Video: This is why I do not trust Al-Jazeera TV

American version of it or not. I simply do not trust it and this here is why. This comes via Memri TV:

Some of you might say, “But, aren’t you a Buchananite type?” Yes, indeed I am. Which simply means that I am not a fan of Wilsonian Foreign Policy and that’s all it means. If Al-Jazeera TV is putting this sort of garbage on it’s Arab speaking network, it has zero business being in the United States of America. This is nothing more than Anti-Jewish propaganda and it furthers the blood libels that the terrorists thrive on and use to commit acts of carnage.

If our President were actually worth a tinkers damn, he would tell Al-Jazeera TV, “You either do something about that, or you can pack your little network up and go back to mecca, where you truly belong.” But, because we have a President who kowtows down to Arabs and their religion, instead of defending Jewish Americans, you have this network Al-Jazeera TV here to brainwash Americans into believe that 9/11 was somehow justified.

…and that, my friends, is a great American tragedy.

(H/T to Commentary Magazine)

Bombing victim speaks out about Muslims and Terrorism

Glad to see this. 🙂

The Video is here. I was going to post it here, but it is an auto start embed and those drive people crazy! So, go to the link to view it!

The Story:

A Boston Marathon bombing victim hospitalized for weeks after the blasts lashed out at the mother of the accused bombers, calling Zubeidat Tsarnaeva “vile” for her jihad-laced rants and denials.

Michelle L’Heureux, a 38-year-old John Hancock consultant, told the Herald yesterday it’s time to stop being “politically correct” and speak out — making her one of the first victims to stand up to the terror-talking Chechen family.

“I feel a little bit of hatred towards her. I think she is a vile person,” L’Heureux said of the mom. “If you don’t like our country, get out. It’s as simple as that.”

L’Heureux lost most of her left knee in the blasts, and 30 percent of her hearing in her left ear. Her left arm is riddled with shrapnel scars, and there’s a piece of metal still inside her leg. She was 8 feet away from the first blast on Boylston Street. She came to the city to see her boyfriend cross the finish lin

via Bombing victim calls suspects’ mom ‘vile’ | Boston Herald.

If only more liberal Democrats felt this way, maybe we would have actually won the war on terror. Instead, because of the Democrat’s almost allergic reaction to war and because of the bungled methods of the Bush Administration — we lost it and badly. Oh, and BTW, I have seen where people have blamed this guy here for the loss of the Afghan war. Sorry, but that is bunch of flipping malarkey and I think the person that wrote that knows it; he is just looking to deflect the fact that Bush’s mishandling of the war in Afghanistan and the overselling of the war in Iraq.

Plus too, I believe we pulled out too early of Iraq and Afghanistan; we could have done it better, but we needed more time. But, when you have a war weary nation, what can you do?

Others: Weekly Standard, The Jawa Report and Instapundit

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”

On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather

The US continues spying on phones under Obama

There are a ton of opinions on this subject and we’ll get to those in a moment.

But first the story:

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

via NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily | World news | The Guardian.

But, there is a big difference this time:

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

Which sounds about right for the Democrats, because they are perfectly fine with Government of a massive scale.

Now there are two very important opinions on this subject that I want you to see. They are same political slant; however, the opinions are very different. Please go check out Michelle Malkin’s take and Ed Morrissey’s take on this subject. While I agree on Michelle Malkin’s assessment, I really do not agree with her narrative at all. If you are smart and read her a good deal, you will know what I am talking about.

Now there is one thing that Ed Morrissey wrote that I, as an Independent, and someone who believes that the war on terror is a very real thing and that we should at least try to keep America safe, without trampling on our constitutional rights. I believe this to be very true and very profound statement coming from someone like Mr. Morrissey:

Hypocrisy is an unfortunately ubiquitous condition in politics, but in the case of NSA seizing Verizon’s phone records, it’s particularly widespread. Some of the people expressing outrage for the Obama administration’s efforts at data mining had a different attitude toward it when Bush was in office. Conversely, we’ll see some people defending Obama who considered Bush evil incarnate for the same thing.

Either way, we’re left with the situation of having the federal government seizing private records without any meaningful civil due process that engages the citizens affected, whether that includes actual wiretaps or just cataloguing our calls and movements. Perhaps this will move this issue out of the partisan sphere and into a common ground in which we can all work to define exactly how far we’re willing to go in trading privacy for security. In order to get there, we’d all better recognize the hypocrisy that has abounded on this issue for far too long, and start thinking about higher principles than party affiliation when it comes to national security and constitutional protections.

Now that last part that I underlined, is something I wholeheartedly agree with. When the story broke about Bush and Co. came about the wiretaps, I remember Keith Olbermann doing a special comment on it and I admired him for standing up. Now, where’s Keith? Where are the liberals who thought that this was much too intrusive? Where are they now? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

My hat tip goes to Glenn Greenwald for putting principles over partisanship and getting this story to the masses. Glenn has been about the only liberal who has stood up and pointed out that Obama Administration has continued the policies of the George W. Bush Administration and in some cases; like this one here — has expanded them to an alarming degree. Yes, this is overreach and it is alarming and I do hope the Congress does something about it.

Others: Hullabaloo, Yahoo! News, Washington Wire, Washington Monthly, New York Times,ThinkProgress, Politico, Firedoglake, BuzzFeed, CNN, Forbes, Joshua Foust, The World’s Greatest …, msnbc.com, The Atlantic Wire, JustOneMinute, American Spectator, Democracy in America,WorldViews, TIME, Business Insider, Examiner, The Fix, News Desk, Associated Press, New Republic, Daily Kos, The Maddow Blog, Mashable, Wake up America, Wonkblog, The Huffington Post, Taylor Marsh, The Volokh Conspiracy, Mediaite, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Library of Law & Liberty, Moon of Alabama, The Daily Caller, TechCrunch, Wall Street Journal, Engadget, Betsy’s Page, Patterico’s Pontifications, AllThingsD, Outside the Beltway, Post Politics, Informed Comment,Nice Deb, Real Clear Politics, Wired, The Gateway Pundit, The Week, Illinois Review,AMERICAblog, Pirate’s Cove, CANNONFIRE, VentureBeat, No More Mister Nice Blog, First Read,Prairie Weather, The PJ Tatler, Telegraph, The Hinterland Gazette, Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, Weasel Zippers, Jammie Wearing Fools, GigaOM, Corrente, The Spectacle Blog, Gawker, Boing Boing, The Raw Story, Shakesville, Secrecy News, The Verge, Conservatives4Palin, susiemadrak.com, Sense of Events, Taegan Goddard’s …, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The BLT, emptywheel and Overlawyered Via Memeorandum

Quote of the Day

Over the past 10 years, there have been few days when the war in Iraq was absent from my thoughts. People often ask me whether I have regrets. It seems absurdly presumptuous to answer the question. I could have set myself on fire in protest on the White House lawn and the war would have proceeded without me. And yet … all of us who advocated for the war have had to do some reckoning. If the war achieved some positive gains, its unnecessary costs—in human life, in money, to the prestige and credibility of the U.S. government—are daunting and dismaying. If we’d found the WMD, it would have been different. If we’d kept better order in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam, it would have been different. If more Iraqis had welcomed the invasion as we expected, it would have been different. If the case for the war had been argued in a less contrived and predetermined way, it would have been different.

But it wasn’t different. Those of us who were involved—in whatever way—bear the responsibility.

Some tough questions for Sen. John McCain

In light of the grilling that Chuck Hagel received at the hands of the Jewish right, Paul Abrams has some very tough questions for John McCain:

1. You are trying to establish accountability for Benghazi where four Americans tragically died. For clarification, nearly 12 years later, could you tell us whom you hold accountable for 9/11/2001 when 3,000 Americans died?

2. No WMD were found in Iraq. Whom do you hold accountable for taking us into war based upon cherry-picking the information, deliberately misleading the American people and you?

3. Did you read the entire National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting for the Iraq War? What did you make of the doubts and uncertainties expressed in that document?

4. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said that we would be greeted as liberators and that the war would last 18 months. In fact, it lasted 9 years, 4,400 Americans were killed, 32,000 were seriously injured, and it cost more than $1 Trillion. Do you hold yourself accountable for that bad judgment? If so, what consequences are there to you for being so wrong?

5. Do you believe that the U.S. should support Israel’s foreign policy no matter what? If not, can you tell us what Israel has ever done with which you disagree?

These are questions that Independent thinking Americans, like myself, really want to know the answers to. Because the way I see if, the Republicans are going to bitch and gripe about Libya, then we should open it up to 9/11 as well. Who failed us? and why have they not been brought to justice too?

I admit it, in the beginning, I have some serious issues with what happened in Libya. I still think it could have been handled better than it was handled. But, the Republicans got the information that they wanted and yet, they still keep pressing for stuff that is just not there. You know why they keep pressing? Well, for one, partisanship and for two, they are resentful of a black President. It is just that simple. It is called racial resentment.

It is same thing that Obama did, when he let those 4 white guys die in Libya. He let them die, because they were white. Instead of the Republicans being better than Obama, they are playing the same game in reverse. It is sick and sad thing, and it sucks that the taxpayers money is paying for such monkeyshine nonsense!

Just my opinion.

Taking Religion out of the Military?

I have mixed feelings about this one:

“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.” A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.” “After a Christian prayer, the cross was removed from the roof of the chapel,” the spokesman said. “During the removal, the cross was dismantled; however the cross was reassembled and currently awaits transportation to a larger operational base.” The military told Fox News the cross will only be brought out during Christian services and will be designated as a “non-permanent religious symbol.” Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger. “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.” An Army spokesman said all chapels must be religiously neutral. “The primary purpose of making a chapel a neutral, multi-use facility is to accommodate the free exercise of religion for all faith groups using it,” he said. “We take the spiritual fitness of our Soldiers seriously and encourage them to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs however they choose.” Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way. “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.” —- Military: Crosses Removed ‘Out of Respect for Other Faiths’ | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

On one hand, I would hate to think that having Christian symbols on a battle front could be putting our Military at risk. On the other hand, I would hate to see Christianity being removed from the Military entirely. However, we are in a Muslim Nation is Afghan region; one would think that the Military would want to be respectful of those people and their culture.

It is a mixed bag, and all the more reason why we really need to get out of that Country. Our mission is done there; we killed Osama and we need to leave. We do not want to make the same mistake the Russians made there. Besides all that, Al-Qaeda has moved into other regions and is much more a threat to other interests in other parts for the world now.

So, to this Independent, the quicker we leave, the better.

Audio: James Dobson asks, “Where have the GOP’s Values Gone?”

This is a question that I have asked myself.

The Audio:

Part 1:

[podcast]http://drjamesdobson.org/11.15.12-FINAL.mp3[/podcast]

Part 2:

[podcast]http://drjamesdobson.org/11.16.12-FINAL.mp3[/podcast]

The Story via WND.COM:

Dr. James Dobson

The 2012 election was an open door for the GOP to lead America back to its roots in faith and morality, and the Republicans were AWOL, says Dr. James Dobson, founder of Family Talk and a brand new political outreach arm called Family Talk Action.

“I waited throughout the campaign for Mitt Romney to declare himself, to at least identify with the moral issues that are before us. He would not touch them,” Dobson said on a two-part radio program in which Penny Nance, head of Concerned Women for America, joined.

Dobson, whose advice about parenting, child-rearing, marriage and faith has guided millions of Americans and whose counsel on family matters has been sought by presidents, used two programs on his regular radio program, “Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk” that were sponsored by his political action branch to comment on the re-election of Barack Obama.

He noted he and a handful of other conservative leaders, including Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Gary Bauer and Gen. William Boykin, had met with the GOP candidate to encourage him to address social issues important to Christians across the nation.

“We begged him to deal with eight issues. We listed first the sanctity of life, marriage, religious life, ‘Don’t Ask,’ ENDA, on it went,” Dobson said. “We said we really are not here to jump on you, but evangelicals are not excited about your candidacy, not energized. … You could connect if you’ll even mention these things.

“He nodded and he smiled and he was gracious as he always is, and he went out and was silent,” Dobson said.

Dr. Dobson goes on to talk about how the Democrats have shifted on Abortion, Israel and many other topics. I here at this blog wrote about that little uprising myself. I have noticed one thing myself here; that Conservatives are saying that the keeping of the social platform in the Republican Party is going to be death knell for the Conservative movement.

I have one answer to that little idiotic notion — try winning elections without us folks. Fiscal conservatism is great, but without God, the Republican Party, much less the conservative movement will never survive. Again, what good is telling people that rights come, not from the Government — but from God, if you are not willing to stand for that God? It makes no sense and it will never work.

Mitt Romney’s downfall might have very well been his refusal to get tough on social issues. There is also too: Mitt Romney was a Mormon and quite frankly, the rest of the Christian world does not consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. This stance in the evangelical Christian circles is softening a bit. However, in the fundamentalist Christian circles it is very strong, I know this to true fact myself.

I also would like to make the following observation: It is not lost on me why the Conservative movement is moving away from the social conservative side of things. This is left-overs from the Neoconservative, Jewish-controlled, GOP of the George W. Bush-era. It is well-known, that according some of the staffers that worked in the Bush White House that most Conservative Christians were seen by the Bush White House as useful idiots. This could be why God allowed America to be attacked on 9/11. I mean, the Lord could have said, “Forsake me, eh? Well, how do you like this?” and we were hit. I am just speculating. But it does make sense to me.

In contrast, the old school, Paleoconservatives are mostly known to be devote Christians who do take the Word of God; that is the Bible, literally. This is unlike President Bush, who admitted in a exit interview, that he did not take the Bible literally. You notice that President Bush did not admit that, until he was safely away from every being reelected.

In Closing: If the GOP continues down this path and rejects social Conservatism. It will go the way of the Whig Party. Because social Conservatives will not back a candidate that is not interested in being tough on social issues. It is just that simple. I do not believe that they will start their own political party; that has been tried before and failed. I simply believe that the conservative Christians will stay home.

This is something that the Republican Party and we as Conservative Americans cannot afford.

Video: Ft. Hood shooting NOT a terrorist attack says Obama Administration

First, the heart wrenching video: (H/T to HotAir.com)

The story via Stars and Stripes:

WASHINGTON — Victims of the Fort Hood shooting are rallying in a grassroots effort to get the rampage classified as an act of terrorism.

A coalition of 160 victims and family members released a video Thursday detailing what happened at the Texas military base on Nov. 5, 2009, and why they believe it was a terror attack.

In “The Truth About Fort Hood,” victims give testimonials about their experience and express their frustration at the government calling the incident “workplace violence.”

They point out that the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, consulted by email with top al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki about whether an attack against American soldiers was justified to “protect our brothers.” Until his death in an airstrike in 2011, Yemen-based Awlaki was considered one of the United States’ top enemies.

The shooting for Hasan “was his jihad,” Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot five times that day, said in the video.

Another victim, Shawn Manning, said that the soldiers at the readiness center “were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy, someone who was there that day to kill soldiers to prevent them from deploying. If that’s not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”

“We’re working pretty hard for our guys right now to get them the recognition and compensation they deserve,” said Kathy Stalnaker, whose husband has severe post-traumatic stress disorder from the incident. “We want to keep it in front of the public.”

I very highly recommend that you go read the rest of that; because it is absolutely heartbreaking. Crying

My friends, allow me to rant for a second:

This above, if anything else — is why as a people must vote different on November 4, 2012. These brave people have put their damned asses on the line for us, to protect this Republic of ours and this is the thanks that they get from this Marxist President? This is an utter outrage and if there was any sort of justice in this Country, this President would be asked to resign his position and if he did not, impeachment proceedings would be started against him.

Now, I am not saying that our President is a Muslim, like some of the right argue. However, I will say this; at the very least he is empathic to the Islamic cause and does empathic with those who use violence to react to the United States invading their lands. I am not saying he agrees with their actions; but what I am saying is that the President feels that because we did invade their lands, that somehow their actions are justified —- or at the very LEAST the President empathizes with this position.

This is a very dangerous place for a President to be in. Even if we did invade their lands; the invasion of Afghanistan was totally justified, considering that Al-Qaeda hit our homeland on September 11, 2001. Whether our occupation of their lands was the cause, or whether they hit us, because of a Christian and Capitalistic society; the fact is, they attacked us first and we replied back with Military force.

I will say this; this attack here is one of the reasons why I believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them made a serious miscalculation about the war on terror. I do not think that the former President, Vice President and his staff realize just what they were uncorking, when they decided to fight the war on terror and just how far reaching it would be and what sort of blowback that they would encounter.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the former President calculated on people, who happened to be Muslim, in his own Military turning on their own Country for the sake of Jihad either. However, now, none of that matters; Bush and Cheney are gone and now we have a President, who will not even call terrorism for what it truly is. I say this as someone who rejects Wilsonian foreign policy, as someone who is not too keen on the idea of a continual war in he middle east for the sake on a so-called ally. I also say this, as unrepentant realist, who see things for what they really are and what they have become over the last three and a half years. Bush created this so-called “Arab Spring” mess and now we are into it deeply.

I also happen to believe that Bush and Co. made another fatal mistake of saying that the war that following 9/11 was not a religious war. It is, in fact, a religious war. It is war between civilized religions of peace; such as Christianity and Judaism and a savage, backward religion, which is quite fascist and intolerant towards those who dare criticize its so-called “prophet.” For those who would say that Christians do the same thing; I simply say to you, the last time I checked, I do not see Christians threatening to blowup buildings or anything for the sort —- for the mere offensive remarks about Jesus Christ or Jews blowing themselves up over insults to the Torah either. For those who point to Timothy McVeigh: He was not a Christian and he was not angry about insults to his religion either. He was a lone wolf crackpot who was angry at the Government. Big Difference! McVeigh might have also been suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as well, as he was a first gulf war Veteran.

I said all that up there to say this right here: This is why we have to vote different come November 4, 2012. Because we need a steely-eyed leader, who will look at this situation that we are in and make some serious decisions. Not decisions based on political correctness, not based upon popularity polls or any other of that silly stuff. But decisions made for the good of this Country and the future of this Republic of ours. Admittedly, some of those decisions will most likely will make me want to hide under the bed, see I am not that big on war. But, I will feel much better knowing that Mitt Romney, who I am voting for and praying does win — will be that person in charge.

I pray that the Lord God of the Heavens is merciful to this Nation once again and allows a man to be elected — who believes, what I and many of the people who read this blog —- believe. That America and this Republic are worthy of defending, against enemies; foreign and domestic. Who also sees what previous President’s have done, and what needs to be done, to finish the job —- with honor — once and for all.

September 11 terrorists trials under scrutiny at Gitmo

I have some really mixed feelings about this as a Constitutionalist.

The Washington Times reports:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — A U.S. military judge is considering broad security rules for the war crimes tribunal of five Guantanamo prisoners charged in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including measures to prevent the accused from publicly revealing what happened to them in the CIA’s secret network of overseas prisons.

Prosecutors have asked the judge at a pretrial hearing starting Monday to approve what is known as a protective order that is intended to prevent the release of classified information during the eventual trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has portrayed himself as the mastermind of the terror attacks, and four co-defendants.

Lawyers for the defendants say the rules, as proposed, will hobble their defense. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a challenge to the protective order, says the restrictions will prevent the public from learning what happened to Mr. Mohammed and his co-defendants during several years of CIA confinement and interrogation.

The protective order requires the court to use a 40-second delay during court proceedings so that spectators, who watch behind soundproof glass, can be prevented from hearing — from officials, lawyers or the defendants themselves — the still-classified details of the CIA’s rendition and detention program.

“What we are challenging is the censorship of the defendant’s testimony based on their personal knowledge of the government’s torture and detention of them,” said Hina Shamsi, an ACLU attorney who will be arguing against the protective order during the pretrial hearing at the U.S. base in Cuba.

The protective order, which is also being challenged by a coalition of media organizations that includes The Associated Press, is overly broad because it would “classify the defendants own knowledge, thoughts and experience,” Ms. Shamsi said in an interview.

It is a long fine line between protecting our Republic and protecting empire, and the misdeeds of it. I believe that the above went very close to that line; and even possibly over it. Still, many lives were saved because of the actions of the CIA, of which I commend them for that. However, I dread to know what they had to do to get confessions. Again, I am glad we caught these turkeys; but the methods we used do sicken me a bit. Again, mixed feelings about all of it. Some things are just very complicated.