The real entitlements are never mentioned. The “defense” budget is an entitlement for the military-security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago. A person has to be crazy to believe that the United States, “the world’s only superpower,” protected by oceans on its East and West and by puppet states on its North and South, needs a “defense” budget larger than the military spending of the rest of the world combined.
The military budget is nothing but an entitlement for the military-security complex. To hide this fact, the entitlement is disguised as protection against “enemies” and passed through the Pentagon.
I say cut out the middleman and simply allocate a percentage of the federal budget to the military-security complex. This way we won’t have to concoct reasons for invading other countries and go to war in order for the military-security complex to get its entitlement. It would be a lot cheaper just to give them the money outright, and it would save a lot of lives and grief at home and abroad.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with American national interests. It had to do with armaments profits and with eliminating an obstacle to Israeli territorial expansion. The cost of the war, aside from the $3 trillion, was over 4,000 dead Americans, over 30,000 wounded and maimed Americans, tens of thousands of broken American marriages and lost careers, 1 million dead Iraqis, 4 million displaced Iraqis and a destroyed country.
All of this was done for the profits of the military-security complex and to make paranoid Israel, armed with 200 nuclear weapons, feel “secure.”
My proposal would make the military-security complex even more wealthym as the companies would get the money without having to produce the weapons. Instead, all the money could go for multimillion dollar bonuses and dividend payouts to shareholders. No one, at home or abroad, would have to be killed, and the taxpayer would be better off.
Category: Washington DC
Answering Laurence Vance
I write this piece to answer the libertarian leftist Laurence Vance’s smear piece against me. An article for what it is worth has only brought 143 visitors to my blog, as of this writing. For a man, who is supposedly an authority on all things libertarian; not to mention all things Austrian economics —That my friend is quite amusing, I guess Lew Rockwell and company are legends in their own minds — at best.
I will not sit here and pick apart this entire ridiculous article, which is filled with in inaccuracies about me, who I listen to in talk radio, and all the other silly assumptions that those of the idiotic leftist mentality believe about us, who happen to respect and support our Military. Nevertheless, I will correct this leftist imbecile on some issues.
First off, whom or what I listen to on television: I guess Mr. Vance assumes that Fox News Network in my Television when I am awake. This is a gross fallacy; I only watch Fox News during the daytime; that is, if and when, I decide to turn the blasted thing on. I think I may watch an hour of Television at most, as for during the opinion hour at night, the only person I can stomach on Fox News is, in fact, is Bill O’Reilly. I find Sean Hannity most annoying. Why is that? Because Sean Hannity is a water carrier, a talk points repeater. Quite bluntly, Sean Hannity is an idiotic gasbag — Not to mention he looks and dresses like a closeted gay twink. Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Republican. He spouts Republican talking points — all the while claiming to be a Libertarian. One thing I can tell you, Sean Hannity is not a libertarian, he is not even close. Even I, the most hawkish man in the blogosphere can tell you that. Sean Hannity, to me, represents the Bush-era Fox News. Which has since changed, they stopped with the stupid Bush-era talking points and moved on. Sean Hannity, well, not so much. As for Limbaugh, I respect the man for building such a large business around his, well, ego. However, I do not listen to him on a regular basis, and I will tell you why. Rush Limbaugh strikes me as someone who is love with his own voice — something that I find most highly annoying. Therefore, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh for that reason. Like anyone else, I catch the clips online when he says or does something remarkably stupid. As for Glenn Beck, Beck peddles paranoia; I am not much into that sort of a thing really. Glenn Back believes that communism is still a real threat. I disagree; I believe that radical socialism is a real threat. However, staunch communism is not and has not been for many years — McCarthy saw to that little feat — and yes there is a big difference between socialism and communism, it even says this on the communist party USA’s website. I ought to know, I did look it up. I do not make a habit of yowling about things that I have no clue about, unlike some in this idiotic political blogosphere.
Therefore, yes, I do watch Bill O’Reilly; why, you ask — Because Bill O’Reilly is fair and yes, balanced. Anyone who actually watches his show knows that Bill does not carry water for the President, ever. Bill also is fair to the President; he does not just hate President Obama, because he is a socialist, much to the chagrin of those on the far right. Bill O’Reilly, like me, has a strong disliking of the socialist far left. This is because we both happen to know that socialism is a threat to the free capitalistic system in this country — this is why I respect the man. Another thing that made me begin to watch him at Bill O’Reilly was the fact that he stopped the policy of shutting people’s microphones off, that disagreed with him. I noticed that he was doing that, and because of this, I refused to watch O’Reilly. As much as I disagree with much of what the left has to say; I do believe that anyone in this Country, as long as they are not planning to overthrow or cause harm to anyone in this Nation, have the right to freedom of speech. This is what got Senator Joseph McCarthy into a great deal of trouble, this is why people like William Buckley Jr. and L. Brent Bozell Jr. (not to be confused with his son, Brent Bozell III) abandoned McCarthy. Because McCarthy wanted to exert thought police on the American people, that which is, sadly, a tactic of the far left. Because O’Reilly abandoned this practice of shutting microphones off, I began to watch him. I also starting watching Fox News and frankly stopped watching CNN and MSNBC because of the blatant partisanship of MSNBC and to a lesser extent CNN. I am all for a diversity of opinion, but when you actually stoop to the level of insulting your viewers, that is when I decided that the bus stopped here and I got off. (So to speak)
Getting back to the subject at hand here, Laurence Vance also accuses me of not being able to separate the Military from the Government. Which is most amusing, because his posting at Lew Rockwell’s Blog; he accuses the Military of occupying Iraq, which was done on the orders of the George W. Bush Administration — Which is something I pointed out in one of my previous postings. Therefore, to Mr. Vance I say — Project much, friend? But then again, when talking to a leftist, one can only expect so much — because to them, up is down and left is right, and the world is a very bizarre place; which is why I tend to avoid reasoning with them. After all, the Bible says; “If any man be ignorant, let them be ignorant” and I do try to follow the Bible as much as I possibly can.
While I am on the subject of Iraq, I feel the need to clear something up. If Mr. Vance or anyone else happens to believe that I am some sort of a Bush-supporting Republican, please be advised that this about as far from the truth that one can get. I did not vote for President George. W. Bush, at all, either time. During that time, I was firmly in the Democratic Party column. This pre-dated my blogging days. I was a left of center — albeit quite the “half-assed left of center,” but I digress. Further, I did support the Iraq war, until the reports came out and the White House admitted that they were wrong about Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, it was that little incident, that triggered me to start blogging in February of 2006 as a “left of center” blogger. I will explain the reasons why I switched sides for another posting, as this one is getting very long.
Finally, to answer Mr. Vance’s charge of being a “Red State Fascist” — If loving America and in loving America; knowing that in order to maintain the peace requires strength. If knowing that the United States Military is a valued treasure in this Country and should be highly respected — If wanting to see the United States of America protected from terrorists; both foreign and domestic, makes me a Red State Fascist — I plead the only thing I that I will ever plead to a charge as this — guilty as charged.
May God Bless the United States of America and May God Bless the United States Armed Forces. Further more, Thank God for our Military and Thank God for the privilege of being able to debate those who I disagree with, without the fear of being criminally persecuted for it. We live in a wonderful Nation and I will always defend her from those who would want to slander her. I feel that it is the most that I can do.
Obama and the Democrats play politics with the Nation’s Defense
My, what the Democrats will not to pass their idiotic socialistic healthcare bill! Captain Ed over at HotAir.com alerts to the fact that Michael Goldfarb has a source up on the hill; what he is telling Michael is unbelievable:
While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson’s demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line.
Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.
Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.
I will be straight and honest with you. During the 2008 election, I thought Michael Goldfarb’s outlandish behavior was asinine; I still do. However, this was one hell of a good catch. Goodness, what a better way to fuel the conspiracy theory idiots like Orly Taitz, who still believe that President Obama is some sort of a covert Muslim or whatever the hell it is that they think about him now.
I will say this, this story, if true, reeks of desperation. The Democrats are obviously desperate to pass this healthcare bill. Why is this? Because they know that if this bill goes down in flames, the Democrats are sunk. They already know that the 2010 elections are not going to be kind to them; the deep sixing of this bill will only make that worse. The problem is, seeing that the public option was stripped out; you have people like Markos Moulitsas saying that the bill should be killed. Either way, this is going to be a huge disaster for the Democrats. They promised change, they promised healthcare for everyone, they overreached like nothing I have ever seen before and now, they are going to pay for it dearly. Frankly, I could not be happier; you oversell yourself and promise the moon, the stars, unicorns and rainbows, and then do not deliver — then you suffer the wrath of the voters come election time.
The point to this blog entry is this; do not make promises that you cannot keep. If you do, you will pay and it is obvious to me and every other blogger out there that the Democrats made all sorts of promises to the American people, during the election of 2008 and now they cannot deliver. Because of this, they are stooping to desperate measures. Measures which will hurt our National Security, for this the Democrats will pay come 2010 and 2012.
Lew Rockwell Slanders the Military….Again
Lew Rockwell’s little weasel friend by the name of Laurence Vance is still at it slandering our Nation’s finest and best Military. Mr. Vance writes over at Lew’s Blog the following smear against the United States Military:
Obviously, this picture and story are supposed to counter the negative things I have said about the U.S. military. While I applaud the actions of Lt. Hickman and his fellow soldiers, I’m afraid it doesn’t counter anything. The U.S. military unjustly invaded and still occupies Iraq. This has directly and indirectly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It doesn’t matter how many Iraqi children are helped by the U.S. military. There is nothing these benevolent soldiers can do to make up for what the U.S. military has done to Iraq.
Mr. Vance’s inability to write a sentence with proper grammar structure aside, this is nothing more than a leftist slander against our United States Armed Forces. It is in fact true that our Armed Forces did invade the Country of Iraq. They did so BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH. In other words, these fine brave young men and women were just doing their jobs and following orders; as one is supposed to do when in the Armed Forces. Not that Laurence Vance would know anything about serving our Country, he is too busy peddling his stupid religious books, and books that slander other Presidents —like FDR. Silly books that float the conspiracy theory that FDR purposefully allowed the ships to be attacked at Pearl Harbor and other such stupidity — Which is quite typical of the idiotic libertarian left and their idiotic twins the Paleo-Conservatives.
Some of you might wonder why I am going after Lew Rockwell and Vance. I will explain this; my family served in the United States Armed Forces, my uncle pulled a tour of duty in Vietnam. Luckily, he got out there alive. My grandfather’s two brothers pulled a tour duty in Germany during World War II. When Lew Rockwell and Laurence Vance insult the United States Armed Forces, they are insulting my family, and that my friends, I take very seriously. My family who spilled blood on foreign soil, just so these two jackasses can run a blog, which is for the sole purpose of insulting our United States Military. I am for the idea of freedom of speech and I would not dare try to stop these two thugs from speaking their mind. Nevertheless, I will counter their idiotic accusations and general stupid slanders against our Armed Forces, no matter the cost and no matter how many people e-mail me and try to intimidate me into stopping. I will not stop, ever.
I am, in essence drawing the line in the sand here and saying, “This will NOT stand!” I will not allow two leftist thugs to slander our United States Armed Forces and get away with it unanswered. The American Military is treasure to America and I will not let it be slandered. Call me a “Chickenhawk,” call me whatever you want, but I will NOT allow this to happen unchallenged. Because those brave and woman out of the front lines deserve better than this and if I have to do it alone, I will.
To my readers, I ask you this, where do you stand? Are you with the United States Military or are you against it? The decision is yours.
Updated: Why I left the libertarian ranks: Exhibit A – Hatred of the United States Military
The following picture and caption that I am about to show you, comes from the libertarian leftist blogger Lew Rockwell. I present this personal exhibit as to why I left the Paleo-Conservative/libertarian ranks in favor of the Conservative, Pro-military ranks:
Hey Marines, how about some toys for this tot in Afghanistan:
I present this as “Exhibit A”, to the fact that the libertarian movement has been infiltrated by Anti-War leftists who hate America, our Military and why they should be stripped of their citizenship and deported out of our fine Country and into another country; like say, North Korea, Venezuela or maybe even Communist China. Not to be rude about this, but it just so happens, that if that dumb kids fellow Countrymen had not giving refuge and comfort to those who would seek to destroy America — Namely Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda; the damned kid would still possibly have his damned leg. Not to mention the fact that on September 11, 2001, our Country was attacked by Islamic terrorists who did more than just destroy a leg. It killed 2,996 of our people.
However, of course, you cannot tell this to the likes of Lew Rockwell and his bastard gang of leftists who hate this damn Country; they still believe that George W. Bush ordered those planes into the trade center towers. What really troubles me, is that the author of this posting is none other than Dr. Lawrence Vance, who is supposedly a Born-Again Christian. How anyone can harbor such hatred for this Country and our Nation’s Military and still claim to be ANY kind of a Christian is beyond me.
When I still was on the left; as little as that was, in terms of what I believed the Democratic Party to be about, I was always under the impression that Iraq was the war that was very unjustified and that Afghanistan was in fact, the good war that we were fighting to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. I heard that from the left and I believed that myself. As it turns out, that was nothing more than a damned lie and the far-left knows it. The good majority of the far left either believes that George W. Bush ordered the attacks, to win his popularity or to justify going into Iraq. The rest believe that we had it coming or deserved the attacks because of our evil capitalistic society. This picture and caption are living proof of this; which is why, I left the liberal left and stopped voting for the Democratic Party.
Just to let everyone know, I said my piece on this and I am not interested in debating it. Therefore, I am shutting the comments off; because I want this posting to stand on its own.
Update: After reading this entry again, I realize that I did leave out one important thing. My apologies for that, I do sometimes forget to include stuff pertinent to the entry at times; A.D.H.D. does that to a fellow. Yes, I am serious about having that little disability. Anyhow, the thing I forgot to include in this little shoving of the hatred of the libertarian leftists, into their faces, is the following:
There is one unifying cause that the libertarian leftists and the socialist liberal left is their inbred hatred of war and of anything military. Further more, the libertarians and liberals hate the current state of the Government, albeit for very different reasons. The libertarians hate the size of the Government and the fact that it has become too large, and too regulatory — Which is something I can identify with myself. The socialist left, however, is angry because they cannot control that large Government. The Socialist left does not mind big Government, as long as they can control it. A perfect example of this can be found here.
So, again, the reason why I lump the libertarian leftists in with the socialist is this, not because they are one in the same, they are not, even I know this. However, it is because the libertarian leftists are totally “In bed” with the anti-war socialist leftists who resent any sort of American values or capitalism or defense of the Republic. This has been proven many times with the vile acts at the Military recruiting office in Berkley California and such matters. Same goes for the Paleo-Conservatives, They too are “in bed” with the socialist left, when it comes to foreign policy. It has been that way for years and will continue to be that way. The difference between a Paleo-Conservative and a libertarian is one thing —protectionism. This is what the Democratic Party believed in, before globalists like Bill Clinton came on the scene and passed NAFTA. It should be noted, however, that the NAFTA agreement did not pass until the Republicans took back the Congress, and Clinton became an instant moderate.
Nevertheless, my feelings toward these libertarian leftists, their Paleo-Conservative counterparts, and their cousins the Anti-War socialist left remain unabated.
May we never forget: Pearl Harbor – December 7, 1941
December 7, 1941 – 68 Years ago today. The empire of Japan attacked the United States Military Base at what was then called the the Territory of Hawaii. (The United States had not taken possession of that territory making it the 49’th state yet.)
It is a day, that will live…. In infamy…
Update: Video removed, because the ignorant bastard who owns it, can’t remember telling me that I could link to it.
Damned idiot.
Here is the entire “Day of infamy Speech”, Now this is a way to make a speech! Obama, Take notes!:
[podcast]http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/video/fdr_infamy.mp3[/podcast]
I do not know quite why it is that I get so emotional when the anniversary of the attack of Pearl Harbor comes around; but do I ever. I guess it is because it affected my personal family a great deal. My grandfather’s two brothers, Frank and Harlan Hayes both were in the United States Army and my grandmother’s stepbrother Jess Runyan served also in the Military in World War II. My Great-Uncle Frank and Harlan both served in Germany, with Frank getting his finger blown off, while tossing a hand grenade that went off too soon. They were able to reattach it, but he never was able to use the finger very well after that. I do not know much about Harlen, or I would share his story. Jess Runyan came back from World War II with the condition now known as traumatic stress disorder or as they used to call it — shell-shocked. Jess was never able to work and collected military benefits, and I think social security for the rest of his life. Jess never married. For what it is worth, all of these people lived in Dalton, Georgia, which is where a good amount of my family is from.
Another reason is because, damn it, I just love America; since when did that become a federal crime? This Nation is the best-damned Nation on earth. Yes, we are having some bad times here; the economy is bad, jobs are scarce. However, the status of this Nation could be much worse; we could be living in same situation as North Korea or even communist China. I guess Pearl Harbor is a personal one for me, because I happen to be a history buff and because of my family’s involvement in that war. I believe also that the Nation’s isolationism also caused the attack as well, not to mention the economic warfare that was being committed against Japan by FDR. This same mentality of isolationism is what had affected the United States the day that the September 11 attacks in 2001. We were different Nation then and we are now a different Nation since those attacks. The tragic thing about the 9/11 attacks, is that they became quite politicized. When the attack on Pear Harbor took place and then the subsequent war began; America stopped being Democrats and Republicans; and just started being Americans. The sad thing is that after 9/11, there was a short burst of American patriotism. However, it did not last; there are many reasons for this, I believe the biggest reason is times have changed greatly. I could get into all that, but this blog entry would end up being over 50 pages long.
I think the biggest and best thing that Americans can do for those who perished in World War II is to never forget what happened and to work to ensure that it never happens again. We must ensure that the politics of our Nation or any other Nation gets that sort of ugly point again. This is why I believe that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth every last dime and worth every life lost. There are those that say that fighting that war in Afghanistan is not worth it and that it is another Vietnam. I disagree with that nonsense. ANY War that is worth fighting is worth winning. I just wish those on the Socialist Left realized that as well. There was a time, when Democrats actually believed in fighting wars. This all changed in the late 1960’s with the rise of the socialist and hippy movements. Vietnam was essentially lost because of the socialists that had taken over the Media at the time. Walter Cronkite’s literal lying to the Nation about the Tet Offensive was a perfect example of that. Thankfully, there were Democrats who crossed over, for whatever reasoning, who still believed in defending this Nation and believed the Wars could be won, and because of that, and because of President’s like Ronald Reagan; we have the great Military we have today. It is my personal hope, that President Barack Obama will continue that respect for our Nation’s Military. Although, as of late President Obama’s performance as a leader, when it comes to the war in Afghanistan has been dismal at best.
Therefore, in conclusion, I simply end with this — May we never forget December 7, 1941. Because to do so, would be a horrible tragedy.
The National Pearl Harbor Survivors Association website is here.
Obama send in 34,000 more troops with 'Offramps' to Afghanistan
Last night I wrote, in some not-so politically correct words, that the President is not interested in fighting the war in Afghanistan. It appears that this news article confirms what I have believed all along.
Quote:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.
The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn’t originate in the White House.
They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.
As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
This all sounds nice and pretty; that is until you read down further…:
A U.S. military official used the term “decisional” to describe Monday evening’s meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.
The administration’s plan contains “off-ramps,” points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or “begin looking very quickly at exiting” the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
“We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it,” the U.S. defense official said.
It’s “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won’t keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said.
HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey is not impressed at all:
The increase in troops is a good decision, but the off-ramps almost completely undermine it. The point in extending our footprint is to win the trust of the local communities and prove our reliability in providing them security, which is the central thrust of McChrystal’s COIN strategy. By getting them to trust our commitment, we can get them to help fight the Taliban themselves, as we did with the Anbar Awakening in Iraq against al-Qaeda, and greatly improve the intel we get from the locals. If we send 34,000 more troops but give ourselves a six-month time frame for success or bug-out, the locals will very quickly come to the realization that allying with us will be suicide. The COIN strategy only worked in Iraq because George W. Bush was adamant that we would stay until we won.
A Commander in Chief doesn’t need “off-ramps.” Any President can call an end to a deployment based on his own judgment. Putting these conditions into the American strategy signals weakness — a desire to pull out without getting blamed for the decision. Obama wants to be off the hook for an eventual withdrawal by claiming that he’s forced to do it because of these benchmark failures. And if Obama’s that keen to retreat, he should just do it now.
Ed Morrissey hit the nail square on the head. President Barack Obama was never, at any point, interested in fighting the so-called good war in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama knew that he was inheriting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and he knew that if he continued them, that he would also inherit the backlash from the left that goes with them. Therefore, he is devising a way of getting out that region and making himself look like the saint and President George W. Bush look like the bad person. This was the plan all along; never at any point was there a plan to fight this war until victory; but rather a plan of stealth defeat.
There are many reasons why the Democrats will not fight the war on terror. Namely, it is because to a certain degree the Democrats actually sympathize with the terrorists. The Democrats have always had a disdain for Israel and its right to exist; many Democrats have always felt that President Harry Truman royally screwed up when he decided to formally recognize Israel as a sovereign Nation. It is due to the frosty relationship towards Israel that sparked the attack of the U.S.S. Liberty by a rogue faction within the Israeli Defense Force. Many people who are of the hatemonger class, like to blame Israel and the Jews for that attack; the problem is, they are blaming the wrong people, they should be blaming the Democrats for it.
Not only this, but you also have about sixty percent of the Democrats who actually blame Bush for the attacks on 9/11. They actually believe that Bush knew the attacks were coming and actually allowed them to happen. This is why Eric Holder and the justice department are having civilian trials for a few of the 9/11 conspirators. They desire to drag out of the stuff that happened in the months after 9/11, as to make a mockery of them. The remaining people within the Democratic Party and those who are of the far-leftist mentality actually have the audacity to believe that the United States of America actually deserved the attacks on 9/11, because of our capitalistic society and because of our past treatment of blacks; because we do not give enough hand-outs to poor people and so forth . President Barack Obama’s former Pastor even said as this very thing, and now President Barack Obama is allowing them to have civilian trials; ponder that scary thought for a moment.
In closing, I simply will offer this sober note. Elections have consequences. The American people elected a man, who was supposed to be a stark contrast to President George W. Bush, someone who could lead. What the American people received was an out of touch, dithering liberal elitist, who in all honesty could not even lead his own household, if the truth were told. President Barack Obama is more interested in shoving his rather idiotic social agenda, of wealth redistribution and outright class warfare onto the American people, than a fighting a war that will ultimately decide America’s success or demise. We should remember this come the elections of 2010 and of 2012 and decide wisely our choices for those we plan to put in office.
Breitbart to AG Holder: Do your job douche nozzle or we will burn the Democrats come 2010!
Oh Man, there’s gonna be many a Democrat singing the blues, if Eric Holder does not do his job before 2010.
The Video:
Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…
Needless to say; this election cycle coming in 2010 is going to be an extremely interesting one. 😯 If I were holder, I would be contacting Andrew and pronto. Because if there is something huge that Andrew is sitting on, like a corruption tape, involving say, The President. The fall out would be huge; As in Richard Nixon kind of huge.
Others: Townhall.com, Moe Lane, Top of the Ticket, Stop The ACLU and YID With LID
Updated: A Huge Blunder by the Obama Administration
Possibly one of the biggest blunders by the Obama Administration:
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday.
But the administration will prosecute another set of high-profile detainees now being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, and four other detainees — before a military commission.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.
Here is why this is a big blunder; I’ll let William Teach‘s words say it for me, This is what he wrote in the comments section of Allan Colmes Blog:
You’re forgetting one thing, Alan: KSM is NOT an American citizen, and not entitled to the protections of our Constitution unless we afford them to him.
The problem with “Affording” them to these guys is this, as Ed Morrissey writes:
That brings up a key question. What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away? If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief. And if Obama isn’t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.
These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct. Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, we’re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform. We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.
I have worse scenario than that; what if we happen to get a judge that is a Muslim? What happens if during that trial he begins to feel a twinge of sympathy for these terrorists and begins to nitpick at the evidence and ends up tossing the case out of court? I know it sounds far fetched; but it could happen.
Either way, is this massive blunder by the President and I look for Fox News to go on the attack over this. These guy should be tried in International Court. Just like the Nazi’s were. But because our President is a liberal; this will not be done. He is of the belief system that the terrorists were nothing more than common petty criminals and should be treated as such. This is the same mistake that President Bill Clinton made and it is why September 11’th happened in the first place. As long as the United States continues to make the same mistakes,when it comes to handling of terrorists, we will continue to see terrorists attacks on our soil. It is a fact of reality.
Update: Hell, Democrat Jim Webb even thinks that this is a bad idea! (H/T Ed at HotAir)
I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.
The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.
I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.
Update: It seems that my gay stalker Ed Brayton does not like what I wrote. Big surprise there, seeing he is a leftist libertarian/classic liberal; or as I like to call them small Government liberals. I guess he and his sheep that follow after him, did not bother to follow the links and see, that yes, in fact, I did refer to the International criminal court. Anyhow, my stalker says that Conservatives do not support that idea. To that I reply; Who says that I follow the Republican/Conservative talking points? I believe that these terrorists ought to be tried in international criminal court or at least in a Military trial and NOT in a civilian court on American soil. As Obama said HE felt they should be, back in 2006. But now has flip flopped on, now the he has been elected.
Confirmed: President Obama wants the United States to fail in Afghanistan
Yesterday, some moron liberal left this comment in my comment section of a posting that I made about the Ft. Hood Speech that Obama Gave:
Say, Pat, do you happen to know *why* Obama was 40 minutes late to give the speech?
He was talking to wounded survivors of the attack.
Really, though, it was a perfect situation for you–suppose he had cut short that meeting? Then you could have slagged him for insulting the survivors by running off to the speech.
To Wish I replied back:
Your opinion, of course.
You somehow miss the fuller point. The man is a damned empty suit. He has no true feelings for our Military. He only cares about his political record. I am sorry, I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt. But it is quote obvious, that he just doesnot care. If he did, he would order a congressional investigation into the rampage and call it what it was, A TERRORIST ATTACK! But he does not do that; because he either secretly agrees with this mans actions or is at last sympathetic to the Jihadists cause.
Of course, this doesn’t surprise me that you don’t get this; most socialists liberals are that dumb.
Now comes the news of the confirmation of what I stated:
President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.
But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s thinking.
This my friends, is a strategy for failure. This President just does not care about winning the war on terror. All President Obama cares about is passing his rather idiotic social agenda. If President Obama knew that it would not “Deep Six” his poll numbers; he would pull the United States of America out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a New York Minute.
My friends, elections have consequences —- and this is one of them. Keep this in mind, come 2010.
Others Covering this Story: JustOneMinute, Jules Crittenden, The Jawa Report, Outside The Beltway, , BLACKFIVE, Stop The ACLU, Another Black Conservative, JammieWearingFool, Moonbattery, Don Surber, The Foundry,, Below The Beltway, Scared Monkeys,, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Townhall.com and Gateway Pundit (Via Memeorandum)
