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.

Obama to Conyers: Stop Demeaning Me!

The phone rings, it is the President wanting to know why a senator has been demeaning him in the media. The President is calling a firebrand Republican Senator, it must be, correct? Well, no. actually, President Obama was calling one of his own — Democrats, I mean —- you did not think that I meant THAT did you?!?!?!?! Anyhow:

This comes via The Hill:

President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.
In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.
According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.
Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.
Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”
Sitting in the Judiciary Committee’s conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn’t in the mood to “chat.”
Obama’s move to send in 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by the summer of 2010 has clearly disappointed Conyers.
He said he intends to press his case in writing soon.

I will give John Conyers credit on one thing. He is not shy about speaking his mind. Neither is his wife. This is the husband of the woman, who went toe to toe with another member of the Detroit City Council. When I say went toe to toe; I am not overstating the truth one bit — Because that little confrontation got ugly —VERY ugly. It got ugly almost to the point of the police being called. There were no punches thrown, but there was a whole bunch of hollering. This very much made me pity and respect Mr. Conyers on a completely new level. Any man that can live with a woman with that shrill of a voice and not beat the tar out of her within minutes has definitely earned my respect.

Second, as the article says, Obama seems to be a bit touchy, or as it says, sensitive about critics from the left. Oh, he just ignores us on the right, seeing we are crazy and all. If you believe that, I have got land in a Texas swamp to sell you for cheap. Let me tell you something, the President is no dummy, because if he was, he would not be in the White House and I would be running the Country. The President knows about that little thing called political capital and the President is well aware that he is burning through that capital, quicker than a Chicago minute. The President also knows that he needs to finish the job that Bush started in Afghanistan, otherwise people like me, and other Conservatives will never let him live it down. The last thing he wants to do, is pull a Vietnam bonehead move and pull us out, at least before we give a good collage try to finishing that war over there.

This story of Democrat vs. Democrat when it comes to the war is going to play out in a very interesting manner. Where it puts Obama is going to be interesting to watch as well.

Other People covering this: Townhall.com, Left Coast Rebel, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Weekly Standard, Riehl World View, POWIP and Weasel Zippers

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.

neverforget1941 — May we never forget - December 7, 1941

The National Pearl Harbor Survivors Association website is here.

The faces of Betrayal of Liberal and peace-loving Americans everywhere

(click to make it bigger)

If I were a far left liberal; I would be wanting everyone is this picture —- head on a platter. They voted for Hope and Change; and an ending to the wars. What did they get? This group of warmongering Democrats.

Which just proves, what I have come to know here in the last few years. That Democrats will lie to anyone, to get their votes.

(H/T NYT)

Guest Voice: Homeland Security Or Homeland Enslavement? by Chuck Baldwin

By now, most readers are familiar with the story of how a Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, crashed the White House State Dinner last Tuesday evening. President and Mrs. Obama were entertaining Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh in the first official State Dinner of the new administration. The Salahis were not on the invited guest list, but were still allowed to walk right into the White House. They even had face-to-face conversations with both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Photographs of the Salahis with the President and Vice President have been published in numerous newspapers and on hundreds of web sites.

I wonder if the American people are thinking this episode through? Think of it: in the post-9/11 world, a world that has invented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), body scanners, retina readers, the Patriot Act, hundreds of laws and regulations restricting the freedoms and liberties of the American people, thousands of cameras photographing our public movements, and satellite spy devices, a couple can walk right into the White House and meet the President and Vice President without being invited!

Is there something wrong with this picture, or what?

I well remember what I had to go through when I was an invited guest of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush at the White House. My wife and I joined several others for a luncheon with Vice President Bush and his wife, Barbara. Later that day, we were in a crowd of several hundred who got to meet President Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, security was tight.

Upon arriving, we had to show the proper credentials to White House security, along with a photo ID and the personal invitation that had been sent to us ahead of time. I remember how some of the folks who had actually received invitations were denied entrance due to bureaucratic mix-ups or unintentional lapses in proper protocols. And these were people who really did have an invitation to be there. I can tell you this: there was absolutely no way that an uninvited person could have gained access to the White House that day. And remember: that was nearly two decades BEFORE 9/11!

That an uninvited couple could be granted access to the President and Vice President in this day and time is more than a “fluke.” It betrays something much deeper.

For the last 8 years, the American people have been told they must sacrifice certain liberties in order that the federal government might protect them. And for the most part, the American people have been happy to accommodate
this incessant intrusion into their personal liberties. They know the feds are monitoring their emails, personal phone conversations, and even their personal letters when received from overseas. They have sat silently as their banking institutions have monitored and reported virtually any and all financial transactions to the federal government. In today’s super-security world, one cannot even cash a check without showing the bank teller his or her driver’s license, which is recorded and made available to the feds. Sometimes, we are even required to provide our thumbprints. Beyond that, even certain service personnel that must come into our homes to provide in-home repair services, home inspections, or general services are oftenrequired to report what they see to various law enforcement authorities. All
of this is done in the name of “national security.”

All the while, America’s federal buildings today more resemble castles of ancient Europe than they do buildings that house the people’s servants. Concrete barriers along with super-reinforced, “bomb proof” structures remind one of castles of old, with their guard towers and crocodile-filled moats. Today, people must walk through metal-detectors and surrender their pocketknives to even visit their local supervisor of elections office (or just about any other public office, for that matter). Again, this is all done under the rubric of “homeland security.”

In the name of “national security,” veterans who have been accused of some kind of domestic disturbance or who have affirmatively answered an ambiguous question on a VA form regarding whether they have feelings of “anger” or “depression” are having their right to keep and bear arms stripped away.That’s right, in the name of “homeland security,” some of the very men who were entrusted with lethal weapons to fight America’s wars are now being told they are not fit to purchase or possess their own firearms.

Yet, in spite of all of the above, an uninvited couple is allowed to calmly walk right past Secret Service personnel and have personal audiences with the President and Vice President of the United States in what is ostensibly the most heavily-guarded, tightly secured building in the country: the White House.

Furthermore, this story comes on the heels of the mass shooting on what one would think would be a rather secure location: the US Army base at Fort Hood, Texas. And, have we forgotten the fellow who brought a gun into the
Capitol Building (the home of the US Congress) in Washington, D.C., a few years ago and killed two police officers?

Dear Reader, ask yourself this question, Do you really think those schmucks in Washington, D.C., actually believe that protecting you and me is more important than protecting American soldiers, US congressmen, and especially the President of the United States? “Are you serious?” (To quote Nancy Pelosi.) The truth is, to the elites in DC, you and I are expendable commodities. In fact, to some of the soulless creatures running things, you and I are worth more dead than alive (but that’s a topic better discussed at a later date).

The point is, all this talk about “national security” is simply a ruse for Big Government elitists to steal our liberties and make slaves out of us. They don’t care about security; all they care about is POWER.

So, the next time you are required to be strip-searched by an airport screener, or to surrender your pocketknife at your local county commissioner’s office, or to show your driver’s license to your bank teller, or to submit to a random police checkpoint; the next time you make a phone call that you know is monitored by a federal agent (and they all are), or drive under a video camera, or visit these castle-esque federal buildings, remember Michaele and Tareq Salahi. And, if you are old enough, remember the time in America when we really were the “land of the free.” And also remember that it’s not security they seek–it’s the abolition of our liberty.

(Source)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm: White House Gate Crashers Friends with Obama?

Now this adds an interesting twist to the story:

While the big gun media and American Secret Service are out there investigating “party crashers” Tareq and Michaele Salahi, no one’s telling the truth: Obama knew the Salahis when he was still an Illinois senator.
Polo Contacts Worldwide could make it easy for the investigating Secret Service by brown-enveloping them this picture:
Hey Secret Agent Man, here’s Obama, the senator flashing his pearly whites with Randy Jackson, better known as a judge on American Idol. “Others pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band; Tareq Salahi the President of the America’s Polo Cup; President Elect Obama, Fergie from Black eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi, posing this time as a former Miss USA and SuperModel.
Interesting little detail for White House gumshoes: As the above photo was published in June 2005, Barack Obama was still Senator Obama and not the President Elect.
And with Michaele Salahi yesterday having been caught out—Facebook pompoms notwithstanding—as a bogus cheerleader for the Washington Red Skins and not a model for Victoria’s Secret as claimed, Canada Free Press (CFP) leaves it to FoxNews.com to find out if she ever was a “former Miss USA”.
We do know for a fact that among the slew of memberships on charitable boards, Tareq Salahi is a former member of The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). The only way to know for a fact is because even though ATFP scrubbed all references to Salahi as a board member, he can still be found on Google cache.
via “Party Crashers” had five-year relationship with Obama before state dinner.

Now if the Main Stream media had any sort of integrity; they would investigate this. But we both know, that they do not. So, I shall not hold my breath.

Who wants to bet that the “Gate Crashers” get off with little or nothing more than a slap on the wrist?

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…
via Big Government – Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election.

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.
via Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York – NYTimes.com.

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)