Obama Supplies Syrian Rebels with Weapons and Training

The Boston Marathon Bombing Was an Act of War

The author of the Alternet.org and Salon.org article, “The Boston Bomber Brothers Got the Attention They Wanted, The suspects were nobodies who wanted to spread fear. A citywide lockdown and media hysteria helped them do that,” wrote, “So how should the authorities treat political crimes of this sort?” He referred to the recent terrorist attack as a “political crime.” In response to his article and his comment I penned the following.

  

The Boston Marathon Bombing was a blatant act of Islam-inspired terrorism. It is political only for the fact that Islam is a Political, Militaristic in addition to being a Religious system. The Boston Marathon Bombing was not merely a crime, but an act of war. These two brothers were combatants in this war of Islamic terrorism. They are enemies of the United States. They murdered three and maimed scores of Americans. This act of deliberate terrorism is vastly different than the crimes that occur daily in our overly permissive, gang-infested, welfare plantations led by liberal Democrat overseers in our major metropolitan areas.

Authorities should first recognize the fact that we are at war with Islamists worldwide. Second, we should secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws. Thirdly, authorities need to be especially watchful to those recent legal or illegal immigrants who travel to Muslim enclaves for possible terrorist training. Fourth, deport any illegal alien who has been proven to be involved with any terrorist group within or outside of the United States.

Until we secure our borders and enforce our existing laws, until we identify and purge our country of illegal immigrants, who have connections to Islamist and other terrorist groups, we should not pursue any new so-called comprehensive immigration reform. We need to get our house in order first and foremost. In other words, no amnesty should be granted at this present critical time. The Boston Marathon Bombing is a wake up call!


This week America and the rest of the world were witnesses to an act of Islamic terrorism. The trial or tribunal that awaits the surviving Boston Marathon Bombing brother Tsarnaev should be quick and if guilty the accused should receive the death penalty. There seems to be a preponderance of evidence and witnesses to the violent act of terror perpetrated on American citizens in Boston.

Michele Bachmann Is Not a Strong Constitutional Conservative

I'll take a break from bashing Rick Perry to present this strong criticism of Michele Bachmann, courtesy of rinosafari blog.  You can verify the facts in this piece at thomas.loc.gov.  


http://rinosafari.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmanns-voting-record.html

Key Bachmann votes: 110th Congress

COPS Funding (HR 1700):

The Community-Oriented Policing Services program (COPS), the unconstitutional brain-child of Bill Clinton, provides federal funding for state and local law enforcement. Federal funding is transforming local law enforcement into militarized tentacles of the federal government and destroying local accountability. Apparently this is of no concern to Mrs. Bachmann since she joined 381 other Congress-critters to continue funding this program. Someone needs to tell the “Constitutional Conservative” that the document to which she so frequently pays lip-service does not grant the fedgov the authority to fund local law enforcement.

Iraq Troop Withdrawal (HR 2237):

Bachmann voted ‘no’ to withdraw soldiers from Iraq in spite the fact that the Constitution requires that Congress declare war (not merely to give assent to Presidential prerogative) and the Iraq war was not declared by Congress.
 
Iran Military Operations (HR 1585):

Speaking of the imperial presidency, during debate over the 2008 defense authorization bill, an amendment was offered that would have required then-President Bush to get specific congressional authorization (i.e., he could not simply cite the AUMF as a Caesarian grant of power) before engaging in military ops against Iran. Again, the “Constitutional Conservative” ignored the Constitution and voted against this very common sense amendment.

Real ID funding (amendment to Homeland Security bill)

During the Reagan presidency there was a proposal for a national ID to fight illegal immigration. When someone in a cabinet meeting suggested that the ID number could be tattooed on each American’s arm, Reagan blurted out “that’s the Mark of the Beast!” and squashed any further attempts at national ID. Mrs. Bachmann, a devout evangelical Christian, apparently lacks the foresight of Ronald Reagan when it comes to the danger of creating a national ID since she voted for an amendment to appropriate more unconstitutional funding to states to assist them with implementing REAL ID – which is essentially a national ID system.

Warrantless Surveillance (S 1927)

This bill – the so-called “Protect America Act” -- retroactively legalized George Bush’s massive violations of the FISA act (as it was written at that time) where Bush had illegally ordered en masse surveillance of the electronic communications of US persons without either a FISA court warrant, or any pretense of specificity or probably cause as required by the 4th amendment.

Apparently the 4th amendment means very little to our “Constitutional Conservative” when the “war on terror” is thought to require a surveillance state.

Thought Crimes (HR 1955)

The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007”, which passed overwhelmingly in the House, contained wide-open language regarding “extremist belief systems” that focused on ones thoughts rather than actions, making it extremely dangerous tool to be used against anyone with an unpopular message.  While Bachmann opposed an explicit hate crime law (HR 1592), she caved quickly for similar legislation when the “war on terror” was evoked.

Peru “Free Trade” Agreement (HR 3688):

As with all so-called free trade agreements in the modern era, this one also set up a supra-national enforcement body with the presumed power to supersede state and federal laws. It is for this reason that even a staunch free-trader like Ron Paul refuses to support these type of ‘free trade’ agreements. But for some reason, Michele “Constitutional Conservative” Bachmann is not troubled by these supra-national bodies, in spite of the fact that Article VI states that the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land” and makes no exceptions for its
subordination to supra-national trade enforcement bodies.

Head Start expansion (HR 1429)

Frankly, I was shocked to see this one. Here we have our Constitutional Conservative voting to expand federal funding for the education of pre-K kids and for more social service involvement in the lives of the targeted families (to help the kids, of course). Given Ms. Bachmann’s background as an activist with a rather excellent education organization in MN that was very concerned over the federalization of education (i.e., the Maple River Education Coalition), I never expected to see her vote in this way.

111th Congress

Economic Stimulus (HR 5140)

First, contrary to some recent articles by Bachmann critics, this is not the massive stimulus bill passed under Obama, but rather a scaled-down, right-wing version under George Bush. It entailed targeted tax rebates, tax cuts, and housing subsidies – yet no corresponding cut in any government spending.  Bachmann voted for this bill -- a strange vote for someone who professes to read Mises on the beach. (To her credit, she did not vote for TARP or Obama’s Stimulus bill.)


For Ron Paul’s reasons for opposing this bill – and his deadly accurate prediction about the effects of housing subsidies -- see this link <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul432.html>

More Warrantless Searches (HR 6304)

This bill reauthorized many features to S 1927 mentioned above. The same arguments about the 4th amendment apply.

Bachmann during the Obama years:

Virtually every politician’s voting record, as judged by the Constitution, suffers when a member of their own party resides in the White House. There is one exception to this rule, but - as judged by the votes outlined here - his name isn’t Michele Bachmann.

While Michele had some good votes during the 110th and early part of the 111th Congress – as did many Republicans – the votes we have discussed so far demonstrate either (1) a serious deficiency in constitutional understanding or (2) a lack of courage. Given her connections Christian-constitutionalist scholar Prof. John Eidsmoe, it is most likely the later.

Once Barack Obama replaced Bush in the White House, we see, as expected, Bachmann’s constitutional voting record improved significantly, from 67% to 80% or 90%. But even then we find some shocking votes.

Supplemental Appropriation (HR 2346)

More silly “emergency” funding, this time for unconstitutional wars, foreign aid, and the alleged flu pandemic – all of which is not authorized areas of expenditure by the Constitution. Yet Bachmann voted for this bill.

Foreign Aid (HR 3081)

Is there a form of unconstitutional spending more easily recognized and eliminated than foreign aid? How could a Constitutional Conservative vote for foreign aid? Clearly she holds some other authority higher than her oath of office.

Patriot Act extension (HR 3961)

When it comes to search and surveillance powers, a true Constitutional Conservative instantly knows that the 4th amendment, with its standards of probably cause and specificity, determine what type of legislation is allowed.
The Patriot Act clearly violates these constitutional qualifications, yet Bachmann voted to extend certain provisions of it. A fickle constitutionalist indeed.

BTW, during the renewal fight of earlier this year, she voted again in the same way.

< http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll036.xml>

Withdrawal from Afghanistan (HCR 248)

As before with the Iraq military withdrawal vote, Bachmann supported the continuation of the unconstitutional war in Afghanistan.

More Supplemental Appropriations for foreign aid and war (HR 4899)

As with HR 2346, Bachmann supported more “emergency” funding for unconstitutional wars and foreign aid.

Much more should be said about Bachmann: her unqualified and sycophantic support of the government of Israel and how this guarantees that her foreign policy staff will be dominated by neoconservatives; her milquetoast vision for the proper role of government; her dangerous carelessness about civil liberties; her willingness to subordinate what she likely knows to be true in order to further her political ambitions.

Michele Bachmann is many things: A gifted – if not crafty -- politician, a committed mother concerned enough about the proper upbringing of her children to home and privately school them, an obviously committed Christian, and so on.  But, as should be clear from her voting record, a “constitutional conservative” she is not.

Department of Homeland Insecurity

Hat tip goes to the new Sharron Angle website, ThePatriotCaucus.net where she featured this Liberty.com YouTube video. The video covers the latest gimmick from Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Insecurity.

 

WikiLeaks or Wicked Leaks?

Cartoon by William Warren as found on GetLiberty.org 12/1/10

Bruce Fein vs. Jeff Kuhner

part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7.

In the above video series, a spirited discussion takes place about the reasonableness of the foreign policy of the United States, particularly in regard to the “war on terror”. Though I am inclined to agree with one of the debaters, I would like to focus on some objective observations--my personal mental notes, which take a different tack.

The first observation is that, in attempting to win the debate, both sides claim that the other’s is extreme, probably much more extreme than it really is. And each time this claim is made, the other denies it, not just saying that their position is not extreme, but that the other side is misrepresenting what the other’s position is. This is typical in politics. Use fear to demonize your opponent. Not that this debate isn’t valuable and something that the American people need to hear, but the strategy of exaggerating the position of the opposing side takes something away from it. For example, Bruce Fein accused Mr. Kuhner of wanting to kill all Muslims and wanting a police state and Mr. Kuhner accused Bruce of wanting to do nothing about terrorism.

My second observation is that neither side used in argument from the Bible to back up their position. I suppose this better than misusing the Bible, but to disregard the Scriptures or not connect the principles that you are trying to argue to Bible in a way that would be convincing to a Christian audience is a serious mistake. Mr. Kuhner’s arguments are largely based on fear of Islamic terrorism and Fein’s position’s are based on fear of our own government. Though both sides invoke moral arguments which could be loosely based on Scripture, neither one brings the Bible to the forefront. For example, when Mr. Kuhner speaks of how Muslims hate America, calling it “the Great Satan” he merely uses human wisdom and not Biblical wisdom to justify what the he believes to be the appropriate response to the situation as he sees it. But a Christian response (What would Jesus do?) is expected to be different than what would make sense to a nonbeliever (i.e. Luke 6:27 says “Do good to those who hate you”). On the other hand, Mr. Fein doesn’t use these verses. He does not seem to explore the issue of whether an over population of Muslims could, in one way or another, contribute to the breakdown of our sacred institutions (it’s not just the Muslims who rant against the U.S. on the internet).

Perhaps this is outside the scope of the discussion, but neither side was willing to explore the possibility that the September 11^th attacks, the lack of success in response to it, or the increase in the Muslim population is due to the fact that Christians (or those who claim to be) have largely turned their backs on God. Fein and Kuhner argued over whether the Muslims hate us because we meddled in their affairs or because we are fornicators and perverts. But what if any efforts, whether they be aggressive or subdued will all fail for this reason? What if it is because God is not on our side because of our homosexuality, filthy language, pornography, drugs, abortions, and all the rest of our sins? If God were really on our side, would we be in such a quagmire (the war in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history)? Would be so overextended, so much in debt, and incapable of defense ourselves (both collectively and individually) without blatantly violating the Constitution? This is something to think about.

Obama Fires McChrystal

I haven’t been following the events surrounding the “war on terror” lately because I gave it up as a lost cause a long time ago. Obviously the mission has nothing to do with keeping us safe. Any captures or killings of actual Al Qaeda members could just be coincidence as far as I can tell. But if no one else on this blog is going to comment on this story about McChrystal’s remarks and subsequent firing, then I will.

It is ironic that General Stanley McChrystal is one of the few generals who voted for Obama and now he’s fired. The firing was over comments which McChrystal made about the war effort in Afghanistan particularly directed at Joe Biden in a Rolling Stone article. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense who hired McChrystal in the first place, has, according to CNN, opposed the firing, but later endorsed Obama’s decision. I think it’s like the blind firing the blind myself.

The other aspect of this case is that General Petraeus is actually being demoted to fill McChrystal’s place. If you recall, Petraeus was promoted from overseeing the Iraq war to being over all forces in the Middle East.

McCain recently grilled Petraeus about setting timelines for withdraw from Afghanistan. Petraeus indicated that he and Obama had agreed to set a tentative date of July of 2011 for withdraw. McCain expressed his concern that that would allow the terrorists to wait us out and that they would spring back into action after the redeployment. I’d be willing to bet that it never happens in this administration. Petraeus actually fainted during that exchange. A couple years ago Petraeus couldn’t answer a question about whether or not it would be constitutional for the President to go to war with Iran without approval from Congress. Who is going to take over for Petraeus as General over all the operations in the Middle East? Bill Ayers? God help us!

None of these guys has any respect for the Constitution, the lives of innocent children being killed by the drone attacks, or the freedom of America. It’s all just a money-making game to them. It’s a pay back for campaign contributions. Thousands of American families are without fathers because of these wars. The increase in single parent families is further exacerbating the moral decay in our country. And we are going to be enslaved by our debtors (like the Chinese and Saudi Arabians) if don’t stop wasting so much money! I’d rather be poor in a country whose God is the Lord than rich in an amoral one where we have to lick the hand of our godless providers in Washington. I’d rather be killed by a terrorist than be a slave. Patrick Henry said, “Give me Liberty or give me death!”

Mr. President: Is Victory a Four Letter Word?

12/02/09 7:00 PM Comments before the speech: I will be listening and watching online (C-SPAN) to the address to the West Point cadets this evening by the current occupier of the White House, where he apparently will finally be revealing his decision as to whether he will send additional troops to Afghanistan and how many. I have been hearing on the news today that he will be sending 75% (30,000) of the actual amount that General McChrystal requested.

Specifically, I will be listening for how many times, if any, the President uses the word victory in his speech.

Teleprompters in place and ready.

I feel somewhat sorry for the cadets who had to attend the speech in person, and worse yet must serve under this ardent anti-military Commander-in-Chief.

12/2/09 9:00 PM Comments during and after the speech:

He says he wants a 'successful conclusion.' I would like to know what he means by that. Does he mean victory? or does he mean withdrawing for purposes of political appeasement?

Early in his speech he again has to acknowledge that Islam, the religion of hatred and war. He called it, "One of the world's great religions." During the speech he made a point to say he will (unilaterally) work toward improving relations with Muslim nations. He made a point also to again say that we have made mistakes.

He will provide 30,000 additional troops and I heard him say that he will begin withdrawing troops within 30 months (with or without successful conclusion, whatever that means?)

He never did utter the word 'victory,' though he used the word 'defeat' about three times when speaking about the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Again, he and his teleprompter give an excellent speech. However, his actions more often than not do not agree with his words. He continues to spend, to bankrupt the country yet he said again tonight he wants to do something about the debt - just stop spending, Mr. President - it's as simple as that!

I was somewhat disappointed to see the cadets seeking to shake the President's hand, the President glowing in the attention and accolades. He pulled another one off on America and the military he so detests. He and his teleprompter are great deceivers.

Is PC responsible for the Ft. Hood Atrocities?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Are these two peas in a pod? D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad (left) and Major Murderer Nabil Malik Hasan (right) One Executed! Will the other be next?

.

.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Political correctness is the bane of this nation. And yes, thirteen times yes, it was one of the primary reasons that this tragedy on a military base in Texas occurred. Some in our nation, especially the leftist, who are currently control of America’s government, refuse to recognize that Islam is a military-political-religious movement. Islam is an enemy of the United States and all Western Civilization. George W. Bush and others who claim that it is a religion of peace are mistaken, deluded or ignorant or all of the above.

EXPOSING ISLAM FOR WHAT IT IS

The ultimate aim of Islam is world domination. Look at Saudi Arabia. They do not permit any form of Christianity to exist or be practiced in their dictatorship, yet they back the advance of that military-political-religion, and I might add blatantly anti-Christian, movement here in America. In other words they are woefully intolerant of all other religions, yet they demand tolerance for their ‘religion’ outside their Islamic prison. The Mullahs and Ayatollahs laugh at and perceive the current regime in power in America as weak and appeasing along the same order of former President Jimmy Carter.

HANG, MAN

I was glad to see that a stay of execution was denied to D.C. sniper John Muhammad, another Islam influenced mass murderer. John Allen became John Muhammad after he joined nation of Islam, a fringe Muslim group mainly consisting of African American converts.
.
What further excuses will be made for Nidal Hasan by the complicit, politically correct press? He had pre Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he was picked on by bullies, he did not want to fulfill his military obligation and serve where assigned because of his ‘faith’. Fact is, he is an Islamic terrorist who infiltrated the military and accomplished what he obviously set out to do – kill the infidel as commanded by the Koran. Hopefully justice will be swift and we will not have to wait 7 years for this terrorist within to be executed for his murderous actions.

WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

When will America and the rest of the world wake up to the fact that Islam is, in fact, a ‘religion’ of hate and they are the avowed enemy of the West? When will we begin to pay attention to the Nabil Hasans in the military and in America? When will we do what is right and not what may be political correctness in the eyes of the elitists?

A Blithering, Dithering President

Hickory, dickory darn it, the President ran up the deficit . . .

.

BLITHERING

Blithering – In the United Kingdom the word is used to express annoyance with and contempt for somebody or something. By his irresponsible and morally deficient and fiscally unsound policies and actions these past 9 months the President clearly demonstrates his hatred for America and all the values and virtues for which it stands. He trots around the global bad-mouthing the U.S. and its ideals despite all the good she has done on behalf of the oppressed and poor around the world.

He is bought by and paid for and thereby obligated to special interests including the likes of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, ACORN, and the ‘premier’ homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign. He espouses their vile agendas at the cost of morality, family values and the sanctity of human life.

.

Obama can’t make up his mind

DITHERING

Dithering – is the word that Vice President Dick Cheney used to describe President Barry Soetoro alias Barack Obama’s hesitation to make the tough decision regarding sending additional troops to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. It is a word that means nervously confused indecisiveness in the face of alternative possible actions. The President cannot make up his mind as to what to do in Afghanistan. Dose he listen to his generals? Or does listen to hapless Joe Biden and the leftist in his cabinet and entourage? He is indecisive. He is inexperienced. He is ineffective. America suffers as a result.

AN UNQUALIFIED PRESIDENT?

Not only is this President inexperienced. He is inept. America is slowly being strangled by its blithering, dithering President. The President may even be a man who is not a natural born American. He is hiding something. He has spent a million dollars in attorny fees to protect his past from public exposure. What is he hiding? The media is complicit and unwilling to shine the light of inquiry on his credentials, which they did not hesitate to do with the GOP candidates for President or Vice President in the 2008 election.

What good is intelligence, anyway?

Cartoon by William Warren as found on GetLiberty.org on 4/27/09

So the alleged President Barry Soetoro (a/k/a Barack Obama) is an Ivy League School graduate. He is soooooo very smart. I think not. He has run up the deficit, he has begun to dismantle the military. He has taken the focus off the War on Islamo-fascism and pointed his Department of Homeland Security toward 'right wing extremists.' The new definition of 'right wing extremist' is ANYONE . . .

• who believes in securing our borders
• who wants our immigration laws enforced for individuals and businesses
• who are pro-life, respect the sanctity of all human life and who oppose any and all the pro-death policies of the current government,
• who support the unlimited right to protect oneself and ones' family with ownership and use of fire arms
• who support advocate withdrawing the United States out of the United Nations, and getting the United Nations out of the United States,
• who support the free market and oppose government interference in the marketplace with unwise, unnecessary bailouts (spending money we do not have on things we do not need to build the power of the ruling party)
• who support returning War on Islamo-Fascism veterans
• who favors preserving marriage exclusively for one-man, one-woman relationships and opposing all special privileges or special rights for same-sex and other perverted so-called alternative lifestyles.
• who support balancing the budget, spending only what revenue is available, and oppose the wasteful wanton spending on political payoffs and earmarks . . .
• who oppose all measures or limits on U.S. sovereignty, such as the Law of the Seas Treaty

Mr. President, sir, I must fit your new definition of terrorist . . . Osama Bin Laden is now considered a 'participant' in an overseas contingency operation. I am considered to be a terrorist. Is there something wrong with this picture or what? Michael Savage was correct when he said that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Perhaps it is a case of being educated beyond one's intelligence. Either that or there are sinister motives behind this administration's recent change in terms of terrorism.

Hugs for Hamas

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed the (Soetoro a/k/a) Obama administration is no longer using the term ‘War on Terror.’

“They’ll be using a new term, “Hugs for Hamas.’”

- - NewsBusted, Episode 4/10/09


NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

Death is Inevitable in Any War

Kwaayesnama commented on my article, "A Voting Strategy":

"In my bible the fifth commandment clearly states, “Thou shall not kill”.

I am a catholic and I do not belive in abortion, but I also feel strongly that you shall not MURDER.

John McCain, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and Condoleezza Rice are responsible for the murder of over 94,330 innocent people while they looked for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Of that total 4,164 were Americans. They are also responsible for the wounding of over 30,734.

Oh, K -

I, too, am opposed to abortion. The Vietnam War and the War on Terror Terror generated deaths are few compared to the ongong American atrocity of killing innocent babies. This is where all of America's moral outrage should be channeled.

What do you feel about capital punishment? I suspect that you would be opposed to it. I am not. A convicted murderer had his chance at life, he spit in the face of God and society by taking the life of another, so he should have his life taken.

War is different. I do not agree with the way President Bush has prosecuted the War on Terror in Iraq, but he made that decision and he felt it was the right thing to do. There were weapons of mass destruction. They went to Syria, transported there while this country and the worthless United Nations were dilly dallying around with sanctions and negotiations.

In every war their are casualties. It is inevitable. I served in the Vietnam war. I volunteered. That war was right in that we were trying to stop the communist takeover of Vietnam. The left in this country was successful in helping the Viet Cong win that war. The left in Congress and outside has done everything it could to undermine the American effort in Iraq. If you want to blame anyone for murder, it is the left, Senator Harry "surrender" Reid who caused the needless deaths of many by undermining of the war effort once undertaken. The congress had approved the war and its funding.

TD forwarded the following interesting information to us, regarding military deaths.

Military deaths by by year and ethnicity - interesting facts

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007 Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.

Military losses, 1980 through 2007. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ...........2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ............2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year) .

1997 ............ 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 …...... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 ........... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007...............899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I.

These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:

European descent .....69.12%
Hispanic ................... 12.5%
Black ..........................12.3%
Asian .......................... 3.7%
Native American ....... 1.0%
Other........................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white). .74.31%
Hispanic ..............................10.74%
Black .................................... 9.67%
Asian .................................... 1.81%
Native American ................. 1.09%
Other .....................................0.33%

I was surprised again... until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more!!!

It's all about politics and some politicians are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. Consider Hillary Clinton's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his presidency, and is on record of forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained at the time

I am not suggesting that any particular political party is necessarily right, there is a lot wrong. But, I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters. Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who really tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine. (Very few are on both sides.)

The above statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Matt, What Are You Thinking? Part 2

First, I do not agree with all of the things that Sam stated in his comments to you and to your article.

Second, I would not want you to stop writing for this blog. I do not think that Sam would want you to stop either. You bring a different perspective. We all bring our own points of view to the discussion. We do not have to agree on everything. I knew that you were not a supporter of the War in Iraq. However, to me that is not the most major issue America faces. It is the continued atrocity of abortion and the protection and preservation of one-man and one-woman marriage. Those two issues are of paramount importance. On these we all would agree. That is what is critical to me.

Third, I tend to agree with you on McCain. I think that both Obama and McCain would make poor, even bad presidents. Right now, a month-and-one-half away from the elections I would not vote for McCain either. Sam says he would, given the options. I can’t say either one of you is 100% correct. We have to do what we individually feel is right.

I looked up Ron Paul’s votepact.com alternative that you suggested. I think it is a good idea in theory. However, I agree with President Ronald Reagan approach regarding nuclear arms reduction agreements – trust, but verify. That would be the problem, agreeing with a Democrat to both vote third party, but having him or her do something different in the voting booth is my concern. I am still wrestling with the issue of whom, if anyone, I will vote for President in November.

Mission Accomplished

NewsBusters is a conservative news and comedy website. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt below. See right panel of this blog and click on the video to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

“Last week marked the fifth anniversary of President Bush’s standing in front of a “Mission Accomplished” sign.

“It also marked the fifth straight year that liberals were more concerned over the wording of a sign than in fighting radical Islamic terrorists.”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 164

COMMENT

President Bush, if nothing else, has made us clearly aware that our enemy is Islamo-terrorism, which takes literally and practices the tenets of the Koran. We are at war with Islam. It is definitely NOT a religion of peace. It is a political philosophy every bit as dangerous and deadly as communism. Great amounts of wealth are being channelled in a massive global public relations effort to sell Islam as something that it isn't - just another way to heaven. Wrong.

Unlike Christianity, which offers true peace - peace with God, Islam offers the sword. Islam says you will convert or die physically. Christianity warns about the absolute necessity of belief in Jesus Christ in order to avoid spiritual death -eternal separation from the true God.

In one sense President Bush did accomplish making us aware and sensitive to the peril we face in the Islamo-terrorist movement. He did something about this heinous assault on freedom, where his predecessor, President Clinton, just played around in the White House while ignoring the threat.

Who Really Betrays US?

“Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't . . .” --- Ann Coulter, 9/12/07

from MoveOn.org's New York Times Full-Page Ad

There is such a defeatist attitude amount the Democrat Party leadership both inside and outside of Congress. Unfortunately the party has been infiltrated and completely hijacked by radical leftists starting with Howard Dean and backed and highly influenced by anti-Americans such as MoveOn.org financier George Soros.

These leftists seemingly want America to be defeated and do not want President Bush to make any progress in the war on terror because it would “harm” their political aspirations of gaining absolute control of this nation as they have the Democrat Party. These power hungry socialists thrive on power and desire it above all else and care little or nothing about preserving the America of our forefathers. They are willing to pay any price for gaining and retaining power.

It matters nothing for these radicals to ridicule and destroy men of character and integrity such as General Petraeus if it advances their cause. Their cause is more important than defeating terrorists or any other enemy of the United States.

Sears' Sure Support of American Troops

Here is some truly wonderful, positive news from an otherwise Wal-Mart-dominated profit-is-god world of globalized corporate greed, bottom-line mentality. This email was sent to us by T.D., a friend of this blog. It is a breath of fresh air. Here is a light in the darkness.

“Sears... I know I needed this reminder since Sears isn't always my first choice. Amazing when you think of how long the war has lasted and they haven't withdrawn from their commitment. Could we each buy at least one thing at Sears this year?

How does Sears treat its employees who are called up for military duty? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up. Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years.

“I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution. I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.

“Pass it on.

“(I) decided to check this before I sent (the above message) forward. So I sent the following e-mail to the Sears Customer Service Department:

"I received this e-mail and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement your company. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item, even if it's cheaper at that store.

"This is their answer to my e-mail:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for contacting Sears. The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback.

Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.

Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358

“Please pass this on to all your friends. Sears needs to be recognized this outstanding contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we do appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!

“It's verified ! By Snopes.com at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/sears.asp (shows the entire article) checked this out at Snopes also and it is true.”

I am glad to reprint and pass on this good news . . . Support Sears, which supports our troops! Three cheers for Sears!

Global War on Terror: Fact or Fiction?

This is a Michael Ramrez Cartoon Found @ http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez

The Democrats claim that there is no war on terror. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid just be careful as you pass any empty Mercedes-Benz while strolling the streets of London.

Democrats and Republicans let's just secure our borders pronto. Or else we will be singing "Who Let the Terrorists In?" instead of "Who Let the Dogs Out?" The government is failing the people. Let's demand that Bush, Congress and the Bureaucrats do their jobs.