North Korea performs nuclear weapons test

Today the South Korean seismic monitoring center confirmed that tremors felt at the time of an alleged nuclear test in the north were not a natural occurrence. Later, the North Korean Central News Agency stated that an underground test was performed successfully.

The test places the world into a very precarious position, even though North Korea hasn't shown the ability to launch their weapons further than the immediate vicinity. Nonetheless, a nuclear strike on South Korea or Japan could be a consideration by the communist dictator.

The U.S. plans to push for stronger punitive measures, though they state that the explosion was smaller than the North Koreans desired.

North Korea has disregarded all international resolutions designed to stop this event, and has proven that they cannot be trusted. Their excuse is that the reason they built the bomb is that they feared U.S. invasion.

Their interest in building a nuclear weapon goes back to the years Clinton was in office, violating an agreement signed during that administration. Japan's Prime Minister has arrived in South Korea to discuss the situation with the South Korean leaders, stating that the nuclear test was absolutely unacceptable. The South Korean President also has conferred with President Bush on the phone over this already.

This situation has huge global implications, especially where it concerns the Middle East. How we respond to this will dictate Iran's nuclear aspirations. If we sit and take little action, Iran will pursue reaching the same level of nuclear capabilities with little worry of retribution from the west. Surprisingly, there is word that China warned the U.S. of the test 20 minutes before it occurred. I wonder if China will be a reliable partner in dealing with North Korea. Probably not.

Sanctions imposed by the U.N. security council are likely, but will unlikely deter North Korea from any further tests.

North Korean Tensions Continue

Five North Korean soldiers crossed into the Demilitarized Zone today. South Korean Soldiers fired off 60 shots. Kind of interesting that this happened as regional tensions are mounting in anticipation of communist North Korea's plan to test its first atomic bomb. Is North Korea testing some waters? Or are they taunting South Korea?

Associated Press reported that it was unclear whether the North Korean advance was intended as a provocation, or was rather an attempt to go fishing at a nearby stream. Four of the North Koreans were unarmed and the fifth carried a rifle. No one was hurt, and the North Koreans retreated.

Though rare, this kind of thing happens, but I am pretty convinced that this incursion into the DMZ was orchestrated to create tensions, and an excuse for needing the bomb. They will tell their citizens that South Korean troops opened fire on unarmed North Korean troops and that a standoff may be necessary.

The impotent U.N. Security Council had earlier warned the North not to follow through on its threats to test its first nuclear weapon (like they really listened when they were warned not to test their missiles). Japan will push for punitive measures if North Korea goes ahead with the tests.

And on an even weirder note, South Korean officials are going to visit in Beijing on Monday for two days of talks with Chinese officials about the nuclear test. Like China is going to do anything! North Korea is the far east's version of the Eastern Bloc. In fact, China has probably been assisting North Korea in their Nuclear ambitions!

Japan's Foreign Ministry stated that a North Korean nuclear test is "a grave threat to peace and security of northeast Asia and the world."

No kidding!

The Ministry further commented, "If North Korea conducts a nuclear weapons test despite the concerns expressed by international society, the Security Council (meaning the United Nations) must adopt a resolution outlining severely punitive measures."

The U.N. will do nothing. We are so wrapped up with terrorism right now, our ability to respond is minimal. And a Chinese official indicated that the only thing that would dissuade North Korea from carrying out the nuclear test is the removal of American economic sanctions. That's a bunch of B.S. because you know as well as I do that the only thing that will stop North Korea from developing and testing the bomb would be for it to be forcefully taken away from them. Problem is, the liberals may fall for such a lie and if able to they would promptly take action on getting kissy kissy with the North Koreans so that they could maybe convince them by talking to them not to follow their nuclear aspirations. . .and then as the bomb flies through the air the left will say to each other "nah, that isn't from North Korea, they're such nice people. They would never do something like that to us or Japan." BOOM! Nonetheless, as I have stated in a past post, the United States needs to somehow organize an operation to go in and stop this program now, by force, before it gets off the ground.

The sanctions, by the way, are for North Korea counterfeiting and money laundering. Reminds me of Islam. They are nothing more than a bunch of punks with a little power trying to flex immature muscle. As an added note, North Korea has boycotted six-nation talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear ambitions.

Like with radical Islamic terrorists, talking does not get the job done.

Bolton, the American U.N. ambassador which I like immensely, said that the U.N. Security Council needs to adopt a long-term strategy to deal with North Korea (which they won't), but the top U.S. priority now is to stop a nuclear test (and in my opinion, by any means possible - or else we have a real problem).

The left (and the social liberals around the world) still thinks that talking will do the job. Talking has not worked so far. What makes them think that it will do any good in the future?

Il is like a petulant child. He must be controlled, and made to follow the rules of the world. Otherwise, everyone suffers. Sounds like a mousetrap to me.

One of a Liberal's Greatest Fears!

Where are all of the Americans?

An aunt of mine sent me this by e-mail, and it is so golden, I just had to share it with all of you.

A Somali arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says,"Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country, and giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care and free education!" But the passer-by says "You are mistaken, I am Mexican".

The man goes on and encounters another passer-by. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America!" The person says " no American, I Vietnamese.

"The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says "Thank you for the wonderful America !" That person puts up his hand and says "I am from Middle East, I am not an American!"

He finally sees a nice lady and asks suspiciously, "Are you an American?" She says, "No, I am from Russia !" So he is puzzled, and asks her,"Where are all the Americans?" The Russian lady looks at her watch, shrugs, and says...

"Probably at work!"

Foley's folly shouldn't sink the ship

Rep. Mark Foley, a congressman from Florida, and a member of the Republican Party, is an idiot, and is one of those people that Absolute Zero zeroes in on. He's sick, and I'm glad he got caught. The Democrats, of course, is all over this one. Thing is, the Democratic Party is always being haunted by charges of sexual misconduct. They're just happy it happened to a Republican for once. Thing is, they aren't jumping on this because they really think what Foley did was so wrong, it is a strategic attack. Their goal has nothing to do with morality. And their abilities to battle has nothing to do with honest politics. They can't argue the issues. The goal of the Democratic Party is simply to create hate against the GOP, as they are trying to incite against Bush, and Foley didn't help the Republican battle at all.

And now they are all over Dennis Hastert's handling of this affair, calling for his resignation. Are you kidding me? Granted, Hastert's past spending record is not one I agree with, but he took swift action when the Foley situation regarding his chatting with a teenage page in an overly friendly manner arose last week.

No more quiet dueling. The Republican Party can no longer allow the Democratic feeding frenzy to continue. It's time for the GOP to fight back, and make the voters realize that scandals happen, and I am pissed that this scandal involves a republican, but this crap has nothing to do with the conservative platform. Fact is, the Democratic Party cannot compete with the GOP when it comes to the specifics on the issues. The liberal platform would spell tragedy for our nation. They want to tax us into a recession, reward people for not working with hand-outs, cut and run out of the Middle East, increase our dependence on foreign oil while increasing the price of gas with higher oil taxes, allow every illegal and terrorist across the border, rub noses with jerks like Chavez in order to "keep the peace", run our currency into a global joint venture like Europe has, and allow China to run even more free to do as they please. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Foley screwed up, and he is a sick individual, but please, GOP, fight back, let the voters know who the liberals really are. Our future depends on it.

A couple books to check out - okay, it's a shameless plug for a couple of fellow writers I respect

Many of you out there know that I am a writer. Last July I had the opportunity to meet Dan Bessie. The picture and written account is in the "News" section of my main website. Well, earlier tonight I had the opportunity to meet two writers with two great books on the market that I was more than happy to purchase. The first is "Playing with the Enemy" by Gary W. Moore, also soon to be a Major Motion Picture. The second book is "Torpedo" by Jeff Edwards, STGC(SW), USN (Ret.). For those of you that like to read, especially where the military is involved, these books are for you.

Haditha revisited

Surfacing reports are casting doubts on the claim that United States Marines massacred 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November. One of the reports involves the transcript of an interview with Major Sam Carrasco who oversaw troop movements in the area when the alleged massacre took place. Major Carrasco indicated that he believed at the time the civilians died in crossfire between Marines and insurgents.

He told investigators that during the battle between the insurgents and Marines that they considered bombing a house where insurgents took refuge, and physically saw the insurgents go into the house, but did not bomb it because there was not absolute positive identification. As a result, from that house, the Marine Unit got shot up, and the Major regretted not bombing the house. The fear of killing civilians took priority, and many Marines died as a result.

Iraqi witnesses at that time had indicated that Marines shot civilians in their homes to retaliate for the death of a comrade, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas in a roadside bomb.

There is ample evidence that a firefight took place between unsurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Their deaths, however, were not the result of Marines firing into houses, but the result of door-to-door combat against insurgents inside those dwellings as the Marines sought to clear the houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.

There is video evidence supporting the Marine's claims. There is also a source that states that some of the civilian casualties resulted when Marines came under fire from insurgents inside a house and tossed a grenade into the house to eliminate the threat. A similar incident played itself out at another house.

The Marines, upon entering the city, were aware of the tight control the insurgents exercised over Haditha, including freshly laid IED's under the newly asphalted roads wired into the city power lines lining the road. Haditha was a city run by insurgents who controlled the residents with terror.

The blood of those civilians lays squarely on the hands of the insurgency.

Unfortunately, the liberal media would rather condemn Americans over terrorists. I suppose, by their reasoning, treason is only a matter of perspective.

Jihad Watch

As noticed on Bushwack's "American and Proud of It," here is a link to the latest installment of Jihad Watch on Hot Air - response to the Pope, and any form of Christianity version . . .

The smear campaign against George Allen of Virginia is just another desperate move by a desperate party of liberal political orientation

I'm sure you folks have been reading about it - - the senate race in Virginia has turned into a mudslinging smear campaign complete with unsubstantiated racial accusations by the party better known for such tactics in the past. Of course I am referring to the Democratic Party, a political party many of us know as the one populated by ranting liberals who will stoop to anything to prove to anybody that they aren't the idiots that we have all figured them out to be.

Is this any surprise? Absolutely not. They, the leftists of this nation, have proven over and over that they cannot debate at any intellectual level - last case in point that I thought nails this one down was the Rick Santorum versus Bob Casey debate on Meet the Press. The liberals can't run a country, case in point is the Clinton and Carter presidencies. They can't even play fair in a basic race for the senate. Then again, since when has liberalism ever played fair?

And this one is good. I'm proud of our liberal friends. Just when you thought they couldn't become any more idiotic, they stoop lower. And this is an obviously well orchestrated attack, deemed to make the voter hate George Allen, just like they are trying to get the good people of the United States of America to hate George W. Bush with unfounded and idiotic accusations and distorted facts and viewpoints. The campaign against Allen, however, goes way beyond his political ideas. Now the democrats have decided to charge one of the republicans as being a closet racist. Rush Limbaugh said it best. He stated this morning that the attack on Senator George Allen as being charged a "closet racist who used the dreaded n-word while in college will boomerang against the Democrats."

Do the dems think that the public is that stupid? This is so obviously a desperate measure in a desperate situation that even the leftist media is recognizing the idiocy of this and are beginning to ask the question, "is Allen being railroaded?"

For those of you who don't know the story, this all began when the republican senator from Virginia, by stringing some syllables together, made up the name "macaca" (a similarity to another nickname he uses for his niece, Maka - he is known for nicknaming friends, family, and members of his staff in an attempt at humor) not knowing the name of a cameraman that James Webb (Allen's challenger for the senate seat - and Hollywood movie producer) had sent to film Allen. Well, being who they are, the media just knew that somewhere in this was a story of hate and racism, and they located the word to actually exist on another continent, and of course, as expected, it is a derogatory term -- used many years ago on in Tunisia. Without taking notice that the word has no meaning on this continent, or that Allen made it up without knowledge of its existence elsewhere, these liberal members of the press defined George Allen as racist for making the remark, and the democrats jumped all over it.

The cameraman did indeed claim to be offended, so Allen promptly apologized, as he should have, I suppose, and then the racist stories started pouring in. One report claimed that Allen wore a Confederate flag lapel pin as a kid in high school, and that he often used the n-word. Another claimed that he used to state all the time that Americans of African descent eat turtles when he played football in school. Another charges that Allen once put a deer's head in a black family's mailbox. What the liberals won't tell you is that none of these stories have legs, there are no records nor memories by interviewed deputies from 17 years ago that there were ever any complaints about severed animal heads, or that a lot of people that were on Allen's football team have come to his defense one of which is a black minister.

Of course the left is not challenging Allen in regards to policies, ideologies, or ideas. They can't. They learned that trying to debate would never work with the Santorum/Casey debate. If you can't tackle your opponent cleanly, you chop him off at the knees. Dirty, but effective.

The left has to play dirty. Not only do they not know how to debate using any kind of specifics, but now reports are out that even in the liberal polls Bush's approval rating is up to 42 percent. We are six weeks away from going to the voting booths to decide which party controls the U.S. Congress, and the democrats are losing the edge they thought they had. So they launch this crap, but the voters aren't stupid. The voters recognize dirty politics when they see them, and in this election will make their decisions based on the candidates past performance, record, and vision for the future, not on ridiculous attacks obviously orchestrated out of fear. Besides, they need to attack George Allen. He's a Reagan Conservative interested in running in 2008, and his success would be disastrous for them. They've got to get him know, before he can gain any momentum. Thing is, Allen doesn't fit the pattern that the left is accusing him of following, and once again they are slitting their own throats (that was meant as a figure of speech, of course, so any of you leftist readers out their better BACK OFF!)

The Republican Party is populated by persons of deep convictions laced with decency. The left can't stand it. The left smears themselves merely with their own actions, and when the "right" doesn't perform identically, they must create something. When Bush made it known that he seeks God's will, they cried out that he wants to make America a theocracy. Now this. Pessimism and defeatism is not what the voters wish to support. That's what is funniest about all of this. In an attempt to defeat the liberals at the polls conservatives have no need to do anything but stand back and allow the left to hang themselves with stupidy such as this racist accusation against an upstanding republican senator.

Why we should be concerned about terrorism while the liberals swear it doesn't concern us.

Former president Bill Clinton got a little heated when asked to respond to claims he didn't do enough to catch bin Laden in a Fox interview. Then, later, when I was watching a John Stewart's Daily Show, a program that I occasionally catch just to see what the idiots of the left have to say, he makes a comment about how the press was all over Clinton for anger, but said nothing about his (get this) intelligent comments later in the interview. Then John Stewart said something that I hear often - - by invading Iraq we have gone into a region that we have no business in because what goes on there with their governments does not concern us.

New Agers have said similar things. Pray for them, be concerned about the oppressed people of the Middle East, and for God's sake don't get mixed up in that little disagreement between Israel and the Arabs. It just does not concern us.

My answer to that mentality is expressed nicely in a story a friend sent me by e-mail recently. Read the following story, and see if you get the connection.

The Mousetrap

A mouse looked through a crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package.

"What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."

The mouse turned to the cow and said, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."

So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap-- alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital and she returned home with a fever.. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.

So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.

One Nation Under God

Throughout our history our nation's leaders have carried their plans and hopes to God in prayer. Today we regard prayer in our national life as a forgotten tradition. We no longer have the sense of coming earnestly to God. We simply pray as a formality.This nation was born in a meeting based on prayer, some of its most important decisions being made only after careful prayer to God. There needs to be a renewed emphasis on prayer today.One of the reasons the world community, specifically the United Nations, has become so ineffective in handling global situations is that there is no prayer and no recognition of God. The UN lifts no prayer to God for guidance and blessing because we are so afraid of offending our secular neighbors.People tend to say prayers only in times of great stress, danger, and uncertainty. After 9-11 the churches were brimming with people in prayer. Where are those people now? Since then we have flown through bad storms, and prayer is nothing more than a trickle. Though it is instinctive for man to pray in a time of trouble, even then people have turned away from prayer.Christ instructed His followers to pray, both by teaching and example. So fervent and so direct were His prayers that one time when He had finished praying His followers turned to Him and said, "Lord, teach us to pray." (Luke 11:1) They knew that Jesus had been in touch with God, and they wanted to have such an experience.Now, at this tumultuous time in history we stand in a great need of prayer. Shall we be a people of prayer in such a time as this?

Pride and Patriotism

This morning, on the way to worship, I spotted an old pickup truck on the freeway being driven by an older Mexican gentleman that reminded me of my wife's father. My mind immediately rationalized that he was probably a hard working man that came here from Mexico searching for a better opportunity for himself and his children.

Then I noticed a blue bumper sticker plastered to his back window. The sticker was large and easily read, placed in a prominent portion of the window, up high, with pride. The sticker read, "MY DAUGHTER IS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE."

There is nothing better than an American of Mexican descent, or a Mexican immigrant of legal residence (for that matter) proud of their American connection rather than holding out their hand for welfare freebies, and then biting the American hand that feeds them, only to ask for more hand-outs, while pledging their allegiance to another flag. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, but to appreciate, and defend, the nation that gave you the opportunities that you came here for is the right thing to do.

And then, why is it that a man like him, or my wife, who came to America from Mexico, believes more in defending our nation, and protecting our interests, and protecting our shores from further terrorist attacks by taking the battle to the terrorists than many of those born right here in freedom? Who cares if Bush feels like invading Iraq was in God's best interest or not? Why does that flippin' matter? We were invaded on 9/11. The jihad came to America. We all cried afterward, and held our pride up when Bush said that "The United States will hand down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." - President George W. Bush, 9-11-2001.

We also agreed with the president, even though he carries his Bible under his arm (of which I not only don't have a problem with, but I appreciate), when Rumsfield stated, "It will not be quick and it will not be easy. Our adversaries are not one or two terrorist leaders, or even a single terrorist organization or network. It's a broad network of individuals and organizations that are determined to terrorize and, in so doing, to deny us the very essence of what we are: free people. They don't live in Antarctica. They work, they train and they plan in countries. They're benefiting from the support of governments. They're benefiting from the support of non-governmental organizations that are either actively supporting them with money, intelligence and weapons or allowing them to function on their territory and tolerating if not encouraging their activities. In either case, it has to stop. We'll have to deal with the networks. One of the ways to do that is to drain the swamp they live in. And that means dealing not only with the terrorists, but those who harbor terrorists. This will take a long, sustained effort. It will require the support of the American people as well as our friends and allies around the world."

Did we forget 9/11? Did we forget our anger? How about this quote? Did we forget it too? "The planes were hijacked, the buildings fell, and thousands of lives were lost nearly a thousand miles from here. But the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an attack on the heart of America. And standing here in the heartland of America, we say in one voice – We will not give in to terrorists;We will not rest until they are found and defeated; We will win this struggle – not for glory, nor wealth, nor power, but for justice, for freedom, and for peace; So help us God." --Tom Harkin

Even Bill Clinton, before he flip-flopped as liberals tend to do, said, "A few months ago, and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to publicly wage a terrorist war against America, saying, and I quote, 'We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets.' Their mission is murder, and their history is bloody."

Even the international stage was with us at that time. "The full horror of what has happened in the United States earlier today is now becoming clearer. It is hard even to contemplate the utter carnage and terror which has engulfed so many innocent people. We've offered President Bush and the American people our solidarity, our profound sympathy, and our prayers. But it is plain that citizens of many countries round the world, including Britain, will have been caught up in this terror." --British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Interview, September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, after reading about the treasonous remarks of the American Media, and receiving emotionally charged (but short on facts) comments on my last post by persons whose site claims that they are Christian Liberals (but they are Americans, nonetheless), and by some of the comments I here certain friends and family say that are liberally charged by the New Age movement and the remnants of the "love-beads" generation, I find it sad to say that the most patriotic person I know of, aside from my president, and fellow conservative bloggers, is the British Prime Minister, who isn't obviously American. So, let's close with his remarks.

"So what do we do? Don't overreact some say. We aren't. We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty. Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime. State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded. Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could. The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die. Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked. They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.... As for the Taleban, they can surrender the terrorists or face the consequences - and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops, not civilians.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

We will put a trap around the regime and I say to the Taleban: Surrender the terrorists or surrender power. It's your choice.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world. I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state Colin Powell and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here. I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs. I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for what they have done and the success they've achieved. I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

As for those that carried out these attacks there are no adequate words of condemnation. Their barbarism will stand as their shame for all eternity.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

AS AN OLD MEXICAN MAN WITH A BLUE BUMPER STICKER IN HIS BACK WINDOW WOULD PROBABLY SAY RIGHT ABOUT NOW - - - GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Ever seen a Christian Jihadist? Me neither.

I'm not Catholic, so when the Pope speaks I'm usually not hanging on the edge of my chair with the TV in my face. However, when Pope Benedict XVI made his comments regarding the alleged prophet Muhammed and his teachings of hate and murder the pope was right on the money. And the interesting thing is that the comments made were not recently concocted words regarding Islam. The Pope was quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian. Nothing has changed. Islam is the same violent religion it was centuries ago. And isn't it interesting after these comments how a large number of Muslims proclaiming themselves to be peace loving reacted violently? They insult Christianity and Judaism daily, but if anything is said about the Muslim religion that isn't complete flattery mobs take to the streets all over the world and act in ways that are far from being even remotely like the peace loving religion they claim to be. The reaction by Islam to the Pope's statements is just another warning sign of what the freedom-loving nations of the world are up against.

And one more word for the idiots that try to claim that Christianity is as much a danger as is Islam --- Have you ever seen a Christian strapping explosives to his body to kill himself along with kids and other innocents?

The United Nations actually buys the line of bull by Iran that their nuclear program is peaceful

According to the Associated Press, today, Iranian president Mahmound Ahmadinejad addressed the 61st session of the United Nations hours after President Bush and stated, "Iran's nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye of United Nations inspectors."

He responded to the accusations that he is seeking to develop atomic weapons with a statement saying that Iran is committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

You and I know that these are all false statements. Dictators, throughout history, have proven time and time again that what they desire is a better weapon so that they may spread their agenda, or ideology, more efficiently, and with more terror attached than before. And on top of that, In an obvious reference to the U.S., he indicated falsely that he felt there were some permanent members of the security council using the powerful body as a tool of "threat and coercion." Look who's talking! I suppose Hezbollah and their involvement financially, as well as in other ways, with numerous terrorist cells, is an exception.

The Iranian President also said, "The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the U.N. organs can take them into account."

"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roes of prosecutor, judge and executioner," he added. "Is this a just order?"

The war on terror, which includes activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, falls far short of being a simple case of having "differences" with those particular nations. Terrorism by the hands of Islamic Jihadists is an age old problem that has been escalating and growing for generations, and now, after an attack against America on our soil on 9/11, we are at war with terror. Any nation that harbors terrorists, assists terrorists, trains terrorists, or finances terrorists, is on our hit list. Simple as that. Iran has a long history supporting terrorism and spreading terrorism (most notably the hostage crisis of '79), and we would be fools to allow them anything close to resembling the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The U.N., unfortunately, along with the liberal left, is too stupid or naive to recognize that.

The U.S. and Britain played central roles in crafting a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused.

Iran, all along, has made it clear to the world that they have no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.

The Iranian president (shouldn't call him president, because he sure didn't attain that status legally) Mahmound Ahmadinejad also made reference to the U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying "the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq" and every day hundreds of people get killed "in cold blood." Well, how about that, he's right for once, people are getting killed in cold blood. That's why we are there. To assist the Iraqi people against the terror threat (al-Qaeda and Iranian influence is largely responsible for the cold blooded killing going on in Iraq) present in that nation, until Iraq's own forces can get a handle on it and protect the nation themselves.

Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were "let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."

"It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq," he said.

And when terrorism is no longer a problem in that nation, then we will move on - - I think Iran and Syria ought to be next, personally.

Kevin Costner Bashes Bush Assasination Film

Taken from Human Events Online (click title for link):

KEVIN COSTNER has waded into the debate about controversial new movie DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, insisting British director GABRIEL RANGE failed to consider how GEORGE W BUSH's family would react to scenes of the US President being assassinated. The DANCES WITH WOLVES star was caught up in the controversy at the Toronto Film Festival in Canada at the weekend (09-10SEP06), where he premiered his new film, THE GUARDIAN, alongside the screening of Death of A President. Movie fans reportedly sat in stunned silence at the end of Range's screening, which featured doctored images of Bush getting shot, and Costner, who wasn't in the audience, isn't happy with what he's heard about the film. He says, "It's awfully hard if you're his children, his wife, his mother, his dad; there's a certain thing we can't lose as human beings, which is empathy for maybe the hardest job in the world. "Whether we think it's being performed right or not we can't, like, wish... or think that's even cute."


Finally someone in Hollywood has the class and guts to say something that may displease the rest of the club.

Tunnel Vision

Having a problem with Illegal Aliens does not make me racist.

There are three kinds of people in the United States of America. Citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens. I have a problem with the third group.

This said, I have received a lot of flack over that position. In fact, one old man, the grandfather of a friend of mine, read my post about Mexico's plan for the American Southwest, and swore that if he saw me on the street and recognized me, he'd kick my racist ass. This gentleman is Mexican.

One of my sisters in law, my wife is Mexican as well, calls the illegals "my own people."

Everyone knows my position. Illegals are a serious problem, and are a part of a larger agenda. Agree or disagree with me, that is your perogative. Before you decide against a stronger fence along the border, however, remember this:

The problem at the border goes way beyond the Mexicans crossing into the country. My main drive for how I feel is not the illegal aliens. My main drive is what might be crossing over the border with them - - specifically, terrorists that have one motive in life - - to kill us.

Secure the borders, if not to stop illegal immigration, at least to stop another terrorist attack on American soil. I just wish Bush and crew agreed. The amnesty thing is such garbage.

Rosie's an idiot, and Michelle Malkin isn't

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/14/the-conservative-view/ After Rosie O'Donnell stated that Christianity is as large of a threat as Radical Islamic Terrorism, this is Michelle Malkin's and Mary Katharine Ham's response in their own little version of The View

And visit the link of the sponsor as well at http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/

The Liberal Media missed this one!!

Subject: Denzel Washington, and

Brooks Army Medical Center


Don't know whether you heard about this but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the Hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.

The question I have is why does:

Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America trash and Denzel Washington's Patriotism doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the Local newspaper in San
Antonio?

GOD BLESS YOU DENZEL

FOR YOUR PATRIOTISM

The War on Terror from www (dot) progressforamerica (dot) org

Click the title of this post to go to the site and video.

2996 Tribute to Azael Ismael Vasquez, Age 21, killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001

Azael Ismael Vasquez, 21, of New York, NY, died Sept. 11, 2001, a victim of the coordinated terrorist attacks against the United States on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon, Washington DC, and elsewhere.

He was a food service handler for Forte Food Service simply performing his duties in one of the towers when the cowardly acts of terrorism commenced.

An article in the New York Daily News indicated that the funeral for Azael Vasquez was held on January 19, 2002, four months after the attacks, because of the unfortunate difficulty in locating his remains. Vasquez's father has said that he hasn't been able to return to his son's grave since the funeral.

Azael Ismael Vasquez, we will all remember you, and your fellow victims, forever. This tribute is posted for the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America, September 11, 2001.

We shall never forget.

God Bless America.

I'll be silent for a while

I am scheduled for a surgery that will keep me flat on my back for a week or so, so I may not be posting for a while. . . but I'll be back when the time comes. I will make sure I am able to post my 2,996 tribute on 9/11.

As an added note, on 9/11/2006 as we give tribute to the 2,996 victims of the act of war against the United States that forced us into waging a war on terror, a friend of mine is going to travel to Europe - - and promises me a postcard from every country he visits. I will keep ya'll posted of his travels. As an added note, Scott is going to give out a few of my cards along the way - - hopefully making Political Pistachio more international than it is now - - one can hope, anyway.

In response to a comment addressing China, Mexico, the American Southwest, the deficit, oil, the war on terror, and the economy

This comment was received by an anonymous reader (the negative ones always are anonymous - pretty cowardly if you ask me) in regards to my August 1, 2006 post titled: Mexico's plan for the American Southwest.

A lot of guilty people out there "Oh no their coming to take us away" get serious Mexico doesn't have money or troops but look out for China we owe them billions we are totally dependent on them for everything China's merchandise trade surplus soared to $102 billion in 2005 Almost half of the US Treasury bonds are now owned in Asia. So China is financing Bush's bold economic experiment: running two or more wars simultaneously with a huge budget and trade deficit, and equally huge tax handouts for therichest Americanssinexpensivee consumer products that no longer are manufactured in significant quantities in theUnited Statess Thee United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of$202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States'$725.8 billion tradedeficit. Watchh your backs conservatives And we are dependent on the middle east for oilThe last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars,the first year Mr. Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion. The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting and no cutting in spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history, he did it again in 2004. The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars years soso keep thinking the Mexicans are taking over the best they can do is have a permanent office at Home Depot

Mexico does not have to have money or troops. Their invasion is by pure numbers - just like China. And yes, we owe billions to China, and I agree that it is a mistake, but because of the current global trading situation, it is a necessary evil. Personally, I had a real problem with NAFTA and all open trading with any communist country.

And when everybody starts complaining about the deficit, they forget the reason we have it. The deficit began when Ronald Reagan began to borrow money to beef up the military budget, forcing the Soviet Union to spend 80% of their budget on their military - - which eventually bankrupt them and brought down the great Soviet bear. Could you imagine the world situation if communist Russia was still in the picture?

China learned from that, however, and they are now waging war with us economically.

Nonetheless, running wars with a huge budget and trade deficit and tax cuts is not a bold economic experiment by Bush in the sense that the commenter makes. The war is a necessary evil. We were attacked. 9/11 was an act of war. We are obliged, for the safety of America, to wage war against the aggressors. As for the economic end of it, don't be fooled when the left makes the cry that the Republicans are delivering huge handouts for the richest Americans -- the richest Americans pay an enormous percentage of taxes.

The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.

The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at the way our system is set up and of recent history regarding the numbers in regards to income taxes paid shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers (the lower half) contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.

The Top 1% of income earners (comprising of about one million families) earn approximately 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.

Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in the 1970's.

The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.) You might as well put a gun to the head of the concept American Opportunity and the American Dream.

Engaging with China in economic warfare is dangerous, I agree. Becoming independent from the middle east for oil would be a huge weapon in the economic battle with China. Fact is, China's Communist Party has "anti-American objectives and plans, but don't be fooled, China indeed has its own domestic turmoil, including a new trend in which 100,000 people have quit the Communist Party. Despite this, China has made it clear that it really only wants three things: to conquer Taiwan; to become Asia's leading power; and then, world domination. And, what stands in the way is the United States.

American business interests are always going to want to minimize and deny any political tensions with China. They are financially motivated to do so -- they want the trade with this nation of (potentially) 1.3 billion customers. That leads to wishful assessments, and even discussions of geopolitical military strategy driven by the wishful line, "China? They're not expansionist." China is an aggressor, and is an expansionist country. Ask any Tibetan. How do they feel? Colonized! Ask anyone in East Turkestan. How do they feel? Colonized! Ask anyone in Taiwan. How do they feel? --In the case of Taiwan, they are staring down the barrel of a gun, but they are more fortunate than the Tibetans and East Turkestanis, in that the gun has not fired yet. The key word is "yet." China has been very explicit -- loud and clear -- in naming Taiwan as an objective. This point is not even a stretch of debate. The statements about Taiwan are issued regularly from China's foreign ministry, and are as explicit as they are chilling. The only way that business strategists can arrive at their wishful assessments is by averting their eyes, shrugging off Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkestan, and even prior occasions like the Korean War, where Americans faced Chinese troops.

American politics, and the Republican party, for that matter, then, is not to blame for the situation with China. Greed on the part of corporations, and a misunderstanding as well as a tendency to underrate China's true position is largely to blame. The communist party in China, people tend to forget (and this is why it made me sick when Clinton was calling China our friends and rubbing elbows with them) began as a branch of the Soviet Communist Party. The Soviet system was taken as a model, and the Chinese Communist Party is born of the same example, as a carbon copy. In this way, we can also understand that the communists in China are a "foreign influence," not indigenously Chinese. In relation to Taiwan, China is not just making statements -- it's moving hardware. Over 700 ballistic missiles have now been arrayed against Taiwan. In addition to its new manned space program (also cloned from Russia), and nuclear weapons (with nuclear secrets stolen from America under Bill Clinton - thank you very much slick Willy), China has a new long range air force. China has a new deep water navy. Even nuclear submarines, to have a "second strike capability" against America in a nuclear war. (One might ask, where did this nuclear-armed communist superpower get its wherewithal? --And the answer is that they are enriched by America trade, by the exact amount of the U.S. trade deficit with China. If someone gave you $160 billion a year, you too could have your own army, navy, air force, and space program!)

Anybody who remembers the Soviet Union as a threat will already see a "Chinese threat," but, there is more. Li Zhaoxing (the Chinese foreign minister) cannot definitively offer us assurance of a "peaceful rise" on the part of China, even if he means what he is saying. China is instable, even when it claims to have, or to value, stability. The key word here is "claims." Claims from the Chinese government are chiefly excuses to stay in power for one more day, and for that government (like their American Liberal cousins), lying is a way of life.

The Chinese communists are guilty of the diabolical treatment of people, double standards, profound corruption, trickery, treachery, and no respect for China's own constitution. China is already in violation of prior international agreements and its own constitution (which, oddly, says freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to criticize the government exist). (This raises the question, "Who, in their right mind, would sign a contract with an opposite party of that little reliability?")

China's system is reputed to be a dictatorship, but even the dictator can be rudely surprised by matters blowing up in his face. It might be fair to say that no one man is truly in charge of China. (China contains many fiefdoms, reporting cooked statistics to the other fiefdoms. For more reliable statistics, Chinese turn to the CIA's web site, just to figure out what's the case in China.) In other words, China is an interplay of forces, and due to inevitable frictions as forces collide, China is unpredictable, perhaps deadly so. For those in Tibet, in East Turkestan, and for all domestic dissenters, China is already deadly. Now, it is threatening to become deadly in a military sense, especially where the United States has a role to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act.

Anyone who thinks that China is "gradually building up" to "someday" be a military challenger, is wrong. The Chinese are already there in the sense of military might, and will probably conquer Taiwan within the next five years, if not sooner. In fact, some believe that the war over Taiwan could begin by the end of this year. And if anyone believes that it would be a regional, limited war, a related current of opinion says that they must flatten the U.S., because that is what stands in the way. A war over Taiwan could find China striking hard at the American homeland.

And remember that their system is officially atheist, and requires unswerving loyalty and adherence to the Chinese Communist Party, which in their system is placed above all else -- the state, the military, and the constitution are all malleable tools able to bend to the will of the Chinese Communist Party. They answer to no one, including international conventions -- not even to standards of civilization within China's borders. The party assumes itself to be god, not constrained by any law of anybody -- not of man, not of heaven. This system effectively installs the Chinese Communist Party as a deity.

China is neither predictable or orderly. In fact, Chinese history is loaded with twists and turns that no one could predict. Even if a gullible person starts by thinking, "the party is always right," and tries to comprehend the official line, that person would be rudely surprised, and could not read very far through Chinese Communistic history before asking the question, "How can this be right?" As a deity, the party (even if we suppose it to be infallible) has changed dramatically, simply based on who wins the power struggle in the periodic shifts of Chinese politics. It has changed so dramatically as to make a mockery of any pretensions to intellectual consistency, credibility, or an upright, mature nature.

If this party were a deity, we would have to describe it as a criminally insane deity, or perhaps with words such as adolescent, anti-social, and deranged. This amounts to another reason why China should be considered dangerous, no matter what is said by Hu Jintao or Li Zhaoxing. Their job is chiefly to keep face, in the midst of the train wreck of what is the Chinese government. They can speak of a "peaceful rise" for China, and they can cross their fingers and hope for the best, but what is it that lies over their shoulders?

Over their shoulders are two different forces: Jiang Zemin, and the Chinese democracy movement. These may also be known as the "leftist" and "rightist" forces in Chinese politics. The rightists are down, but not out -- upon his recent death, it was learned that Zhao Ziyang (the reform minded former party leader) still has many friends, even deep inside the Communist Party itself. The rightist element exists, and may yet find its champion for leadership.

The bigger problem is over the left shoulder of Hu Jintao, because former President Jiang Zemin could provoke or start a war, while the rightists are a peaceful, unarmed movement. We do not know that Hu Jintao is a leader committed to peace. We know that in late 2004, Hu approved a massacre of villagers in Hanyuan County, and by some reports, more people were killed than in the Tiananmen massacre. But, suppose that Hu wants peace, and Jiang wants war. Jiang Zemin may still be able to provoke a war, even from retirement. We may learn soon that he's really not retired, but is remaining active while he is titularly out of power for public relations purposes.

So I suppose it is safe to say that the commenter is partially correct in the sense that we share an imbalanced bilateral trade relationship with China, and that it is a very dangerous position indeed. But who began this? Who pushed for globalism in the trade market?

The answer is, the left. Clinton, especially, hob-knobbed with China to a point that it sickens me.

The tax cuts, however, has stimulated the economy. Unemployment numbers have been down, stocks have been strong (except during minor glitches attributed to fears based on the happenings in the war on terror), but despite the economic growth, cyclictic lows are on the horizon (we see some of that now in the housing market - what goes up must come down) and the deficit continues to grow.

So, I suppose, the commenter is correct in the sense that worrying about the Mexicans taking over is the least of our worries - - but that does not make the situation along our southern border unimportant - - and the fact remains that there are three kinds of people living in America: citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens. The word "illegal" should make it obvious as to what should be done. Illegal activity is criminal activity, and criminals should be treated as criminals. And regardless of all of the other things going on, the threat of these criminals is very real, not only because of the illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but the other elements coming across with them. The border needs to be sealed for many reasons, and terrorism is one of them. This is more complex than groups of Mexicans hanging out at the local Home Depot. Besides, every other nation in the world protects their borders, so shouldn't we? A nation without borders is not a nation. We have too much else to worry about than to have to worry about the petty Mexicans, so seal up the border good and tight with an impenetrable wall and be done with it.

Jimmy Carter thinks that being pro-American is a bad thing

Jimmy Carter blasted Tony Blair yesterday during an interview with a British newspaper. Personally, I like Tony Blair. He's a sharp leader. If you've ever heard him speak, you know what I mean. He accused British Prime Minister Tony Blair of lacking in the leadership department (like his leftwing adversaries are better -- ha ha ha, right, and I'm Superman), and that his timid subservience to President Bush is a major factor behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the global threat of terrorism. Subservience? Not even. They are allies that work together as a team, and that is that. Oh, and what about the other numerous nations that form the coalition? In fact, Jimmy Carter stated that he was extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behavior and that Mister Blair should have been a contraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq. Is he saying that Tony Blair being pro-American is a bad thing?

Carter indicated that he would never have considered a pre-emptive move into Iraq as Bush had decided upon (pre-emptive? What was 9/11?), and that the Iraq invasion subverted the fight against terrorism (like fighting Nazi Germany subverted the fight against worldwide facism) and strengthened al-Qaida and the recruitment of terrorists. Perhaps eliminating terrorists training grounds and high ranking officials like Zarqawi doesn't make a dent in the might of the terrorist network.

He finished by saying that America is unpopular overseas like in Egypt and Jordan where our approval rating is less than 5 percent. Interesting that he picked two Muslim countries for that - besides, it's not about public opinion - it's all about doing what's right. No wonder we were in such a mess after Carter. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

What do the Dems really think?

The Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan knows how to play the Liberals and the American Media.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, said in a TV interview aired today that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

Quickly, the press has taken the bait and are calling Israel the aggressor.

This wasn't only about the two kidnapped soldiers - - that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Mississippi, under Republican management, has healed from Katrina nicely, rebuilding to what she was before Katrina hit. Southern Louisiana, under Democratic leadership, is still blaming the Federal Government for this and for that, and are still sitting in the rubble waiting for a hand-out.

The Dems stated that Bush lied because we found no WMD's. Then, when it was released that over 500 chemical weapons had been found in Iraq, the Dem's response was that those weapons are not techinically WMD's, and if they are, they aren't the WMD's we went into Iraq over, so Bush still lied.

The Liberals, however, say that we should've sent more troops into Iraq, and that they support the war on terror, but they don't support the war in Iraq, nor support the aggression of Israel against Lebanon (they're too stupid to realize that it's not against Lebanon, but against Hezbollah).

It seems the moment we entered Iraq they were looking for an exit strategy. You don't enter a war and then immediately look for a way out, or undermine the effort. The only acceptable exit strategy is Victory! Any other exit strategy is for losers.

Besides, cutting and running would be the wrong message to send to Iraq, and the world, for that matter, but the Libs have no interest in the war other than to lose it. They are defeatists, intent to undermine the effort. Anywhere else in the world, in any other nation, the Liberal's and Media's actions would be labeled as treasonous behavior.

And they complain that the right thinking Americans of this nation question their patriotism.

The definition of patriotism is love and pride of country. Love and pride does not search for surrender and defeat.

Damn right we question their patriotism!

And I think that they truly believe that the war in Iraq is something cooked up by the GOP to increase numbers. Terrorism is not a little problem, and we are not sticking our nose in some personal problem between Israel and Islam, as some on the left tend to think. Terrorism is a worldwide struggle.

The left truly believes that if we cut and run terrorists will just leave us alone and they will be content to fight it out with Israel. First of all, Israel is our ally and we need to support them. Second of all, 9/11 was an act of war, and if we lose the war the left really believes that is will just be a loss for Bush and the Republicans -- But if the United States were to cut and run as the left suggests with our tails between our legs it would be a defeat for the U.S. on a scale that the left just doesn't understand.

The global community doesn't follow America's inner politics -- they don't see Republicans and Democrats -- the world only sees America. If the United States were to cut and run in the face of terrorism we'd have a lot more to worry about than the political devisiveness that the left is so eager to proclaim the GOP is guilty of.

Yes, the war on terrorism (including the war in Iraq) is hard, and what's going on with Israel and Hezbollah (or Iran and Syria's behind the door activities, for that matter) doesn't help matters a whole lot. But this war is a lot harder than it should be not only because we are up against an ideology that doesn't negotiate and only wants to kill you, but also because of the leftwing media and politicians intent on sabotaging the effort. And it would make it far worse if we were to walk away. Simply put, we must finish what we started. Wars are won by the side that wants it the most. Any show of weakness will open us up to attack, with the hope that the outrage by the defeatists will push us out of that region. Then, after that, after we're gone, do the libs really think the Jihad will simply end? Not in the least. First Israel would be annihilated, then the conversion of Europe and America would resume, showered by terror attacks and assassinations against anybody that Islam feels would be a threat to them.

What do the Dems really think? They think that you can reason with the unreasonable. They think that the Islamic Radicals will just shrug and settle down once we cut and run. They truly believe that the best way to deal with terrorism is to open our borders, and welcome them with open arms.

Final thought. One argument given to me by a liberal I work with was, "Spain pulled out, and they haven't been hit ever since."

Really?


Before 2004: April 12, 1985, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

On Thursday, March 11 2004, during the morning traffic of people going to work in Madrid, several bombs were exploded in commuter trains as they pulled into stations. Shortly after that, when a liberal took office, Spain pulled out of Iraq.

In October of 2004, Spain's National Police learned of a plot to attack the National Court, where Spain's top judges investigate terrorism, with a truck laden with a half-ton of dynamite. An informer said the leader was an Algerian born in the United Arab Emirates named Mohamed Achraf. According to a police intelligence report cited by the Associated Press, Achraf recruited members of his "Martyrs for Morocco" cell inside a jail in western Spain sometime after the March 11 attacks.

Acting on foreign intelligence, approximately 100 Spanish police officers descended on a suspected Islamic cell in northeastern Spain near Barcelona on Dec. 22, 2004 and arrested three Moroccans on suspicion of planning to buy explosives.

Okay, too many since then (and that isn't all of them in 2004), so let's fast forward to 2006:

26 incidents detailed here (the list has 28, but two of them were prior to 2006)

26 -- and that's just this year so far!

The problem with the left is, as many posters have stated on my comments before, is that their decisions are based on emotions, not reality.

Unfortunately, it seems that "sense" is not a common commodity.

Makes you wonder about the symbols of the parties, doesn't it?

GOP: Elephant -- strong, intelligent, works as a group . . .
Dems: Donkey -- stubborn, hard to deal with, last one I saw was pulling a cart full of manure, Jackasses.

You know, I don't think the Dems really know what they think, other than that their only chance into the White House in 2008 is to hate Bush so much that people may buy their backward propaganda.

I hope the voters don't fall for it.