Debunking the Anti-War Left

August 11, 2006

Appeasement and negotiations with terrorists is a pipe dream of the left. Only armchair generals with little or no knowledge of what they talk about would even propose such a thing.

This war is not a video game where you click a mouse and kill your enemy. This is a battle unlike any other we have had to face. It is a serious delusion to think the terrorists will simply leave us alone if we leave them alone or that they can be bought off.

It has been said that the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" of the West is the best weapon against Terrorists. They already have the money to buy all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they may desire. Modernization is appealing to us in the West, but not to them. There is no tolerance in Islamofascists other than for their delusion of World Dominance and Allah is giving them the entire planet. Whether you realize it or not, it is those "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" that they hate the most! It is a complete delusion of the left to think that offering them the very things they despise is the way to win in the War on Terror.

Recently two High School students in Dearborn Michigan were arrested for planning terrorist activities as well as 24 more were arrested in London for plotting a massive plan of suicide bombing of aircraft bound from the UK to the US. They had all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they could want at their disposal and yet, were willing to sacrifice it all for a deluded ideology of power and glory.

Polls matter little in this "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment," battle. As can be witnessed in the drive-by leftstream media and several left-winged blogs, many are deluded as to what and who we are fighting. What with the politicization of the War on Terror from a losing party trying to regain power, most haven’t a clue. Truth finds little regard when it comes to the anti-war left.

Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror, but a very necessary part of the overall War given that virtually the entire world said there were WMDs still there prior to our invasion. However, in the six month long rush to war, they were obviously spirited away, as stated by many who were there before we went in. Would you like to have it on your conscience that you did nothing to stop them from possibly falling into the hands of terrorists?

The claims from the left have been that they were never there. Yet, when over 500 canisters were revealed to have been found, the left comes back with "we knew all about them." “They weren’t the ones sought after.”

Which way is it? Where did the rest go? How could the entire world say and believe they were there, yet they are gone once we got there, six months later? Doesn’t take a rock scientist to figure that out. Still, WMDs were but one reason to invade Iraq.

It is still claimed that we aren’t gaining on the War on Terror because we have lost sight of the goal of capturing Osama Bin Laden and have diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. There are still troops in Afghanistan, always have been since we went there. All the troops in the world chasing Osama won’t catch him in the mountainous region he chose to hide out in provided he is still alive. As seen with Zarqawi, catching Osama would not stop terrorism anyways. He is a mere figurehead and even if dead, others step in. This is not a battle against one man; it’s a battle against a misled and brutal ideology.

These misled Muslims have been attacking and killing each other and the Jews for centuries, it’s not new. As they have spread their terror outside the Middle East over the last decades, it’s long past due for the west to stand against them.

If you think "cut and run," excuse me, "redeployment" is the answer, you are dead wrong. If you think negotiation is the answer, you are dead wrong. These terrorists desire nothing from us, except our death, both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. It’s death or subjugation under their control, as far as they are concerned.

This War on Terror isn’t against a single person, it’s against an ideology that needs destroyed as much as humanly possible. Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way, at the cost of many of his countrymen’s lives that you cannot negotiate with evil nor can you appease it. You can only fight it and destroy it.

As Winston Churchill once said, "an appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile, hoping it eats him last." That is as an accurate a description of the anti-war left that I have ever seen.

Being realistic about who and what were fighting is not propaganda, it’s an honest assessment of the dangers were now face. Sadly, even if we were to lose a couple large cities due to terrorist attacks, some on the left will still believe all we need do is join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Sorry, but the song doesn’t translate into the language of terrorists.

Lew

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Rehashing Atrocity Claims & Defeating Lieberman

August 11, 2006
There has recently been a spate of articles on Viet Nam atrocities and war crimes not being prosecuted. I do not for a minute feel the timing is accidental. They have been discussing them on the Swift Vets discussion board as well on FreeRepublic.
 
One train of thought is that they are designed to vindicate John Kerry’s 1971 claims to the Fulbright Commission against Viet Nam Veterans and the War and the “day to day” atrocities we were supposedly committing. Another is that they are to take the wind out of those who are working to set the record straight on what really went on there and reveal the true history of the Viet Nam War.
 
There are forces (people) that hate our country and are working overtime to destroy it, thinking they are preserving some fictional leftwing America that has existed only in the misguided minds of the left. Sadly, these George Soros inspired and financed people, found at Moveon.org and DailyKos and places as that, have hijacked the Democrat Party, the main group that has been instrumental in writing a false history of Viet Nam and who also misled a nation in the late 1960s and early 1970s and encouraged the government to abandon the struggling country of South Viet Nam. If you have ever spied at DemocraticUnderground, you will see the vehemence with which some of these people view America and the solid values that has built this country to greatness over it’s 200 year history.
 
In their anti-war rhetoric (seemingly only when a Republican is leading the fight) and in their efforts to undermine the current War on Terror in Iraq as well as to regain the power and control of America they held and exercised for nearly 40 years, they now wish to rehash the Viet Nam War, making all these claims of war crimes and atrocities against American Troops. However, look at the claims in context.
 
Claims of 320 alleged crimes over 10 years? C’mon, there’s more than that in a regular American large city in a year! (L.A., Chicago, Detroit, etc.) No one ever said atrocities never happened, every war produces them on various scales. We all know they did, but they were never on the day-to-day scale claimed by Kerry and others nor were they condoned by commanders, as also claimed by John Kerry and other supposed Veterans of the War.
 
If they are truly concerned about crimes not being prosecuted, then go ahead and prosecute them now. They can start with all the anti-war activists who claimed they had committed those war crimes, such as Kerry’s admission on the Dick Cavett show and Joe Bangerts claims also made. See how fast these same activists change their tunes about war crimes they committed if facing a death penalty courts martial, especially Kerry.
 
The anti-war left may feel that rehashing supposed war crimes from over 30 years ago vindicates them, but to me, it just further reveals them as the hypocrites they are.
 
The rhetoric and hate mongering from the anti-war left is maddening. But, as evidenced by the recent Connecticut Democratic Primary between Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate and Senator Joe Lieberman, an 18 year veteran of the Senate, they are eating their own. As revealed by Clinton crony, Lanny Davis this week, in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal titled “Liberal McCarthyism.” The attacks and comments against Joe Lieberman, mostly because he supports President Bush’s War on Terror and in Iraq, are as anti-Semitic as anything heard by Hitler’s Nazi’s in pre-World War Two Germany.
 
Even Michael Moore, producer of the failed and highly misleading and inaccurate hit piece laughingly referred to as a movie, “Fahrenheit 911,” has chimed in with his own “warnings” to Democrats. "Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq….. we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake.”
 
Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball, chimes in with, “Lieberman of course is the schmaltzy ethnic guy, the Uncle Tonoose, you know, the guy that’s very much kind of lachrymose in his almost postnasal drip voice of his….” For those who don’t know, Uncle Tonoose was a character, played by actor Hans Conreid on the old Danny Thomas show, “Make Room for Daddy,” back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The character was a Lebanese Arab with an unusually large nose that the show always joked about.
 
With the new revelations of Viet Nam War Crimes supposedly not prosecuted and the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in a Democrat Primary election this week, it appears as if the anti-war left now feels they have a mandate to take control of America. They do not! With the revelation of a terrorist plot broken up in London just this week where they planned to blow up several US bound flights from England over either ocean or over American cities as they arrive, America is waking up to the dangers posed in the world today.
 
The hate America anti-war left still feels they stopped the war in Viet Nam when in reality they prolonged it. They feel they must repeat what they thought they accomplished in Viet Nam and if they do, it will have the same dire results as Viet Nam did, millions of people slaughtered for not towing the line of extremist hardliners.
 
The War on Terror will be a very long fight and it won’t be easily won. This includes the fighting in Iraq. The anti-war left, in repeating the mistakes they made during Viet Nam of not supporting our side, once again emboldens an even more formidable enemy than we faced in Viet Nam. Their goal then was just to enslave Viet Nam under Communism. Islamofascist terrorist’s goal is to enslave the entire world under their sick, degrading and oppressive form of Islam, an otherwise peaceful religion.
 
We are all in this fight together and it wasn’t caused by Democrats or Republicans, but by Islamofascists bent on world domination. The anti-war left fails to see what we are up against and somehow thinks maybe if they bury their heads in the sand or just “talks” to the terrorists, it will cease. It will not! Terrorists use talking as a guise to rearm and lull us back to sleep as they infiltrate our society with sleeper cells and prepare for the next attack to force us into submission. With the support of those who are being misled by the anti-war left, we can and will defeat this latest enemy to the freedoms of the left. Without it, the war will last much longer and cost even more lives, but we will succeed, unless the American public is once again misled by the glib talk of the anti-war left and elects their pacifists to office enough to give them control of the country again.
 
Woe to us if that happens.
 
Don’t fall for the new claims of war crimes and rhetoric about supporters of the current war. It’s all designed to lull you back to a peaceful sleep by those who can’t see beyond the end of their nose about world affairs. As they regain control of the government, even they fail to see the enemy just waiting to conquer America, the “Great Satan,” to them.
 
Thank God we have a man like President Bush in office and even though I disagree with much of what Senator Lieberman says, thank God we have him in the Senate. Both can see the enemy facing America and the perils of continuing to ignore their actions.
 
Lew

 

Book: 9/11 panel doubted Pentagon’s story

August 5, 2006

 

Quote

Book: 9/11 panel doubted Pentagon’s story – U.S. Security – MSNBC.com

Once again someone comes out with their "authoritative" tell all book trying to make it appear that President Bush was incompetent or inept. If they actually feel the response was inadequate, why don’t they look back a few months to how the previous administration decimated the military, demoralized them with their anti-military shenanigans as well as deployed our troops more than any other administration and for no real reason of National Security. If "our" foreign policy contributed anything at all to the attacks of 9-11, shouldn’t that also be on the previous administration as the Bush administration was only in office just short of 8 months. At least one of the panel members should not have even been on the panel, but she should have been being questioned critically by the panel. If blame is to be placed on the White House then the Clintons have to be assigned their share of guilt for their actions, policies and conduct of the previous 8 years. Bush inherited a mess and has also received all the blame.

Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah – 2006

July 15, 2006
 

We must begin with understanding the Middle East has been in turmoil almost forever, to varying degrees. Fighting and troubles between Arabs and Jews or Muslims and Jews can be dated all the way back to Biblical Times.

 

I think this current war now going on was once again, a deliberate provocation from Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. I can’t help but feel the timing is very important as well, given world opinion against Iran and their Nuclear Program. Even though Iran isn’t actually Arab, they are a Muslim Fundamentalist nation led by some really radical nutcases.

 

Sooner or later the West will have to stand and fight these radicals, as they have been gradually gearing up for and moving towards worldwide domination for at least three decades now. That European nations can’t see this and continue to condemn Israel, who, if you recall, recently made several concessions towards the Palestinians in abandoning much territory, really boggles my mind.

 

I am not one who is anti-Muslim and feels the entire religion is evil, but they have allowed a faction who wish world domination to hijack their religion and too many have remained relatively quiet, with exceptions being some imams have spoken against the terrorists as well as some 10,000 or so active Muslims are currently serving with and fighting terror in the US Military.

 

I am really disturbed by all the calls of condemnation against Israel, along with calls for Israel to exercise restraint. Where have all the calls of restraint been against Hamas, Hezbollah and even Al Qaeda? Where has the condemnation ever been against them for the suicide bombings against Israel as well as the rocket attacks from Lebanon? Europe should realize, after two world wars, that evil must be stood up to and squelched before it grows as strong as it has again, but they seem to have forgotten.

 

I recall the 1973 Arab Israeli war very well as I was still in the Army and we were recalled from Field Maneuvers in Germany and readied to ship out to Israel if need be. If you recall, in the early days of that one, Israel wasn’t doing very well at first, but turned it around and prevailed. I was with the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment then, the same one that was instrumental in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We weren’t needed and in a few days, stood down.

 

I don’t know just where this current fight will lead and yes, I feel Syria and Iran are solidly behind what is happening, maybe to divert attention from their own programs or maybe thinking the US has become weakened to the point that we will not stand alongside Israel and they can wipe her off the map, a fatal decision that I feel could bring nuclear weapons into the fray (although I really hope I am wrong).

 

If this is the big battle the Bible describes as Armageddon remains to be seen. Various translators and religions interpret that battle differently and there have been several large battles initially thought to be it with so far, none being. Personally, I can’t think that far ahead and see only that once again, a small democratic nation surrounded by dictatorships bent on her destruction is being attacked. Please note, with all the fighting and calls against Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah have yet to release the kidnapped Israeli soldiers who they initially took while demanding the release of some 1500 prisoners.

 

This is a big mess and I see no easy way out. The real answer, of course, is very simple, but one that century’s of hatred and pigheadedness on the part of Arabs and Muslims won’t allow to happen, simply co-exist and leave each other alone. Fat chance there.

 

I feel we must support and stand with Israel and at the same time, try to keep others out of this. The Useless Nations once again proves they are worthless as all they can do is condemn Israel and call for Israel to cease fire, something they did, against better judgment before, and the battles just keep coming to oust them from their own homeland. All Middle Easterners have the right to their own existence, including the Palestinians, a group of unwanted Arabs that other Arabs had no use for until the 1960s when they saw them as a group of Arabs they could use against the Jews and to make claims of the land of Israel.

 

I think it would be very prudent of us to start strengthening our own military forces as history has shown where this can lead. Appeasement of terrorists just leads to more demands and appeasement and terrorist acts against the free world.

 

I hate war as much as the next person does, but can see that at times, this being one of them, war is the only answer, as evil must be continually stood up against and fought and hopefully, defeated one day. As frightening as it may be, we must trust in our view of God that he sees the evil and guides us to a sure victory.

 

Lew

Murtha Just Can’t Keep His Mouth Shut!

July 10, 2006

How many times does it take for this aging Representative from Pennsylvania to realize his leftist rhetoric is actually being recorded and that he has far too many skeletons in his closet to be finger-pointing and accusing?

 

We first heard of his anti-war rhetoric as he idly accused a squad of combat decorated Marines of murdering Iraqis “in cold blood.” Of course, the investigation into the incident in Haditha wasn’t finished or released, but that didn’t stop John Murtha from standing before Congress and condemning US Marines without any due process, something he also demands be given our enemies bent of actually murdering all of us.

 

Just last week, he was caught giving a speech in Miami, Florida wherein he was accused of saying; "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." After a couple days, he and supporters of his complained that he did not actually say that. According to Murtha, as he excused his gaffe, "I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace.”

 

You see, he said it, but he didn’t say it, he was, as are all liberals when caught, “misquoted,” “taken out of context,” or “misinterpreted.”

 

According to a July 8, 2006 Washington Times editorial, where apparently a video was seen of the speech, Murtha’s actual words were, "Every one of our allies think that the United States being in Iraq is more dangerous to world stability and world peace, every one of our allies; Great Britain, every single country… They think it’s more, uh, we’re more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran.”

 

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the Jack Murtha’s of the world actually stand behind their words, for a change?

 

Now, in an interview quoted in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha has attacked his opponent, Diana Irey. According to the article,Murtha said he is concerned about Irey’s motivation for running against him, considering her husband, Robert, is CEO of a Canonsburg-based firm that secured a $300 million contract with the Iraqi government two years ago.

“I worry about that,” he said. “If they’re benefiting from this war, and if this is the reason she’s in this, it really bothers me. I don’t like that.”

 

So, now he is raising accusations of his opponent “profiting off of the War on Terror.”

 

Ms. Irey responded on her web site, “For the record: My husband, Robert Irey, is a partner in a firm that once had a subcontract with the Iraqi Government, jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Defense, to help the new democratic Government of Iraq take over the burden of defending itself by refurbishing equipment and material destroyed or damaged by the war. Had that contract been fulfilled, it would have allowed the Iraqi Government to take over more of the burden of defending itself sooner – which would have had the result of making possible a withdrawal of U.S. troops sooner than they would otherwise have been able to come home.”

“But that contract was terminated more than a year and a half ago, when one of Bob’s partners and one of their employees were murdered in Iraq – a fact reported at the time by both the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press, and, therefore, presumably known to Jack Murtha.”

She goes on to say that other than one $10,000 down payment, her husband’s firm has not received a dime of the $1.6 million owed.

Doing a bit of digging I discovered just who really might be profiting off of this war. Jack Murtha, that’s who! In an article from the publication, “The Hill,” Jack Murtha is identified as “the No. 1 beneficiary of defense campaign donations in the House and has not fallen below No. 3 for Congress as a whole” for the past 3 years!

Ms. Irey’s husbands firm has received a paltry $10,000 one time down payment while Murtha has received campaign contributions over $188,000 from Defense Contractors.

How long will it take this time for the Representative from Pennsylvania to cry once again, “I was misquoted and taken out of context?”

John Murtha is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the US Marine Corps he once served in and to the State of Pennsylvania. His 35 year tenure in Congress has made him either complacent or he is so warped with hatred of President Bush and Republicans in general that he forgets his own skeletons before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.

Add these quotes together and his role as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal of the 1980s and it is plain to see he needs to be sent to the unemployment line.

Citizens of Pennsylvania and America deserve better than this.

 

Lew

Cross The Border, Okay. Cross the Street, Get a Ticket, if Elderly in LA.

July 8, 2006

It is no secret that Mayor Villagiarosa, of Los Angeles, is pro-Illegal Immigration. In his 1999 bid for Mayor he declared that enforcement of immigration laws was a federal responsibility, not that of the local police, should he be elected.

 

Well, he was elected and obviously has kept true to his desires. L.A. Police may not arrest illegal immigrants within the city unless they see them commit a felony, beyond that of being illegally in the country.

 

Said Mr. Villagiarosa during his campaign, “[T]hey (Police) need to focus on violent crime, on the crime that violates the rule that thou shalt not hurt me.”

 

Maybe with this in her memory, I’m sure that 82 year-old Mavis Coyle was completely taken aback when, on February 15, she was given a ticket for “jaywalking” and “obstructing traffic” because the elderly lady, walking with a cane in one hand and a bag of groceries in the other, was taking too long to cross an intersection. By too long, I mean she couldn’t get across the four-lane intersection in the short allotted time the Pedestrian light stays green.

 

The ticketing officer, a motorcycle officer, said she entered the intersection after the “do not walk light” started flashing. Mavis disputes this and said the light had just changed. A reporter, in April, tested this very light and found it would not change to green unless the button was pushed for it to change. Then, according to him and others who have used this intersection, the light gave someone between 20 to 27 seconds to cross the busy intersection. At one point, a group of High School students couldn’t cross in the allotted time and ended up running, something I would not expect of an 82 year-old lady.

 

Once was the time, way back when there was actually some common sense in the world, that the motorcyle cop would either have gotten off his motorcycle and helped Mavis across the street. Or, he would have maneuvered his bike to block traffic until she crossed. Ticketing an elderly person crossing in the approved crosswalk too slowly would never enter the mind.

 

Whatever happened to Pedestrians have the right away? Are we so busy that we have forgotten our elderly and would run them over to get to our next stop a few seconds earlier? Have we become so callous as to demand the elderly stay off the streets so we don’t have to slow down just a little? Just be glad she wasn’t driving, as some have tried to keep doing beyond when they should.

 

I remember as a young Boy Scout, we prided ourselves on helping the elderly across the street, even if we had to make cars wait a few seconds. Back then, few seemed to mind the wait and were looking forward to a time they could leisurely cross a street without worrying about running or being run over.

 

L.A. Police have said they are cracking down on people improperly crossing streets due to an increased pedestrian accident rate. I don’t see this elderly lady using the crosswalk as “improper crossing,” due to her being slow.

 

Is this the “violent crimes” candidate, and now Mayor Villagiarosa was thinking of during the 1999 interview? Are the elderly in Los Angeles being targeted while police turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants?

 

In an obvious face saving effort, a court commissioner sent her a notice that she was found guilty of “jaywalking,” but the $114 fine was being waved.

 

Makes me wonder if she were an elderly illegal immigrant if Police would have ticketed her at all. If so, would Mayor Villagiarosa himself have waived the fine or buried the ticket?

 

Lew

Separation of Politics and State Now?

July 2, 2006

Listening to Foxnews this afternoon, I was struck by a story about a Democrat Representative in the State of Maine and his desire to have the state sell license plates with “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” on them. Money raised from their sale would be used to help families of Maine’s National Guard and Reserve Troops now serving in the War on Terror overseas.

 

A very nice gesture and I’m sure the families would welcome the help. As we all know our troops are grossly underpaid for what they do. Money’s raised should also help offset tax dollars being used to help families in need while their primary breadwinners are off at war for us.

 

Donald Pilon, the State Representative behind this, says he is opposed to the war itself. While I disagree with his opposition, I must applaud his effort at helping our troops and their families.

 

The rub comes from those opposed to his efforts, the anti-war left in Maine and the Maine Civil Liberties Union. Rep. Pilon even admits that some may see the message as supporting the war, which he admits he does not.

 

The state should not do anything that might be construed as supporting the war,” said Doug Rawlings, the president of one of two Maine chapters of Veterans for Peace. “[A] plate proclaiming support for the troops would be viewed by many as a pro-war statement. Issuing such a license plate "just clouds the issue way too much," Rawlings says.

 

Shenna Bellows, of the Maine Civil Liberties Union says, “I think, generally, the state should stay out of the business of making political statements on license plates." In true ACLU misguided and anti-American fashion, she said the issue would become "problematic" for the MCLU if the Legislature endorsed a troops plate but rejected one bearing an anti-war message, because that would be discriminatory.

 

Have we allowed ourselves to be duped to the point that we would sit back and allow our troops in harms way to not be told our State Governments support them? And, “the state should stay out of the business of making political statements?” Even if on license plates, isn’t that what states do?

 

What I find frightening in this is that the move to remove God from every aspect of our lives was brought about pretty much the same way, a small group opposed and worried their sensibilities would be offended by references to God. Do we have to ensure, while at war, our enemies receive equal time in our media? Truth be known, I’d prefer our troops successes receive equal time with reports of our enemies successes in our drive-by leftstream media. If we don’t grant enemies of the state equal time, will the MCLU start a movement, as most movements end up doing, spreading across the land requiring each state to no longer show support for our troops, even while in harms way? Will Schools, State Houses, Courts and such be barred from ever having anything remotely showing support for our troops, as was done with the Christian Cross, Ten Commandments and anything indicating a belief in God?

 

Remembering the denial of our brave efforts in Viet Nam and the treatment we returning troops received then, seeing a group as the MCLU stand up and oppose the State of Maine showing support for the troops, especially while we are war, not only frightens me, it angers me. What ever happened to the canard, “I support the troops, but not the war?” How far will the MCLU and its parent, the ACLU, take not showing any support for our troops? If the examples of Separation of Church and State are indicative, our troops may end up standing all-alone, fighting a war with no support.

 

My mind is boggled thinking of how far this simple gesture of help to the families of our troops may be taken by the minions of those that hate our country.

 

While not a resident of the state of Maine, I readily admit I have no dog in their in state fights. But, as all too often happens, things like this spill over and spread like wildfire, especially when we have strong opposition to our freedoms and liberties in our courts and amongst our citizens. Will we eventually be faced with laws barring any public display of support for our troops unless we show equal support for our enemies?

 

The Silent Majority needs to wake up and see what they are allowing to happen to our nation. It’s always little baby-steps used to remove our national pride and liberties from us. Even more importantly, how can any government send their troops off to fight for and protect our freedoms and not show them any support?

 

We cannot allow this to happen!!

 

Lew

 

Source article: http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/2879853.shtml

 

 

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

 

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