Archive for June, 2006

John Kerry “Somewhere Over The Rainbow”

June 25, 2006

In his latest “Cut and Run” scheme to help lose the war on terror, John Kerry has now labeled his “Cut and Run” strategy as “over the horizon.” On June 22, 2006, before the Senate, speaking in support of his ill-fated and failed amendment 4442, Kerry said, “We maintain an over-the-horizon force to protect our security interests in the region.”

 

Catchy phrases aside, this one just reminds me too much of Judy Garland singing “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” in the classic movie, “The Wizard of Oz.”

 

John Kerry, the new “Cowardly Lion,” talks brave and bold, acting as if he hadn’t lost the 2004 Presidential election to George W. Bush. For reasons known only to him, Kerry feels he must ‘take charge’ and just as he recommended towards the end of the Viet Nam war (you do realize he served in Viet Nam), it becomes necessary to abandon a new and fledgling ally just when they may need us the most.

 

From the same speech above, Kerry seems to feel we must “hold the Iraqis feet to the fire” in order to force them to stand up and fight for their nation. To accomplish this Kerry ‘suggests,’ “Redeploying U.S. troops is necessary for success in Iraq, and it is necessary to be able to fight a more effective war on terror.” A little over a week earlier, this same Senator proposed another amendment calling for “the withdrawal of American Combat Troops by the end of 2006.” Of course, this went down in flames, as it deserved to.

 

To win, we must “withdraw,” according to Kerry at first. Now, since that measure failed, he sees “redeployment” as the answer and path to victory. Or is it the path to his relevance, in his mind? I guess the thought of just supporting our troops and ensuring they have the tools and materials needed for this long fight ahead doesn’t occur to him.

 

“Redeployment” coming from Kerry is a relatively new stand as historically he urges for “withdrawal” when it is apparent our troops are winning the battles. In 1971, during his infamous “testimony” before the anti-war Fulbright Commission, in urging an ‘immediate withdrawal’ from Viet Nam, Senator Kerry said, “we cannot fight communism all over the world.”

 

In the struggle against Communism in the mid-eighties, Kerry took the side of the Communist leader in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. During his failed bid for the Presidency in 2004, he stated, "I’m proud that I stood against Ronald Reagan, not with him, when his intelligence agencies were abusing the Constitution of the United States and when he was running an illegal war in Central America."

 

In 1993, after the “Black Hawk Down” incident, then President Clinton proposed a six-month “draw down” of US forces in Somalia. In a speech on the Senate floor, Kerry is quoted as, “There is no doubt in my mind that the U.N. strategy for establishing security in Mogadishu has been a failure. But that is not a sufficient reason for the United States to withdraw at this moment, to cut and run.” Yet, in the same speech, he also said, “I think the President’s [Clinton] plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.” As I see it, retreat is retreat, whether immediate or gradual.

Since our departure from Somalia, one only need read the daily news of late to see what chaos that country became and recently how terrorists have fully conquered the country and are now imposing another repressive totalitarian regime.

Of the first Gulf War, Kerry’s position was in opposition of liberating Kuwait from the invasion of Saddam Hussein. During his speech to that effect, he said, “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years–even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. It will be because we set an artificial deadline. As we know, those who have been in war, there is no artificial wound, no artificial consequence of war.” Apparently, he now feels an “artificial deadline” is appropriate for withdrawal, excuse me, “redeployment” of our troops from the second go around with Saddam Hussein.

 

Oddly enough, once a Democrat President was in the White House and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was still being a pain in the world’s neck, Mr. Kerry went before the Senate in November of 1997 and in a speech titled “We must be firm with Saddam Hussein,” he said, “Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s truculence has continued unabated. In the final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces….”

 

In the same speech, encouraging a United Nations strike against Saddam, Kerry stated, “This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.” “Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted–which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun–the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” What a difference the party in the White House seems to make on Kerry.

 

John Kerry’s infamous “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” gaffe, in regards to President Bush’s handing of Iraq after September 11, 2001, is legendary now among misstatements made by any politician.

 

Before that, in 2002, he made another speech to the Senate addressing the upcoming War in Iraq and said, “But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.” He also said, “He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America’s judgments about his miscalculations.”

 

After some rhetoric leaning away from going to war in Iraq, Kerry, in the same speech said, “In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? …. And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade?”

 

Yet again, in his effort to gain support for his first withdrawal plan, Kerry now says, “"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

 

Just this week, in garnering support for his failed amendment 4442, He said, “I believe it is a more effective way to put America in a position of strength, in a position to fight the war on terror in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and in the other places of the world where al-Qaida is growing.” (Congressional Record, June 22, 2006 pages S6328 and S6329)

 

In what I can only call a true Emerald City moment, he now calls for “fighting the war on terror in Somalia?” After supporting Clinton’s withdrawal, even though it was a ‘gradual’ withdrawal, or, a step aside responsibly, if you prefer, and once claiming “we cannot fight Communism all over the world,” our Cowardly Lion seems to be humming ‘Somewhere over the Rainbow’ as he wishes to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, just as we are building the Iraqis up and winning again and set them back towards Somalia.

 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Dorothy. His only consistency is in his inconsistency. Scarier yet is that this man came within a hairsbreadth of the Presidency of the United States. If only we could click the heels of our Ruby Slippers and whisk Kerry out of the Senate and relegate him to the scrap pile of irrelevancy.

  

Lew

 

Advertisements

Looney Left Goes to the Dogs

June 24, 2006

As mentioned in the earlier post, “Dog Crazies,” an Oregon family was suing a neighbor over the death of their beloved 14-year-old Labrador pet for 1.6 million dollars! The case went to court and before a jury. Just what the looney left animal rights morons wanted.

 

However, they did not get to reclassify dogs as people, or whatever they think they are, besides a damned dog. Clackamas County Circuit Judge Eve L. Miller excluded a loss-of-companionship claim but allowed the family to proceed with other claims they were making.

 

Comments made by animal rights loons over this ruling were predictable;

 

“Once we can manage to have the terminology of "property" removed from animal-law….it will begin to give them more value than an inanimate tv or chair.:(“

 

“How long will it be before our legal system changes ? An[y] judge who views pets as mere property is inhumane and needs to be removed from office!”

 

http://www.network.bestfriends.org/legalanimal/news/4274.html

 

The response from these two would make one think it was the death and molestation of children that being ruled on in the court. Sorry to say, but some people seem to think dogs are better than even human children. Makes me wonder just what sort of ‘humanity’ they assign to animals in the wild and why they aren’t pressing for laws on wild animals eating each other!

 

To be fair, the neighbor who ran over the dog and injured it enough that it had to be euthanized still claims he did not do it on purpose, but that it was an accident. A previous jury did not believe him and he was convicted of animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in jail. I wasn’t there, so have no first hand knowledge, but reading some claims from the family makes me wonder.

 

From the original article I posted about;

 

Weaver was convicted last year of first-degree animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in the Clackamas County Jail. Weaver’s attorney, Larry Dawson, said the incident was an accident. But Greenup and his family said Weaver drove over the dog several times outside their Estacada home and did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.”

 

The claims towards the end disturb me if it was intentional. “Drove over the dog several times.” “did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.” It disturbs me due to why would anyone, a child especially, get so close to a truck, somewhat in a ditch, driving back and forth over a dog? Regardless, a jury found him guilty and sentenced him.

 

The family’s attorney, Geordie Duckler, is a Portland, Oregon animal law attorney who has tried for years now to get a ‘loss of companionship claim’ before a jury. Do I smell a big ‘animal rights’ attorney trying to set a precedent? This claim of loss of companionship has been historically reserved for spouses, not pets. The ramifications of allowing a pet to be claimed a “companion” and suing at their loss staggers the imagination. But that is what animal rights activists wish, to legally stop us from “abusing” animals by eating them or wearing their skins in leather or furs.

 

Letting citizens vote for such a thing would be an utter failure and they realize that. So, they use our courts and hope for a willing activist judge that will basically write laws from the bench, instead of interpreting law, as they are entrusted to do. Fortunately, once again, the effort failed.

 

In the end, the ‘award’ was lessened from the requested $1.6 million and the family was awarded $50,000 for “punitive damages,” $6,000 for “emotional distress,” and $400 for “economic loss,” or, the “value of the family pet, a 14 year old dog!

 

Since this was awarded, we now have a big push being announced for “Bring Your Dog to Work Day!” My God, where will it stop? We stop people from smoking in businesses and even deny private business owners the choice of allowing smoking within their establishments; yet, we are going to encourage people to bring their dogs to work?

 

It has been said this will increase work output. A hollow claim, I feel. How do you get more work when someone must walk the dog throughout the day? It must be fed, watered and if a close family pet, it will want a lot of attention. If an ‘accident’ occurs, or two dogs get into a tussle, where is that beneficial for the workplace?

 

Businesses are seen already turning a blind eye to customers carrying their mutts into stores, even grocery stores, claiming they are “service animals.” Traditionally, service animals were Seeing Eye dogs, a highly trained animal that does benefit its owner. I have no problem with a Seeing Eye dog, due to their necessity and training. Some dogs have even been trained to help people with epilepsy, or other handicaps. However, I see extremely obese people, in motorized wheel chairs carrying a small dog, claiming it too is a ‘service animal.’

 

Merchants may not inquire if they are disabled or if the dog is properly trained, by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), but must accept the customers answer if they claim it is a ‘service animal.’ Some dog loving merchants have been seen walking up to dog owners forcing their dogs on us in stores and outright asking, “that is a service animal, right?”

 

Health codes prohibit animals in stores that stock and sell food. Misuse of the ADA trumps health codes, apparently and so, our food is subject to whatever may be on the dog.

 

These animals are placed in carts where children will be setting. Their saliva and fur may be left behind with either disease, since not all owners keep their animals properly vaccinated or cleaned. Even with constant bathing, dogs must use the outdoors, unlike a cat, which has a litter box in the house, usually. Once outside, fleas and ticks may get on the animal and they may be left behind at the store, in the very cart your child may sit in next.

 

There is also the prospect of a child being bitten by a small animal, the child running up to the animal and scaring it. I’m sorry doesn’t cover that, the child could be severely injured; all because you cannot leave your dog at home for an hour while you shop.

 

Now that someone has won an award of $56,000 over the death of an aged dog, I’m afraid there is a precedent set for making animals even more acceptable in shops and the workplace. That people can turn such a blind eye to the possible harms in this staggers my mind.

 

People, IT IS A DOG, NOT A CHILD!!!! It won’t hurt to leave it home when you shop. An aged dog isn’t worth $56,000, even if intentionally killed. It was a family pet and sorry, but pets die. They don’t live forever and no matter how much you love your dog, IT IS STILL A DOG!!!!

 

Lew

 

 

 

 

Do You Support The Troops?

June 23, 2006

Recently, I was asked whether or not I really supported the troops by a lefty, of all people. Apparently, the current version from the left of “Support the Troops” is to bring them home and abandon the war. Those of us who support the war effort and President Bush are now accused of not supporting the troops, since the death toll has exceeded 2500 and we are not joining in demanding they be brought home.

 

This new notion of theirs is nothing more than the latest anti-war effort, others failing to garner much support.

 

As one who has been the recipient of the Left’s “We Support The Troops” for over 35 years now, most I have met haven’t a clue what Support the Troops really means. This isn’t something open to interpretation. It isn’t a gray area, either. Either you Support our men and women fighting the War on Terror, including in Iraq, or you don’t.

 

We have a Military Force for one reason and one reason, only. To fight our wars, as decided by the civilian government. They are not a social club to experiment the latest social whim upon. They are not a replacement for welfare or a means to gain just a free education. By law, they may not be used a Police Force, unless Martial Law is declared by the Government. Everything associated with our Military Branches is centered about fighting war. During peacetime, they train to fight our wars. During wartime, they actually fight them and unfortunately, some give their lives.

 

Today’s American Military is comprised of men and women, every last one a volunteer. No one is conscripted or forced to serve against their will. There is no draft currently and our Military themselves don’t wish a return to the days of the draft and forcing people to serve.

 

In the Military, regardless of your rank or job training, when the enemy is coming at you, everyone is an infantryman, if need be. When I served, everyone received some infantry training. That standards were lowered and this training deleted for “non-combat” jobs, is a travesty, as witnessed by the capture of Jessica Lynch a couple years ago.

 

To me, Supporting our Troops entails supporting their job, or mission, if you prefer. Their mission currently is fighting the War on Terror, including in Iraq. This is their job, their training, and their mission. We are not in a ‘humanitarian’ effort or a ‘police action,’ we are in a war with an evil enemy misusing a religion to force their twisted view of God on the rest of the world. Make no mistake about it; the terrorists we are currently engaged with are bent on world domination. To question or oppose them is to be killed, often in a horrendous manner. This is what our Military are trained for and what they are fighting against.

 

If you find you cannot support their mission, the war, you are opposed to them fighting these despots who would behead each of us, whether we are left or right. They don’t care what we believe or who we do or do not support, we are Westerners and as such, must die so their version of ancient writings may prevail.

 

In summary, to me, “we support the troops, but not the war’ is tantamount to, “We Support The Police, but not when they arrest rapists, murderers, bank robbers and such.”

 

If you really wish to see a speedy end to this war, give our Military the means, material and full support to make it short a fight as possible. If we don’t stop them now, it will be our children having to do it later on.

 

Lew

Kerry Regrets Voting For The Iraqi War

June 14, 2006

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/13/134926.shtml?s=et

 

Kerry can regret anything he wishes, no matter to me.

 

However, he misled the nation before on his cut and run policy and it cost possibly millions of South Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais and Cambodians their lives. His estimate was maybe 3,000.

 

It seems that after Korea, the US adopted a policy of abandoning their allies struggling for freedom. Even in Korea we did not win, just kept troops there to keep the Communists at bay.

 

We saw it when the Cubans that tried to overthrow Castro were decimated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, believing the US had their backs.

 

We saw it as we sat by and watched the Soviets rearm and resupply North Viet Nam after we pulled out there and when they invaded the South, instead of resupporting them, as promised, we turned our backs and watched as they too were overthrown and their numbers decimated.

 

After the first Gulf War, we encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. When they did, we turned a blind eye and again watched as they too were decimated.

 

And now, we finally have a chance to redeem our reputation and are making significant headway in building up the Iraqis to have their first ever taste of freedom and liberty in their lives and what happens? Along come ‘ol cut and run Kerry demanding we once again abandon another ally and sit back and watch as they too will be cut to shreds by organized terrorists.

 

America gained its freedom over 200 years ago with help from many others, mostly the French. We could not have done it ourselves. No nation has ever won freedom or kept it by themselves. It takes the help of freedom loving people the world over to do the job. Due to our strength and heritage, America is the nation that is strong enough and wealthy enough to help others that truly seek freedom.

 

The Kerry’s, Kennedy’s, Murtha’s, Pelosi’s and such need to be ignored and sent packing. Freedom lovers the world over cannot afford to listen to them any longer.

 

Lew

 

UPDATE:  This measure went down in defeat before the Senate by a vote of 93 to 6. Voting for the measure were Senators Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry and Kennedy.

Ann Coulter Riles the Left Again

June 13, 2006

Yup, she has released her latest book, “Godless” the Church of Liberalism and the left found one short sentence they hate, not that it takes much for the left to hate. In this sentence, she is accused of dissing the 9-11 widows.

 

Truth be known, comments about 4 widows of the 9-11 attacks, who chose to place themselves in the public spectrum by using their widow status as celebrity accurately tells how the left uses people like this to parade out, support their causes and condemn the right. Of course, you cannot challenge them, as they are “widows.”

 

Much like they did with Cindy Sheehan, parading her around since her grown son dies in a heroic mission in Iraq, the left embraces the 4 widows as they disparage President Bush and the Battles in Iraq.

 

Misleading is that Ann attacks the widows. Instead, she uses them, much as the left already does, to prove a point and yes, the left falls for it, proving her assertions correct. The attacks against Ann have non-ending since this went public late last week. One magazine even went as far as asking her to kill herself (Advertising Age, June 12, 2006).

 

This and other comments made against Ann are just more of the same old rhetoric the left is famed for. Of course, they have no problem slandering and attacking groups like the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth for their outspokenness against John Kerry in his failed 2004 bid for the White House. They claim it is not right to attack a “decorated Viet Nam War Hero” like Kerry and commence attacking them individually and as a group, calling them liars, Republican Front Group, costing them their jobs, suing them after the election in ridiculous lawsuits for no real reason other than vengeance.

 

But, since they claim it just isn’t right to attack a “decorated Viet Nam War Hero,” why do they commence endless attacks on well over 250 “decorated Viet Nam War heroes” that comprise the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth?

 

They don’t address any of the allegations, just commence personal attacks.

 

Then, they have the unmitigated gall to attack Ann Coulter as a hatemonger?

 

As always, the left is as big a hypocrite as ever. Ann simply mirrored their actions and exposed them and the more they bray about one small sentence out of thousands in her book, they are proving her right…again.

 

Way to go Ann. You go girl!

 

Lew

Zarqawi Dead!!

June 8, 2006
Being reported on all news channels as I write. Iraqi PM has announced it also.

Foxnews reporter says DNA has confirmed he is now dead.

I only hope it’s true and Al Qaeda continues to fall apart.

 
The Iraqis deserve a break and with him dead, I feel they just may get it now.
 
Well done!

Burgled MP wants home stun guns

June 8, 2006

In what I can only see as a step in the right direction, it appears one of Britian MPs now sees his best protection from criminals is himself.

Burgled MP wants home stun guns
An MP whose house was burgled while his family and visitors slept has called for homeowners to be allowed to arm themselves with Taser stun guns.

Thieves broke into the home of Conservative Monmouth MP David Davies, stealing passports and £300 in cash.

He said he felt violated by the crime and wanted householders to be allowed to use police electronic stun guns.
Victim Support said while people should be able to use reasonable force, they should call 999.

Mr Davies’s Fiat Punto was used as a getaway car by the thieves who broke in through a downstairs window at his house in his constituency early on Sunday.

He was asleep upstairs along with his wife Aliz 27, and children Sophie, two, and Dominic, three months.

The burglar alarm was turned off because the MP’s sister-in-law and her boyfriend, who were visiting, were sleeping downstairs.

The thieves got away without disturbing the family but Mr Davies said he believed they armed themselves with a knife they found in the kitchen.

"It’s probably lucky that I didn’t wake up," Mr Davies told BBC Radio Wales.

It’s lucky they didn’t come upstairs. They took what they wanted and went.

Mr Davies said constraints on people trying to defend their homes were "crazy".

"What am I meant to do? I’m a fit, healthy 30-year-old. I probably wouldn’t have got the better of them.

"If I had I would have probably been in trouble with the law myself."

Tasers, which are used by police forces in the UK, work by temporarily disabling whoever they are fired at with an electric shock delivered by two barbed darts trailing wires.

Mr Davies added: "Shouldn’t I, at the very least, be able to stand at the top of my stairs with a Taser – which isn’t going to kill somebody – and use that as a means of self defence?"

The politician said training people to use the Taser guns would prevent cases such as that of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who shot and killed a 16-year-old intruder.

"I know exactly how he felt. You can see why people would not want to take any chances," he said.

Although voicing support for Mr Davies, Victim Support Wales advised against home owners being armed with the electronic stun guns.

John Trew, Victim Support’s national officer for Wales, said; "I don’t think there is a problem with people using reasonable force to defend themselves."

But he said if there were burgling your house, people should "ring the police, don’t try to take them on."

In a statement, Gwent Police said it did not support householders arming themselves with Tasers "or any other type of weapon in order to protect their property".

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…051104.stm

As is often said on this side of the ocean, yes, if we have time to grab a gun we also have the time to call Police. But, what are we supposed to do in the 10 to 30 minutes it takes for them to arrive?

While a stun gun isn’t the same as regular gun, I see it as a step in the right direction for the British to protect their homes and family. Properly trained and disciplined citizens with guns are a deterrent to crime, not criminals.

 

Lew

How Real Was The Canadian Terror Plot?

June 7, 2006

 

Quote

Terror Watch: Was Canada’s P.M. a Target? – Newsweek: International Editions – MSNBC.com

In what I see as typical coming from the left, it seems the question is now raised, "How real was the plot in Canada?"

 

I fail to see how this should even be a question, but it is. From the article, Aly Hindy, a hard-line Toronto-area imam who says he knows nine of the 17 alleged plotters personally, says he believes that if there was talk about a beheading plot, it was the kind of empty, though menacing, bravado that he has often seen in messages posted in radical Islamic Internet chat rooms. “I just think these people were bulls–ting.”

 

Just Bulls–ting? Did they not arrange to purchase and accept three tons of Ammonium Nitrate, the fertilizer that can be used as an explosive and three times the amount used to bring down the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995? Even if they were actually farmers, which I doubt, why do they need so much Ammonium Nitrate? Surely not to grow corn to make ethanol to fuel their cars.

 

Rightfully so, Canadian Authorities have taken these people very seriously. Maybe some talk was bravado, but how easily could bravado become reality if they actually held the Canadian Parliament hostage? Maybe some feel the beheadings we saw not to long ago of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were also just "bravado."

 

It’s a sad day when authorities catch budding terrorists before they carry out their mission and someone comes along and minimizes their crimes. Why would words of these people be seen as simply bravado and when twelve year olds say they wish to shoot or harm a teacher that has disciplined them at school, get taken very seriously? Wouldn’t a twelve year old be more prone to bravado than grown men?

 

I also have to wonder if these same people minimizing the actions and words of these 17 would have also minimized Muhhomad Attas words of thinking of hijacking and flying civilian aircraft into occupied buildings, had he been caught just prior to September 11, 2001.

 

My guess is they wouldn’t have believed it then, either.

 

Is this any way to fight a War on Terror? Hell no, it isn’t.

 

Lew