered five to one or more -- rang like a great tocsin. All throughout that brutal summer on the sun-baked isle, the Turks had been repulsed, time after time, in their attempts to take the Christian fortresses of Malta. One such fortress had been reduced to rubble by Turkish artillery, and its garrison (almost every one of them already dead) desecrated by enraged Turks; but the other had held. Casualties among the Sultan's army had been terrible, and disease ran rampant. The stiffness of the resistance, added to the depredations of pestilence and heatstroke, had won for Western Christians their first great victory over the Turk. La Valette's final address to his men has come down to us:

A formidable army composed of audacious barbarians is descending on this island. These persons, my brothers, are the enemies of Jesus Christ. Today it is a question of the defense of our faith -- as to whether the Gospels are to be superseded by the Koran. God on this occasion demands of us our lives, already vowed to his service. Happy will be those who first consummate this sacrifice.

The date of this victory has for us a certain resonance: it was September 11, 1565.

From that day we may date the decline of Turkish power on the Mediterranean. Six years later at Lepanto, a vast Ottoman fleet was decisively beaten by a comparable fleet of the Christian Holy League in one of the largest and bloodiest naval battles ever fought. The Knights were there on that day too. On another September 11, 1683, the Polish King John Sobieski led an army to relieve Vienna from a Turkish siege, in a battle that marks the end of the Turkish advance into Europe. These dates may strike us today as very ancient indeed; the reader may wonder what significance they have to us. The answer is that they form the conclusion to a very long story, a great tale of human drama, mostly forgotten now by a forgetful people -- a drama that, on yet another September 11th, was renewed here in America. It is the story of the Jihad..."

Muslim Terror Video on YouTube

2007-06-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

Click on "Terrortube" on right....creepy, especially the comments section on the youtube area.

http://www.snappedshot.com/categories/16-TerrorTube

Hearts and Minds #2

2007-05-31T21:42:00.000-07:00

Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writers Thu May 31, 6:51 PM ET

BAGHDAD - U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors.

The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.

"The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said.

They said the fighters drove through the streets using loudspeakers to claim that Amariyah was under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front group.

Armed residents were said to have resisted, set some of the al-Qaida gunmen's cars on fire and called the Americans for help. (!)

Hearts and Minds

2007-05-27T13:45:00.000-07:00

U.S. Frees 42 Iraqi Captives in Raid

By RAVI NESSMAN
Associated Press Writer
Published May 27, 2007, 2:31 PM CDT
BAGHDAD -- American forces freed 42 kidnapped Iraqis -- some of whom had been hung from ceilings and tortured for months -- in a raid Sunday on an al-Qaida hide-out north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

Military officials said the operation, launched on tips from residents, showed that Iraqis in the turbulent Diyala province were turning against Sunni insurgents and beginning to trust U.S. troops.

"The people in Diyala are speaking up against al-Qaida," said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.

And Democrats want us to leave...

2007-05-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

Torture, Al-Qaeda Style

Drawings, tools seized from Iraq safe house in U.S. military raid

MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found here.

Bob Kerrey sorta' gets it.

2007-05-22T22:22:00.000-07:00

A rare moment of lucidity from one of the most ga-ga liberals anywhere......

The Left's Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.

The best place for cigars

2007-05-12T13:49:00.000-07:00

Let's remember this in 2008

2007-03-30T20:55:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought the Democrats could not be any more treasonous:

White House slams top Dem's planned Syria visit

The White House has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to stop in Syria during a Middle East trip that began Friday. "We discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror." Pelosi is scheduled to meet with Syria's president next weekend, according to Syria's ambassador to the United States.

ATTENTION GOP:
This needs to be used in your campaign ads, to remind the dim-witted American public who the real enemy within is.

They're here..

2007-02-25T21:56:00.000-08:00

FROM TODAY:

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

02/24/2007

ST. LOUIS — A St. Charles man accused of buying automatic weapons and a Claymore mine and bargaining for grenades was indicted this week on four federal machine gun charges.

Mousa M. Abuelawi, 22, of Franjoe Court, was originally arrested Dec. 29 and charged with three counts of illegal possession or distribution of a machine gun and conspiracy to violate machine gun statutes.

The case was sealed from public view and nothing happened for weeks, until U.S. Magistrate Judge Audrey Fleissig told prosecutors on Jan. 27 that they had 30 days to indict Abuelawi or she would dismiss the charges.

Abuelawi was indicted Thursday and accused of receiving, transferring and possessing a machine gun, according to federal court documents made public Friday. An affidavit filed with the court by FBI Special Agent Stephen M. Smith laid out the alleged weapons purchases this way:

During November and December, Abuelawi bought two M-16s, a Heckler & Koch MP-5 fully automatic submachine gun and a Claymore mine from a government informer, not knowing they had been rigged not to work.

He also negotiated to buy a box of 30 grenades and said he wanted any guns the informer could get, "big or small." The grenades were never delivered.
The men met several times in the 5700 block of West Florissant Avenue, where Abuelawi worked. One of Abuelawi's co-workers, Thaed Abde Sumad, met with the men once, according to the indictment, and "stated he wants to buy as many explosives as possible because, 'we're going to war.'" In an interview earlier this month, Sumad said he didn't remember the comment and suggested it may have been a joke.

Sumad said the purchases were intended as a money-making venture supplying St. Louis street gangs in a turf war. Sumad said he had no role in handling the weapons and was not involved in the negotiations. Sumad said he has been interviewed by FBI agents.

Abuelawi, who is a Palestinian immigrant, is single and has no children and no assets, court documents state. He was fired by the gas station, co-workers said earlier this month.

Scott Rosenblum, one of Abuelawi's lawyers, had no comment about the indictment...."

Never Forget, Never Forgive

2007-01-06T09:30:00.000-08:00

Saddam Will Not Die This Weekend

2006-12-28T19:53:00.000-08:00

"There is no Saddam in prison!. He is free man, planning glorious return to the power, I tell you!...He will torment your testicles for eternity!...NEVER will Great Uncle convicted!!...Saddam shows happy face all on TV tomorrow, you will see!"

Same Old Shiite..Truce # 12,014 broken by the palestinians

2006-12-27T21:55:00.000-08:00

"Israel decided on Wednesday to renew pinpoint attacks against Palestinian rocket-launching cells in Gaza, threatening to end its participation in a month-old truce that was first broken by Palestinians less than one hour after it took effect.

The decision came hours after a Palestinian rocket seriously wounded two Israeli teenage boys in Sderot, a town in southern Israel next to the Gaza border. Shortly after the new policy was announced, a rocket was launched from Gaza, but no injuries were reported.

Although Israel declared it remained committed to the truce, the decision to strike against rocket launchers clearly ratcheted up the violence level.

It could also undermine Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent efforts to bolster the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who is in a faceoff against Hamas. The Islamic militant group controls the Palestinian parliament and Cabinet.

Palestinian militants violated the truce within an hour after it took effect on Nov. 26.

Ah, yes. The religion of peace again.

Israel has so far refrained from responding, but Olmert had warned in recent days that his patience was wearing thin. The injuries of the two boys late Tuesday increased the already intense pressure on Olmert from political opponents and members of his Cabinet to take action.

Here is some 'responding' I would recommend, considering this has been going on for 60 years:

......don't worry, nobody has the guts to do what is required (yet)

Hamas government spokeswoman Ghazi Hamad denounced the Israeli decision to "continue their aggression against our people," but added: "We still believe that this agreement is alive, and both sides should respect this agreement because it is (in) the interest (of) our people.

Got it, Hamas. You rocket Israel, and they sit tight = PEACE. Israel surgically targets known terrorists = genocide.