Another One Bit The Dust...

According to CBS News (yes, the 'fake-but-accurate' people, so take this with a LARGE grain of salt), an unmanned drone attack in Pakistan killed Al-Quaeda's number three commander, one Abu Yahya al-Libi. The United States has yet to confirm the reports.

Good job, U.S. Armed Forces! Note to President Obama - kill these cowardly murderers faster, please.

More Thoughts On Boumediene

So the Supreme Court has decided that our rights belong to our enemies, not to us, with their decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Yesterday, after reading the decision, I posted my thoughts on this despicable and completely unconstitutional decision and I remain convinced that with this decision, the Supreme Court has laid the germ of the United States' eventual destruction. And of course they have fulfilled the wishes of the media and the left-wing Democrats who so badly want their own country to lose and fall under the control of fundamentalist Islam. The most disturbing part of this scene is that they have managed to prevail in spite of our brave soldiers actually winning the war on the ground. However, facts are irrelevant to the media and their allies in the legal profession. They have handed eventual victory to Islam in their centuries-old war to destroy all opposition to their imperial religion.

The Constitution does not set up judges as the ultimate arbiters of power in this country. There have been bad Supreme Court decisions before- anyone recall Dred Scott? However, there is nothing preventing the President from refusing to enforce any Supreme Court decision that is based either in bad law or that breaks the Constitution's separation of powers. This decision quite clearly does both- it is based on absolutely no precedent that I can discover (no previous cases have ever conferred access to US courts to aliens captured in combat, either lawful or unlawful combatants), and it over-rides the President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief. It also over-rides Congress' powers to legislate as they have twice passed legislation stripping the courts of jurisdiction over enemy alien combatants- most recently in 2006.

However, none of that appears to matter to five justices on the Supreme Court, as they have decided that the people and their representatives must not be allowed to make decisions- only the unelected, unaccountable justices of the Court are allowed that right. As they did in striking down the Fifth Amendment in the near-equally disgraceful Kelo decision, the justices have once again flouted the Constitution they are sworn to serve, have violated the wishes of the people via their elected representatives and most shockingly, have ignored the fact that Congress twice specifically removed jurisdiction from them. None of this stopped five justices of the Court from imposing their own wishes over those of the vast majority of their fellow Americans.

I repeat- when Islam achieves its goal of complete control over the United States and the rest of the Western, civilized world, those to blame will be the lawyers who fought so hard to give them access to the reins of power, the media who covered for them, and told Americans ceaselessly that we were the bad guys, and the elected politicians (especially those in the Democratic Party) who were too craven to assert their own Constitutional rights and instead allowed these five judges to over-ride centuries of law and the prerogatives of Congress itself.

Supreme Court Snatches Defeat From Victory

Well, it has occurred. I cannot say I am surprised, but I am disappointed. I was hoping that at least one justice would actually read the Constitution before opening the floodgates of litigation by giving rights that are intended for U.S. citizens to people who meet none of the criteria for such rights. Yes, you heard me correctly. Today the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, announced that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, people who by definition in the Geneva Conventions signed by the United States of America are not eligible for any such rights, are eligible for the right of habeus corpus and are allowed to sue the US government in US federal courts. By so doing, with one stroke they have managed to hand the Islamic imperialist forces the victory that they could not win on the battlefield.

I quote the Geneva Convention as follows- see for yourself if our enemies in al Quaeda and Iraq fall into one of the following categories:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

This is so disappointing on so many levels it is difficult for me to begin. I think that if I were the President, I would order the troops to shoot ever single inmate at Guantanamo- immediately. After all, since these people have now outlived their usefulness, and will soon be released into American society with (probably) American citizenship (can't deny these poor mistreated people the privileges of US citizenship since the Court has decided to give them every other right). I am sure the Court will do everything in its power now to ensure that these people receive millions of dollars for their 'mistreatment'- never mind that these are the same people who planned and executed 9/11- and will soon have a plan in place to allow them to settle down in the very country thy so badly wish to destroy. When America finally falls, as so many other great cultures have fallen to Islam, it will be the Democrats, the leftist legal profession and the media who will bear all the blame, since they seem determined to take Americans' privileges away and give them to people who do not deserve them.

As far as this disgraceful ruling goes, I think that Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head. She wrote on her site,

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

I could not agree more. I think that with this decision, the Court has finally succeeded in doing what Osama Bin Laden could not- deliver victory in this war to Islam. It won't be immediate, but this country is doomed. The Left has got their hands on the true power, since Congress and the President will not exercise their right as equal branches to the Court to refuse to recognize illegal decisions such as this one which have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution itself. The Founders clearly did not intend for non-lawful combatants and illegal aliens to qualify for the same rights as American citizens. Now that the Court has handed those rights over to the worst possible group of detainees, how long will it be before legitimate prisoners of War- those who DO meet the criteria contained in the Geneva Conventions- start suing in federal courts? Malkin says it will not be long and I sadly agree.

To those who have a way out of this country, I strongly advise that you begin looking at your options. To those who don't, I suggest you start practicing your shooting- you will need your defences once sharia takes control, aided and abetted by the same lawyers and so-called 'elites' who were so eager to hand over our rights to our enemies. America has fallen at last, and it is now only a matter of time before Islam replaces the Constitution with Sharia law, since our own elected officials and these unelected judges would rather ignore the Constitution to hand out our rights to our enemies than actually do something to protect their own country. As Byzantium before us, we are doomed, due to our own self-loathing elites. If you happen to have a moment, read Sir Steven Runciman's The Fall of Constntinople. It details the fall of Constantinople, once one of Christendom's proudest empires, but which was eventually delivered to Islam by its own leaders and allies- just as we are being delivered to Islam.

And as an aside, when you are looking for places to retreat, don't choose Europe. Without our protection, Europe hasn't a chance of surviving. They are a lot further down the path of self-destruction than we. Pick a nation that has some nationalistic pride, like China or Japan. But make sure that you pick one that will fight, because I don't think any of us would want to live under Islam's sharia law- it is even harsher to non-Muslims than it is to Muslims. I wonder how the so-progressive Left will enjoy living under what they have brought us? I almost wish that I would live to see that event, but I am saddened by knowing that my son will be forced to live in a world where the United States no longer exists as such.

So farewell to the Great Experiment! Farewell America! She has endured for over two centuries, but now her own elites, encouraged by the people's ignorance and inattention, have delivered her to her enemies and now it is only a matter of time before they manage to hand over the remainder of what once were considered the rights of Americans. To be shortly followed, no doubt, by the reins of power to the medieval clerics who want to take us all back to the Middle Ages. it was a great ride, but like so many other cultures before us, we have been destroyed from inside by our own ignorance, stupidity and pride.

Anti-American Press Helping Islamists

The mainstream media, constantly leaking information that helps our enemies, constantly trying to force the United States into defeat but constantly claiming to 'support the troops' has been confirmed as being traitors. To refresh, according to Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So, have the United States media been 'giving aid and comfort' to enemies of the United States? According to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the answer is a definite 'Yes'. As reported by the US News & World Report, the authors state that,

The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following:

* In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.

* In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.

* Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

I would think that by now, even the dimmest of reporters and editors would be aware that their constant anti-American reporting is assisting the Islamists we are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. And if one reads history, one can discover that the North Vietnamese knew the only way they could win was through the treasonous attacks by useful American idiots such as Jande Fonda. So this is not exactly news, or shouldn't be.

The Press ought to be aware by now of the power of the pen. After all, they are always reliable in releasing hit pieces on REpublicans shortly before the elections- if that is considered to be a useful tactic, how can the fail to understand that their lack of support for their President and their fellow Americans in the military are aiding our enemies now?

Not let me clearly state that debate of tactics is and should remain a protected right. For example, John McCain has maintained for some time that our strategy in Iraq was failing and the we ought to change it. That is legitimate debate. But writing after two weeks that Iraq is a 'quagmire' as so many reporters did, or constantly publishing articles designed to reduce support among Americans, such as the New York Times, the New Republic and so many others have done, is treason. Pure and simple. So every time the New York Times publishes an article calling for withdrawal, every time a Nancy Pelosi or a Harry Reid declares the war 'lost' they are aiding or enemies. And in these cases, they ought to be indicted for treason, since they are clearly operating with little or no expert advice. Constructive criticism is one thing- calling for withdrawal is another.

The Constitution makes clear the standard of guilt- a standard no prosecutor would have any trouble proving, since these opinions are so widely published and read. Obviously there are debates to be had, but in my opinion, it is time to start putting the clamps on these disloyal media types who are so busy helping our enemies that they are killing their fellow citizens. And that, my friends is treason.

As Allahpundit over at Hot Air commented, this report "comes with plenty of caveats" but the basic premise- that the negative coverage does indeed embolden our enemies, is pretty hard to discount. So isn't it time that the Justice Department starts enforcing some of these laws., and in the process, maybe forcing our anti-American Press to make some hard decisions about which side they are actually on? Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Pearl Harbor Remembered

For those few readers who may not be aware, today is the sixty-sixth anniversary of the Japanese attack on the United States Pacific Fleet as it lay at anchor in Pearl Harbor. The attack precipitated official American involvement in World War II, as it was followed shortly by Germany declaring war on the United States, thus finally bringing the U.S. into the fight alongside the British Empire.

The attack was meant to have been announced by the Japanese ambassador just as the attack commenced, thus avoiding the image of a sneak attack, but due to a combination of circumstances, the diplomats were not able to get the ultimatum translated and typed in time to deliver it before the Japanese planes attacked. the results of Pearl harbor were devastating for the US Pacific Fleet- all eight battleships out of action, most of the warplanes destroyed and over two thousand Americans were killed. The only bright spot for the United States was that the attack failed to catch any of the Pacific Fleet's three aircraft carriers in port- all were out on missions at the time. President Franklin Roosevelt, in his speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war, called the attack 'a day that will live in infamy', and so it should be. But it should be remarked that much of the anger came from Japan's attempt to meet the letter of the law while violating the intent.

And to the credit of the nation, where there had been a strong peace movement, the attack overnight essentially ended the protests. Despite a year of constant defeat, despite horrendous casualties and despite the loss of men, ships and armies, the American public did not give up- they persevered until at last General Douglas MacArthur was able to dictate peace terms to Japan from the deck of the battleship Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay.

This brings up an interesting point. In the news today, many news organizations mark the anniversary fo Pearl harbor. Yet not a single one seems to have made the point that the Pearl harbor attack differs in several significant ways from the recent attack on Manhattan's Twin Towers. And these differences are important.

First, the attack on Pearl Harbor targeted military personnel and installations- a perfectly legitimate target by any rule of war. Pearl Harbor was not a civilian establishment- it was the main base of the United States Pacific Fleet. Second, the men at Pearl had the ability to defend themselves. True, there was incompetence and cowardice displayed throughout, but there was also much heroism, as shown by fighter pilots Taylor and Welch, who managed to take off and shoot down several Japanese planes, despite being incredibly outnumbered. there was the battleship USS Nevada, who desperately made a dash for the sea, only to be deliberately grounded to avoid blocking the channel. The point, however, is that the defenders had the machines and methods to fight back- they were not defenceless civilians.

So where is the outrage about September 11? Pearl harbor is to this day remembered as a sneak attack. Yet September 11 was even more so, perpetrated by cowards who did not have the courage to engage in open combat with the United States, but rather hid and used unarmed civilians as shields. And it ought to be noted that many of those killed in the September 11 attacks were not even Americans, but rather foreigners who happened to be working or sightseeing there. No one killed at Pearl Harbor was a civilian that I am aware of.

My point is simple. The Japanese are rightfully condemned for their duplicitous methodology. However, why cannot our press and our politicians bring themselves to be as righteously outraged about a much more cowardly and duplicitous attack, carried out for equally ignoble motives (Islamists want world domination and see us as the primary obstacle)? To me, the perpetrators of September 11 are far more despicable than the Japanese government and military of 1941. I wish that more of our so-called intelligentsia shared that opinion. But I fear they are too blinded by their hatred of all things related to our President to even admit that he got something right.

Symbol of Hope In Baghdad

Michael Yon, the intrepid reporter, photo-journalist and mil-blogger extraordinaire, has posted a remarkable image of the progress being made in Baghdad, despite the best efforts of mainstream media, defeatists Democrats and Iranian money. As linked below, this shows the cross of St. John's Catholic Church being replaced by a mix of Christian and Muslim Iraqis.



If only the mainstream media would cover events such as this as assiduously as they list the casualties and complain about their lack of amenities in the Green Zone, perhaps more Americans would have a better understanding of the events actually taking place on the ground in Iraq, and maybe they would not be so pessimistic. Maybe if the media actually carried out their task of reporting and allowing the public to decide, and if they reported equally on good as they do on the bad, then the American people would be better served and would have a greater appreciation for the events occurring in Iraq. Of course, if that happened, then maybe the current President would have better ratings and that would defeat the entire purpose of putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

I wish the media and the Democratic Party understood that politics is less important than standing together as a country. But it seems they believe that to be a good American, you have to help destroy everything that makes your country great first. I wish we had more reporters like Michael Yon.

As a reminder, Michael Yon is entirely self-financed. he receives no support from any media organization. If you like his work, I strongly urge you to contribute to Michael's tip jar or to purchase his books, as that will allow him to continue his work in Iraq of reporting the real news- the news that Iraq is a place of hope- despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to hide that news.

More DHS Incompetence

I have written before about the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). What was in essence a good idea- to combine intelligence and security into one accountable department, has ballooned into yet another bloated government bureaucracy. The supposedly professional screeners of TSA miss over 60 percent of smuggled weapons, the former INS seems to care more about helping illegal aliens than legal residents and petitioners, and of course there is absolutely no accountability in any of these bureaucracies.

Now comes news that the DHS not only cannot seem to explain how someone gets on their terrorist watch list, they also cannot seem to utilize any common sense regarding people whose names are the same as suspected terrorists. According to USA Today, more than 15000 people have appealed to DHS to clear their names. Naturally enough, DHS can't even point them to online forms to help them clear their names. USA Today reports,

The complaints have created such a backlog that members of Congress are calling for a speedier appeal system that would help innocent people clear their names so they won't fall under future suspicion. Among those who have been flagged at checkpoints: toddlers and senior citizens with the same names as suspected terrorists on the watch list.

"To leave individuals in this purgatory is un-American," says Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., who says she'll introduce legislation to try to streamline the process.

The Homeland Security Department says it gets about 2,000 requests a month from people who want to have their names cleared. That number is so high that the department has been unable to meet its goal of resolving cases in 30 days, says Christopher White, spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration, which handles the appeals. He says the TSA takes about 44 days to process a complaint.

This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no excuse for the DHS to take over a month and a half to clear someone's name. This is yet another proof that government is inherently inefficient and that we should never trust government to do what we can ourselves probably do better. National security is one of the things that government is supposed to do well at, and though the Armed Forces are good examples of government's special talents, DHS is an example of all that is bad about government. As an example of just how blind and arrogant government bureaucracy can be, one of the inconvenienced is a 6-year old toddler, John Anderson. As USA Today reports,

Christine Anderson says she has tried repeatedly to get her child's name cleared, but she can't find the right forms on the TSA website and none have come in the mail after officials promised to send them. "No one can give any answers to why my son is on the list or really how to get him off," she says.

So not only can DHS not explain how a six-year old got onto the no-fly list in the first place, they cannot seem to offer any help to getting the poor child off said list! DHS, like most government bureaucracy, is unaccountable and needs to be brought up sharply. There is no question that we must do a better job of protecting our borders. But the DHS is an monstrosity and needs to have some accountability brought into its operations. One would wish that the Press would spend some time on forcing accountability from the massive government programs they try so hard to foist on us, ass opposed to exposing national secrets that even they admit are not illegal.

Bono Gets It

The press loves to headline celebrities who speak out against President Bush, the war against Islamic fundamentalism and anything else that falls in with the media's favorite storylines. How will they report it when a celebrity does not hew to the accepted partyline? Bono, frontman of the music group U2, is about to find out.

Bono is one of the few celebrities for whom I confess to some admiration. His efforts for Africa, unlike many other celebrities, appear to be honest and he has shown himself to be unconcerned with who helps him, as shown by his workings together with President Bush- a state of affairs that would be anathema to most of his fellow celebrities. Now comes evidence that Bono also understands the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists such as al-Quaeda, and his courage to call evil by it's name. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Bono said of the Islamic fundamentalists,

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

Bono goes on to show that he does not engage in Bush Derangement Syndrome, despite the urgings of the Rolling Stone's anti-Bush reporter. In response to the reporter's statement that "But this Administration destroyed that." when they discussed the outpouring of support for the United States immediately following the attacks of Spetember 11, Bono says of President Bush,

There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

The Rolling Stone reporter, one Anthony DeCurtis, clearly has no understanding of diplomacy, and certainly not of national security. He has only a vague idea that Bush Is Bad. Pity, but considering the source, unsurprising. Bono, despite his liberalism, is someone I can respect, because he understands that the threat is a real one and it is not one that can be defused by talking. In this, as in his statement that "I try to stick to my pitch, and it's an abuse of my access for me to switch subjects.", he is worthy of respect, even though one may not agree with him. Bono is mainly interested in his efforts for Africa, he knows that this is something that gets him access and he did not want to abuse it. And for that also, I respect him.

Now, since Bono has not hewed to the party line on the Evil of Bush, what are the bets as to whether Bono's understanding will receive any space in the mainstream media? I for one am not optimistic. Hat tip to Tim Blair. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Remembering Beirut

Militant Muslims have long considered the UNited States a paper tiger. Much of the blame deserves to rest with President Clinton, who ignored attacks on US personnel and property for almost a decade. However, Clinton is not the only blame-worthy President. Presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter also deserve to share the blame for promoting the perception of the United States as a weak nation ripe for destruction. Even Ronald Reagan, who did so many positive things for this nation, deserves to share some of the blame.

Today marks the 24th anniversary of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by the Hezbollah organization. In this attack 241 Marines were killed and many other injured. This was the first assault by Muslim fanatics on the US military, as well as being the most serious assault on United States personnel since the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, and resulted in far more fatalities. Yet the U.S reaction left much to be desired.

President Reagan reacted by pulling the Marines out of Lebanon, resulting in Islamic fanatics being able to claim (with some reason) that they had defeated the United States. As a result, Muslims like Osama bin-Laden were able to claim that the United States lacked the will to oppose fundamentalist Islam, and thus they were able to use it as a recruiting tool.

Historically, only strength is respected by most Muslims. They have no respect or appreciation for other religions or other cultures. Islam teaches its adherents that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are animals- not worthy of anything other than ignominious slavery or death should they reject Islam's domination. If they are willing to live in a subserviant state, then they are allowed to live, though as Saudi Arabia shows, not with any real freedom. It is indisputable that a Muslim in a Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu country has more freedom than any of the above in a Muslim country.

So remember the brave Marines who were killed by cowardly Muslim terrorists. But remember their sacrifice with this caveat- if we fail again, their deaths are truly in vain, for only if we win in IRaq, and destroy al-Quaeda's credibility do their deaths mean something. Otherwise, should our lovely anti-war, anti-patriotic Democratic Party and their shills in the mainstream media manage to bring about defeat and withdrawal, we will succeed only in allowing our allies to be slaughtered and encourage the Islamic groups who long for a worldwide Caliphate. They may not be strong enough to win today, but if we retreat again and lose this campaign, they will be strong enough someday- especially if we allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. I hope that our leaders recognize that winning this war is imperative, and that we can elect leaders who understand this- not political opportunists who would rather sell America to China than protect their fellow Americans.

Never Forget

Today is the sixth anniversary of the deadly terror attacks on the United States by Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda organization, part aof a worldwide Muslim imperialist movement to destroy Christian and Jewish civilizations. al-Quaeda, like many other Islamist groups around the world, espouses a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the Kporan, taking its words literally. Thererfore, when the Koran tells its followers to destroy the infidel, al-Quaeda and its allies take that as divine orders, and thus the current war against Islamic fundamentalists should be considered a part of Islam's long-running war against the West.

We should never forget the heroism displayed by so many that day in 2001, and also we should never forget the despicable attacks by these cowardly men- afraid of granting women rights, afraid of showing their faces in publicl, and afraid to fight an open war against the United States military. But we shouldd also never forget that Islam has been attacking and destroying non-Islamic civilizations since the mid-sixth century AD. The invasion of Spain, India and the destruction of the ancient civilizations of North Africa was unprovoked by any attack on Islam. The attacks and eventual conquering of one of Christiandom's most ancient cities- Constantinople (known today as Istanbul), were unprovoked- the Eastern Roman emperors had little interest in conquering Islamic territory, and I am unaware of any such attempts from the West. In addition, the Muslims weere invading Europe as far west as Vienna in 1699, where they were repulsed. Since that time, no Muslim armed force has attempted to defeat the West by force of arms- they have preferred the Soviet method of destruction from within, using the many useful idiots and ignorant do-gooders who reside in the ranks of the Press and the educational establishments.

On this day, let us remember the bravery of men like Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes and Sergeant Jason Thomas. Let us remember the courage of Todd Beamer and his 'Let's Roll' that led to the frustration of the Flight 93 hijackers' plans. Let us celebrate their heroism, along with the bravery of all the current and former members of the United States Armed Forces who are currently defending us by taking the fight to Islam in the deserts of Iraq and all around the world.

But let us remember also that our enemy is patient, without mercy and utterly conscienceless. To Islamists, no Christian is an innocent. There are no such things as 'civilians' and fighting using methods that most of us find abhorrent is their modus operandi, as they are well aware that they cannot defeat us on the battlefield in a straight fight. Our enemy also has learned well the Soviet art of disinformation and undermining- helped, I regret to say, by the cowardly partisan hacks who are so prevalent in our media and in Congress.

Today is the sixth anniversary of a deadly attack. But if our eyes were opened, and if we can but sustain the resolve, we will triumph in the end. Islam cannot offer anything compared to what our society's freedom can, and ultimately, I believe we will win, if only our politicians and media will allow us.

More Judicial Arrogance...

...from our beloved federal justices. In this case, a federal judge apparently thinks that dolphins are more important than defending ourselves from our enemies. Or maybe she just wants us to lose this war we are fighting against Islam. So she decided that the Navy cannot use one of their most important tools- sonar!

This is simply more proof that the sooner Congress reins in judges who are making decisions about things of which they posses no knowledge or expertise, the better off we will be. I think it is time for Congress to tell the federal judiciary they have no authority over the Armed Forces and that they also have no authority over the open seas. Where do these activist judges think their authority comes from? Certainly not the Constitution! They threw that venerable document out the window long ago in their haste to remake it into a 'living' document. Perhaps we can have Congress write a law removing the Judiciary's power of judicial review and also specifying that any judge who makes decisions like this is subject to immediate removal from the Bench. Without appeal. That ought to rein in our activist judges a bit.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

The Continuing Role of the Press in War

The Associated Press showed once again why the mainstream media is losing readers in droves and why they are rapidly gaining a reputation of being in league (either formally or informally) with the enemies of the free world. Amnesty International threw a protest in Budapest, Hungary against the Guantanamo Bay prison. A grand total of seven people showed up- all of them Amnesty International workers! Not ONE single supporter showed up. And yet the AP ran a big front-page story about the protest, not forgetting to mention the 'horrible conditions" faced by the prisoners at Guantanamo. I think that Amnesty International would have had MUCH more success if they had thrown their protest in Germany or France. Of course, as Glenn Reynolds already noted, we are still waiting for AI to protest the cruel and inhuman treatment meted out by Muslims to the American servicemen (and Iraqi civilians) murdered by Muslim terrorists in Iraq.

*SIGH* These ridiculous Guantanamo claims have been debunked SO many times. Apparently it isn't enough that all the prisoners in Gitmo have plenty of food, their own Korans and are even free to worship at the appropriate times, but the Press seemingly are convinced that the Muslims- the same people who really DO torture, murder and rape innocent civilians- are the good guys in this war. We shall see how they feel if the Muslims win and the Press finds themselves living under Sharia law. They might re-think their protestations and claims of religious intolerance. Of course, by then it will be too late.

The US Press Corps (whom Rush Limbaugh has fittingly dubbed the 'Drive-By Media') will some day have to face up to their shameless and borderline treasonous behavior in this war. I hope that it comes sooner than later. The First Amendment does not protect treason, and the behavior of the Press is getting closer and closer to that as this war progresses. The New York Times's decision to publish yet another leaked story damaging our national security is just another example. Why doesn't the White House start putting these traitors in prison? Despite the Pentagon Papers decision, reporters are NOT exempt form national security laws. If necessary, we need to take this back to the Supreme Court and get the Pentagon Papers decision overturned. As the infamous Dred Scott decision showed, Supreme Court decisions get overturned all the time. Only liberals seem to think that THEIR favorite decisions should be exempt for reconsideration. We also need to start enforcing the treason and sedition laws against this arrogant and traitorous Press. Soon.

Hat tips to Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge.

War and Democrats

Well, THIS is no surprise. According to an article just published in Human Events Online by the veteran reporter Robert Novak, Democrats are being hurt, as opposed to being helped, but the war in Iraq.

According to Novak,

Once again at center stage is Democrats' timidity over Iraq, which one would expect to be as good an election issue as they could ever invent against the Republicans and President Bush. The Iraq War is apparently unpopular and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home -- yet Democrats feel so little confidence that this will translate into election victories that they cannot be persuaded to adopt a consistent anti-war position.

Well that comes as absolutely no surprise either. Democrats have long since become the Party of Retreat and they have not been truly supportive of their own country's efforts militarily since perhaps 1960, when John F Kennedy famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." Today's Democrats are all about asking country to do for them and not making any sacrifices- unless occasionally having to talk to those Neanderthal Republicans and common folk who aren't liberal and who do not live in Washington DC counts as sacrifice. In addition, Democrats are afraid to come out and present their real views on the war and the US troops who are fighting it. Knowing that most Americans do NOT despise their troops and despite an unending line of mis-representations and outright lies by the MSM in an attempt to destroy President Bush and return Democrats to power, most Americans do not believe in the cut-and-run strategy.

This present Democrats with a problem. On the one hand, their core constituency is heavily anti-American, anti-military and above all, anti-George Bush. However, most Americans, despite the negative drumbeat of the Press do not agree with them on these issues. So the Democrats are forced to try to hide their real feelings while letting their moonbat supporters see them acting as they would wish. Which means that they are unable to present any real argument on the war., the few Democrats with honor include Joe Lieberman, who has consistently supported the war. However, he and the recently retired Senator Zell Miller are almost the only Democrats who have been consistent in their pro-US views.

On the other end of the spectrum, John Kerry has been at least consistent in his cut-and-run philosophy- one apparently shared by few other Democrats. This should provide us with some very entertaining mid-term elections, as I am beginning to doubt the Democrats are going to be able to re-take either branch of Congress. The American public may dislike the Iraq war (though if the MSM would actually publish the truth, I think their would be a much hgher approval rating both for the war and for President Bush), but based on the silliness emanating from the other side of the political spectrum, I do not see them entrusting the Democrats with the reins of power until and unless they either come clean about their dislike for American military power or they actually regain their lost patriotism.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

WMDs Update

The Democrats and their enablers in the Drive-By Media have made a mantra out of claims that George Bush lied to America about the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought new hope to Iraq's terrorized citizens. The Press and their Democratic Party fellow-travelers in the United States Congress have been claiming with increasing hysteria that 'Bush lied, people died'. Never mind all those who died under Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, or all those who deals under the many other dictators that Democrats and MSM types have cuddled up to for so many years- Castro, Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc.

However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.

The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.

The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.

Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Democrats React To al-Zarqawi's Death

Scott Ott of Scrappleface blog posts a satire on the Democratic Party response to Zarquawi's death that is sadly not too far different from what the Drive-By Media and the Democrats on the Loony Left would really say if they thought they could get away with it. In this case, art imitates life a little TOO closely. However, it is still hilarious. Read the whole thing.

In the same Power Line post that brought this to my attention, there is also a link to a sober article by the esteemed Richard Miniter of the Human Events Online magazine on Zarqawi's atrocities (which interestingly the MSM are never eager to report on- much easier to excoriate the U.S. for holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay) and a piece from the good folks at MEMRI on the reaction to Zarqwi's death in the Islamic media

(Note: the Iraqi paper Al-Rafadin called on al-Zarqawi and Hamas to go to hell after Hamas declared al-Zarqawi a martyr to the Arab nation. The Minneapolis Star-Tribue- yes, the same paper that illegally broke the news of the US breaking Japanese codes in WWII- fell far short of this standard in its own coverage iof the same event.) Read these as well. Interesting stuff. And the Drive-By Media will report on this, when.....?

Hat tip to the guys at Power Line.

One Down- How Many Left?

I have been unable to post due to personal and professional commitments for the past few days, but the news from yesterday is simply too good to pass up. One of the biggest enemies to Western society and our way of life perished when the United States military, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday.

This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....

I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.

However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.

This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.

It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...

Some Questions...

Courtesy of my friend Mentok, I am posting the following questions, for discussion together with my take:

Q: What do you think of treating the terrorists by the platinum rule? Meaning, if they're giving us hell, giving them hell via lard dipped bullets, etc.
A: I think this is an excellent idea. My only concern is that we are already winning both the military and the propaganda war in Iraq, and this might push us backward if we hit the wrong folks at all. And that might happen- mistakes do happen in wartime, as we all know. We already know the enemy in Iraq are losing- only the American MSM has apparently not yet read (or more accurately won't report on) the most recently translated al-Quaeda letter, which clearly shows their lack of strength. However, it would be so nice to pay them back in their own coin. And what the h*ll are these idiots at Guantanamo Bay doing still with their Korans? Do any Americans in Iraq get bibles? Or any other Muslim country? Take away those damn Korans. These are terrorists, not POWs!

Q: What do you think of Stephen Colbert and his *ssraping of the US Press Corp on CSPAN?
A: Not having seen Colbert's little "comedy routine" I have no opinion to offer. Mentok says that "not only did he rake President Bush over the coals, he also managed to make a laughingstock of the US MSM." Well, since the MSM already ARE a laughingstock for their blatant bias, their determination to not report the truth and their equal determination to ruin this country, that wouldn't be difficult. However, I will take Mentok at his word. For anyone interested in viewing the routine, Google (yes the hypocritical ChiCom censor enabler for those keeping score at home) has the complete video feed here.

Q: Should the US media be entitled to protection from the United States military?
A: Not anyone from CNN, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times, no. Seriously, if the US MSM insists that they are above being patriotic and that they do not have to support their own country, then why the heck should our soldiers have to risk their lives protecting these useless traitors? The MSM is apparently on very good terms with the enemy- let THEM be responsible for protecting these so-called reporters who only report what they want, not what is true. And if a reporter is traveling with a terrorist group, he/she should be a legitimate target. They certainly would not lift a finger to protect the soldier if they had knowledge of an attack, so why should the soldier lift a finger to protect the reporter? Only if the reporter is embedded and has agreed to follow the military's terms (and that includes reporting both the good and the bad news) should a reporter be entitled to military protection.

Q: Should we repeal the 'Baby Anchor' law?
A: Absolutely. Even though it will require a Constitutional amendment. There is no reason why just being born in the United States should make anyone a citizen- especially not with illegals slipping across the border just to have their babies in US hospitals- which by government fiat cannot ask if they are even citizens! The upshot is that we have just increased our own tax burden with yet another illegal family. Get rid of the baby anchor law and also remove the requirement that healthcare has to available to illegals. If you are not a citizen or legal resident, you should not be entitled to free healthcare. I am a citizen and I don't have it. Why should illegal aliens have benefits that citizens do not?

Q: What to do about Iran?
A: Well, we may not have a choice much longer. I say we give the UN till the end of the year, then start telling Tehran that our forces in Iraq will be moving in unless they unconditionally disarm. And that means a full apology and compensation for 1979 as well. Otherwise, we will remove the mullahs militarily. And let the Iranian people decide who will rule them next. Just like Iraq. And since Iran is the main financier of the "insurrection" in Iraq, there won't be anything a fifth element in Iran since most of the people are much more pro-American that are any other population in the area. Delay is fatal. Remember 1939. Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but France and Britain did nothing and ended up fighting a six-year war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford a nuclear-armed Iran?

Q: What to do about North Korea?
A: Give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Well, maybe not South Korea. They are a little bit too ungrateful already for my taste. But Japan and Taiwan? Absolutely. The last thing China wants to see is a nuclear-armed Taiwan. And that will make China think twice about whether having North Korea as a client is worth the consequences. Since China will not be helpful, why should we enable their little dreams of power?

Post what you think in the Comments section. As usual, any profanity will be removed. Be polite, be courteous, behave.

Credit for questions 1 and 2 to Mentok.

Remind me again.....

about the Exempt Media's supposed non-alignment in the world of politics. According to William Tate who published in The American Thinker, their supposed neautrality hides a deep and dangerous partisanship. Tate recently published an article exposing the New York Times' hypocrisy regarding the current brouhaha over George Bush's attempts to gather intelligence on terrorists.

According to Tate, under the Clinton Administration, there was a far more invasive intelligence program (code-named Echelon) and according to at least one official, the Clinton Administration sold the information gained from that program to the Democratic National Committee for purely partisan political use against their opponents.

At the time, the New York Times (and the rest of the Exempt Media) had a much more sympathetic approach to Clinton's (far more invasive) program, stating that "...few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists...". So what has changed since that time? Apparently, only the political affiliation of occupant of the White House. That and the fact that we are actually at war with a radical terrorost group that has already proven their willingness to kill all of us without compunction.

On is amused at how the professional partisans (certainly not real journalists) at the New York Times so blatantly fail to keep their stories straight. Or maybe the Exempt Media has merely forgotten that they can be fact-checked now by people like us.

Hat tips to the Duke of DeLand and Glenn Reynolds.

Nuclear Iran

I have been somewhat lax in posting of late, due to personal and professional conflicts which made it difficult to keep my blog current. Hwoever, I happened to notice that the European Union apprently has actually pulled its head out of the sand, recognizing the futility of further diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Iran.

This is probably not particularly news-worthy save for the fact that it marks the first time in recent memory that the EU has abandoned its selfish and possibly suicidal attempts to undermine the United Statest at every step of the way. Perhaps with a nuclear Iran looming around the corner, and with a mad dictator in North Korea possibly already having nuclear weapons, the Euros will come to their senses and assist the U.S in dealing with a reality that even the delusional Left must recognize can have no good ends.

Hat tip to Captain Ed.