DOUGLAS V. GIBBS <---------->RADIO <---------->BOOKS <---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <---------->DONATE

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The liberal media, the NY Times, and a question of treason.

Less than a week ago, June 23 to be exact, a story broke that blew me away. The New York Times ran a story that blew the classified program that seeks to trace al-Qaeda related bank transactions.

Okay, I have argued all along that the American Press is liberal, hates Bush, despises the war in Iraq, and will do anything to undermine the effort overseas. . . but this is too much. I never dreamed that they would stoop so low as did the New York Times did with this story.

Well, okay, I wasn't totally surprised. The American Press (minus Fox News and a handful of rightwing TV and radio Hosts) is unscrupulous, and will stop at nothing to make us lose this war so that they can say, "See, we were right. It's a loss of a war."

Now, because the NY Times published the details of America's effective terrorist tracking system, al-Qaeda operatives now have an increased opportunity to avoid being caught. Does the liberal press, specifically the Times not understand what the term "government secrets" means, or why it is important that such operations remain in a stealth mode?

We thought the greatest enemy in Iraq was the insurgents and the terrorists, and it turns out that the worst obstacle in this war is our own press. This was one of the best tools we had in tracking terrorism and they published it, and on top of that, they did so after being asked not to release the information they had obtained by our government specifically because it may jeopardize the effectiveness of the system. Since when does the liberal press have the right to leak classified information like that?

Then on top of that, the Los Angeles Times released a companion story.

First the New York Times exposed the NSA's terrorist surveillance system, which got all of the idiot liberals in an uproar about their own privacy, and now this. I hope that the U.S. Government prosecutes the Times -- this is espionage and treason, and they should be tried and found guilty and somehow be forced to pay restitution regarding the damage they have inflicted, and the idiots that allowed the story's release should be jailed for a long long time. The Times obviously wants to do whatever it takes to force us out of Iraq, and force us out of the war against terrorism. Do they think that the terrorists haven't hit the U.S. since 9/11 for another reason? Do they truly believe that if we cut and run that terrorism will not return to our shores? The terrorists have not hit us because we took the war to them. That is all the enemy understands. They don't negotiate, and they don't care about the liberal feel good attitude that we just all get along in this new age of Aquarius. The terrorists have one thing in mind and one thing only: the destruction of any nation that is not primarily run by radical Islam. Period.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism is not the insurgency. The greatest threat to our nation is the traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home.

Now, thank God, Congress has made a statement about it. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican, Kansas, stated yesterday, "That the press wouldn't have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we're doing -- that scares the devil out of me. . . In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason. . . What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important to winning the war on terror."

Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Monday accused the NY Times of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," as well, a term that fits the definition of treason.

On Sunday the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Republican Peter King of New York, urged the Bush administration to seek criminal charges against the Times for its reporting on the secret financial monitoring program. "We're at war," he declared, "and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

Unfortunately, ever since Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots, and then resumed her acting career without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal action during the Vietnam War, the prosecution of treason seems to be something we just don't do anymore.

What? Does the press have the right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press?" Liberals always invoke the "freedom of the press" card anytime they do something wrong. Apparently those idiots don't realize what freedom of the press means. Government cannot control speech before publication, but it does not mean that the government can't prosecute the press for treason, or any other crime. It's common sense (a resource that seems to be in less abundance in the U.S. of late) that you don't spread the word about information that is classified by the United States Government, hence, information that could put the safety of the nation in jeopardy!

The federal statute on treason (18 USC 2381) reads: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title not less than $10,000.

My question is this: Why hasn't the Republicans taken charge and prosecuted these traitors? Am I correct? Did the idea of treason being punishable go out when Jane Fonda betrayed her nation over thirty years ago?

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Population Control

In the late 60s and throughout the 70s there grew a concern about population. Too many people can kill the planet, they thought. "The Population Bomb" by Dr. Paul Ehrlich indicated that disasters were on the horizon that would kill millions. Controlling the population became a priority. The belief the world was suffering from a population explosion became a widespread belief.

This is why people who believe in big government thinks what individuals produce belongs to the state. But the problem is, population explosions are a fraud. It is basically a way to control the people.

According to The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson, the global powers wish to cut the population. They will claim their reason is benevolent. It will be preached that the population growth will need to be slowed down, and people will need to be allowed to die when they no longer benefit society, to help the survival of civilization, and the planet. Reducing the world population by more than half will be necesary, they will tell you, to allow agriculture to keep up, othewise, there won't be enough food. Pollution, and other evironemental issues will also be referenced as a reason to slow down the population growth. They will claim that if we don't control the population there won't be enough water to drink, or maybe even such a large population will cause other environmental disasters with disease, temperature, air - or not cutting population could cause more war.

Humans have been determined to be detrimental to the planet. We are a disease. A parasite. Science Fiction has already forseen this kind of worldview. The United Nations, and globalists, cry for increasing birth control and abortion to help slow the growth of populations, and I wouldn't be surprised if the need to slow population will eventually become headlines.

The United Nations World Population Conference calls for a new economic order to control world poverty, and more equally redistribute the world's resources.

Marxism, Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program: "From each according to its ability, to each according to its needs."

The only way to bring this about is to destroy the worldwide economy, and to come up with an excuse to eliminate population, or at least slow down population. Such a worldwide problem would also give the government excuse to control the people. This is why a lot of people are accusing George W. Bush of wanted to implement martial law. Something like the avian flu would be a perfect excuse for such control over the people, but though Bush is a globalist, I don't think he is capable of that kind of tyranny.

Believe me, however, that a one world government will be necessary for the biblical end times to take place, so the world is positioning itself for such a shift. Someone, many believe in Europe, will arise with a kind of charisma that will cause blind support. People will chant his name, and see him as the great unifying hope of the world. And he will use whatever means necessary to bring about global governance, while trying to place under control all who oppose him. Environmentalism, Economics, and a search for peace and safety will be his tools. A one world government his goal. Crisis his hope - because crisis on a worldwide scale will give such a leader the excuse to take control globally, and lock away those who oppose him.

Population control will be one of his priorities. Abortion will become easier, perhaps even funded by the state. Birth control, though I see it as useful when used within reason, will be encouraged for the sole reason of slowing down population growth. Then, when the Rapture occurs, there will be a rejoicing by these people, because the drop in population will be what they had been wanting all along - if some disease or environmental calamity doesn't do the job first.

Some may call such a person the anti-Christ, and the anti-Christ will be exactly as described. But is it possible for others to rise first, as previews, to prepare the world for globalism and the loss of population from the Rapture?

Friday, June 09, 2006

Shattering the Iraqi Insurgency one scum-bag at a time

The air strike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entailed F-16's putting two laser-guided 500-pound bombs into the house in which Zarqawi was hiding. He was not only an organizer and commander of terrorists in Iraq, but a funding source helping Osama bin Laden. Though Zarqawi's death will not end the terrorist war in Iraq, it's a huge step in that direction.

What a fine example of the U.S. forces at work. Intelligence confirmed Zarqawi was in that location in such precise and reliable terms that it was deemed to be actionable. Though not confirmed to the press, it's obvious that the intelligence was confirmed by special operations troops on the scene. Once confirmed, the bombs did the job, and the effect of the strike confirmed.

Following the confirmation of the death of Zarqawi 17 other strikes were carried out against people in Zarqawi's network we had allowed to remain at large in the hope of them leading us to their boss. Destroying so much of Zarqawi's network could well end their ability to operate in Iraq for months. The possibility does exist that remaining terrorists in an attempt to prove their remaining strength by mounting many more strikes against the Iraqi government or coalition forces in the next few days or weeks could retaliate, but it is not likely for a group at the level of effectiveness Zarqawi had to emerge any time soon.

Zarqawi was not a new target. In fact, he had literally jumped out of a pickup truck as it approached a U.S. ambush set up at a check point. He's been able to narrowly escape regularly since his arrival in Iraq in September 2002.

Intelligence sources insist that Zarqawi entered Iraq in September 2002 at Saddam's invitation and began to plan and organize a terrorist force to resist American military intervention immediately. Before Baghdad even fell to Coalition forces, terrorist fighters were pouring into Iraq. They were not only responding to Saddam's call, but to Zarqawi's as well.

Liberals will claim that Zarqawi's death is no big deal because the violence in Iraq won't end, and the Iraqi government still hasn't managed to achieve anything like gaining control of the most troubled areas of its nation. They refuse to admit that we are succeeding in Iraq. And if they finally did decide we are achieving victory in Iraq, they'd scream for us to declare victory and come home.

Zarqawi's death and disabling his network gives the Iraqi government an opportunity it hasn't had before. Perhaps the Sunnis, who have supported the insurgency since its beginning, can be made to understand that the insurgency can't restore them to the disproportionate and dominant power they had under Saddam. Perhaps. Doubtful, however, as long as Iraq's neighbors continue to do their best to prevent democracy from taking hold.

The elimination of Zarqawi is a huge blow to al Qaeda and its murderous cohorts. There are and will be many more international terrorists to hunt down and eliminate in Iraq in the coming months and years. The belief that the terrorists involved in the insurgency are invincible has been shattered. His death not only shows that we are winning the war in Iraq, but that we are winning the long-term global war on terrorism.

This is the time for the administration to restate its goals regarding the war on terror and the nations that supports terrorists. The war in Iraq is not over, not by a long shot, and democracy in Iraq cannot succeed until the terrorist nations surrounding Iraq (Syria and Iran in particular) end their support for terrorism. That is a goal we haven't even begun to achieve - but we are headed in the right direction.

Killing Zarqawi will strengthen the international coalition, and is an important reminder why the West cannot withdraw its forces from the country until the war against al Queda forces is won. Zarqawi's goal was to turn Iraq into a crucible of terror, a safe haven, training ground, and launch pad for al Qaeda operations. Zarqawi's death has set back this goal, but there can be no room for complacency. The coalition must now be even more determined to destroy the al Qaeda network in Iraq and see the mission through.

The battle between the free world and militant Islamic terrorism is fought on a daily basis on the streets of Iraqi cities, and this conflict plays a major role in shaping the future of the war on terror. A crushing defeat against al Qaeda in Iraq will be a major victory, greatly reducing the long-term threat to the United States and its allies.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi killed!

This dude was al-Qaida's leader in Iraq - and he was killed (we found out today) in an air strike. If this isn't just a little more proof as to why we should be in Iraq during this war on terror, I don't know what is.

This is a maniac that has carried out suicide bombings, including one in Jordan that killed 60 people; was known as Iraq's most notorious insurgent associated with bombings, assassinations, and the beheading of foreign hostages.

He is Jordanian born and merged with Osama bin Laden in late 2004. He used the Iraqi insurgency as a springboard to expand his operations. As did Bin Laden, Zarqawi released a number of audiotapes rallying support and challenging the US and its allies - and videotapes showing horrific footage. Many believe that this is a sure sign that Saddam Hussein was courting al-Queda, justifying the attack on Iraq (even though there has been more than enough justification).

For more, check out the blog roll under cap'nbob's 9-11 graphic on my side bar to the left.

Also, here is a list of Zarqawi-claimed attacks:

28 Oct 2002: US diplomat Laurence Foley killed in Jordan
19 Aug 2003: Bombing of UN office in Baghdad, 23 dead
29 Aug 2003: Bombing of Najaf shrine killing Shia cleric Muhammad Baqr Hakim, 85 dead
2 March 2004: Co-ordinated attack on Shia mosques during Ashoura ceremony, 181 dead
11 May 2004: Nick Berg beheaded, first of at least nine foreign hostages killed in 2004
14 Sept 2004: Car bomb targeting police recruits in Baghdad, 47 dead
19 Dec 2004: Car bombs in Najaf and Karbala, 60 dead
19 Aug 2005: Rocket attack in Jordan on Israel and US navy
9 Nov 2005: Triple attack on hotels in Amman, 60 dead

Yet, somehow the liberal left will make this into something else - - - they can't stand it when proof that they are dead-wrong keeps piling up.

And as Rush would say: Any good day for America and the US military and the war effort is a bad day for liberalism, a bad day for the Democrats.

Take that, liberals.

Man, I love America.