If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

9/30/2006

Now More Than Ever, We Must Work to Retain Voices of Reason in Government


I will be posting here significantly less frequently than usual over the next five weeks, because I intend to spend much of my free time working to support the re-election of Senator Rick Santorum here in Pennsylvania.

Forgive any repetition of previous comments and opinions, amid the new ones here. I simply want to sum up what I intend to be voicing here in my own community over the next five weeks, in the hopes that others in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, might see in my thoughts some common ground with their own. So I ask that you bear with me.

My connection with Rick Santorum goes back twelve years. During his first campaign for a seat in the U.S. senate, I spent a significant amount of time wearing out shoe leather, speaking publicly, and writing columns and letters in support of his candidacy. My husband and I drove out to Pittsburgh to attend what we hoped would be his victory party at the Pittsburgh Hilton on election night 1994. It wasn’t until about 2 AM that Rick and Karen entered the ballroom to deliver his victory speech, after having pulled the election out by the skin of his teeth in the wee hours of that brisk November morning, defeating democrat incumbent Harris Wofford by a less than two percent margin.

I remember driving home from Pittsburgh in the early morning hours filled with (uncharacteristic, for me) optimism that now there was at least a fighting chance to turn this country around and to wrest genuine control from a corrupt and left-leaning party that had succeeded in eroding so many of the founding principles upon which American prosperity and success had rested … unprecedented in the history of civilization.

It is now 2006. A lot can happen in twelve short years, especially during a time of unprecedented political turmoil, new age political agendas that seek to declare our Constitution irrelevant, and to dissolve the sanctity of our sovereignty in deference to the vision of a new world order, and weakness in the seat of our government in the face of brutal, relentless terrorism that is designed to take insidious and deadly advantage of each and every blink from the Western World.

Now Rick Santorum would not be at the top of my (ever-shrinking) list of respected leaders in Washington (He wouldn’t even be within reach of the likes of George Allen, James Inhofe, John Kyl, or Tom Tancredo). He has let me down on more occasions than I care to remember -- most notably in his support of the No Child Left Behind education debacle, and jobs creation and healthcare initiatives – all of which, to the Constitutional purist – yours truly included – are abominations. As regards Washington usurping powers/freedoms that should remain in the hands of the states, or the individual, I’d give Santorum a B- grade.

The joy I felt twelve years ago that evening in Pittsburgh has found itself muted to resigned acceptance that not all is well in Washington, and that those who agree to compromise with evil are every bit as dangerous as the devil with whom they are playing political games.

Many Pennsylvanians (yours truly included) who, up until then, had been strong supporters of Rick Santorum held him personally responsible for sending Arlen Specter back to his powerful position in the senate in 2004, and for denying Pat Toomey a decisive opportunity to be a voice of unrelenting conservative principle in a senate that is badly in need of a powerful dose of conservative realism, pragmatism, and allegiance to the Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the rule of law. Despite Bush’s and Santorum’s powerful endorsements, Toomey came within .5% of defeating the left-leaning, Scottish-law-invoking incumbent.

But time heals some wounds.

If I were to read a list of the objections some conservatives have to Santorum’s record, I suspect that I would agree with most or all of what is on it. Where I suspect we differ is in being willing to overlook some bad policy decisions, in deference to his immovable stance on others that I believe are of much more timeless significance.

I believe that most conservatives are purists, and that is an entirely noble trait, considering their focus -- except that I think there are circumstances in which one must allow for temporary compromise of principle, if the outcome would otherwise be disastrous.

With all of that said … for the sixteen years he has been in Washington, Rick Santorum has remained immovable on most issues that are indelibly close to his heart – and two of those issues must eclipse all others in these perilous times: namely, (1) the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and (2) the need to close our southern border.

I honestly believe that the huge majority of our ‘leadership’ in Washington is either indifferent to, or in favor of (for either financial or political/ideological power reasons), avoiding confronting the illegal alien crisis. As I also believe that an equal number are purposefully attempting to demoralize our military, and create a Vietnam-era-like malaise among the populace, so as to retreat from our assignment in Iraq, and pull back from a confrontational stance against Muslim fanaticism in general – and for the very same reasons that they refuse to acknowledge and resolve the illegal alien crisis.

Santorum has assumed a strong conservative, pro-military, anti-illegal immigration stance from the get-go, and has been extremely vocal and candid about the nature of both crises, and the need for immediate, and historically unprecedented ‘ruthless’ (by PC standards) action to deal with both. As a result he has taken vicious, unrelenting hits from the media/academia, especially here in Pennsylvania. And it is basically for that reason that the democrat machine has designated him as their prime target in November. I have read several accounts that claim that the amount of DNC money pouring into Casey’s coffers is close to double that being focused on any other national candidate. Santorum is a tireless advocate of facing down the Muslim threat and closing the border, and the DNC would like nothing more than (1) to depose the senate’s third most powerful republican, and (2) to replace him with a soft-on-both leftist mouthpiece.


Anyone who considers abandoning support for Santorum because of his movement to the center on a handful of domestic/spending policies, and his ill-conceived endorsement of Specter, needs to read in its entirety his July speech at the National Press Club. It is a passionate, heartfelt call to arms, not unlike one that Thomas Paine might have delivered, were he still with us. I hope you've read the speech -- or will, if you haven't. You’ll come away with the understanding that Rick Santorum isn’t just a crusader for greatly increased border security, the right to life of the unborn, uncovering government corruption, welfare reform, privatizing Social Security, training and equipping first responders, simplification of the tax code, and tort reform. He is all that and much more. He is a rarity in Washington these days: He is a leader who recognizes the brutal and obsessive nature of Islamo-fascism, and who isn’t overcome with politically correct reticence when the opportunity to awaken and educate his countrymen presents itself. And this battle cry is nothing new -- Santorum’s stance on terrorism has remained unchanged since before the ’93 World Trade Center bombing. His conservative, ‘hawkish’ views have become less popular among the political elite, but he is unyielding.

A local political pundit recently wrote of him, ‘In our poll-driven political climate, dominated by blow-dried politicians with their fingers to the wind, he stands for things. And even where he stands for things with which I disagree, I come away admiring his unwillingness to placate dissenters by telling us words that we want to hear. What you see with Santorum, is what you get. He speaks from the head and heart.'

Santorum debated his opponent, Robert Casey, Jr., on ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday, September 3rd. The Santorum/Casey race will be the hottest contested senate race in the country come November, and the DNC is pouring millions into Casey’s campaign coffers in an effort to unseat the senate’s third most powerful republican. If current poll numbers hold for another two months, the democrats will succeed in that impressive coup.

Santorum’s best line in the debate:

’You [Casey] believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.’

Santorum’s opponent has crony-related name recognition in his corner. The name Casey in Pennsylvania is akin to the name Daley in Chicago. And, when one adds the crony factor to the facts that (1) the DNC is pouring unprecedented money into the Casey campaign, (2) many Pennsylvania voters vote the way their union tells them to, (3) voting democrat has been nothing short of a sanctified family tradition for many Pennsylvanians ever since FDR ‘pulled their starving families out of the depression’, and (4) 120% of the registered democrats (including family dogs, parakeets and long dead ancestors) turn out to vote in the inner cities, Santorum has quite an uphill battle facing him over the next five weeks.

The danger in a Casey victory lies not in seating a left-or-moderate democrat in the seat that was formerly Santorum’s. The danger lies in losing a powerful, immovable voice in our war on Islamic fascism and our need to secure our borders. We cannot afford to lose such voices.

Current polls of most likely voters show Bob Casey ahead by double digits in just about every area of the state but central PA. Yet, in the 2004 election, Pennsylvania was reluctantly pulled into the blue column, and a look at the county-by-county results shows clearly that, had voters turned out in larger numbers in the counties that fell into the Republican column, the state would clearly have turned red.


Therein lies the only way Rick Santorum can win this election. The vote in the heart of Pennsylvania has to come out and counterbalance the three major urban areas where voter fraud is rampant and where votes are traditionally bought through intimidation and promises of more entitlement/socialist government perks.

I have said before that I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. But there is a world of difference between that and voting for someone with whom you sometimes disagree. Especially at this pivotal time in our history, when we’re facing a more brutally deadly threat than ever before – and on two horrendous fronts – this is not the time to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Steve Leonard, a contributor to this weblog, recently wrote:

No more talk, no more lies, no more dissembling, no more diplomacy. They stop, and they stay stopped, or they die, and their countries die with them. In Iran, in Syria, in Somalia, in Waziristan, leaders and civilians who support terrorists have forfeited their right to breathe the air of this planet. We don't have to occupy them, we don't have to rebuild them, we don't have to ‘bring them to justice,’ or grant them habeas corpus or let them have lawyers. We just have to destroy them.

I believe that, on the national level, the above paragraph must be our litmus test. If a candidate does not openly and vocally embrace that philosophy, he does not get my vote.

Rick Santorum does … and will. And I will do all that I can between now and November 7th to see to it that as many of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers comprehend the difference between a leader who wants to confront and unambiguously defeat the unparalleled malevolent forces threatening to extinguish the Western world as we know it, and who will disperse even their shadow … and a pretender whose political ideology depends on which way the politically correct winds happen to be blowing.

I plan to spend much of the next five weeks talking and writing about Rick Santorum’s qualifications to serve a third term in the Senate. I know that other Pennsylvanians will be doing the same. And I hope that conservatives throughout the country will consider earmarking some of their campaign contributions to this pivotal election. The election or defeat of this powerful senator from Pennsylvania will have repercussions throughout America … and far into the future.

This election, and the next, are not about’the economy, stupid’.

They are about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.

~ joanie

9/28/2006

The Inevitable Price of Realism in
Today's Ambivalent 'Free' World

I may disagree with Tony Blair on many of his beliefs, but his passionate, resolute convictions regarding the most malevolent threat ever to face mankind are dead right ... which explains why the international media, the power and money-hoarding one-world elitists, and the majority of the great unwashed are succeeding in incrementally abolishing his role on the world stage. And, if (better yet, when) they run true to form, and follow their model of the post-Reagan-era propaganda agenda, they will then attempt to erase any vestige of his former influence and legacy ... which is, and always has been, an uncompromising crusade against Islamic fascism.


'The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, 'That risk is fanciful,' I say we know the Taliban supported al-Qaeda. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.

Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.


This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now. Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.'

… Tony Blair: Address to Congress Accepting Congressional Gold Medal, delivered 18 July 2003

9/27/2006

Reflections on
Clintonoid Neo-Neoliberalism


ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism: n. neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

America's real two-front war consists of fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change. Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in DC--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard (or whomever), let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches. (Or Pinches!) To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Al From, the primary founder and current CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, is sounding the alarm: "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quoted, out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent. With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

by Mia T

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

9/26/2006

Keith Olbermann:
Front Man Extraordinaire

I was forwarded a transcript of Keith Olbermann's recent tirade (on his MSNBC show 'Countdown'), entitled 'A Textbook Definition of Cowardice'. If you ever find yourself suffering from low blood pressure, take a gander. It's a genuine non-medicinal cure that is guaranteed to raise your pressure readings by a good fifty percent.

I don't recall ever reading a political commentary more filled with venom, bias, and inaccuracy in my entire (somewhat-consumed-with-reading) life.

After wading through the vicious, two-faced, factless, hate-filled, anti-American, borderline seditious diatribe, I sat at my keyboard last night in an attempt to write a rebuttal.

Following close to an hour of dealing with screaming into my computer monitor after each cut and paste, wasting precious sleep time wiping the spit off my keyboard, and being unable to focus on the words I had written (when one is seeing red, it strangely blurs the visual acuity and narrows the visual field), I resigned the task.

But I'm starting over again this morning. Never say die. :)

Rather than risk experiencing more of the above, let me just excerpt a few (of dozens of venomous) phrases from Olbermann’s harangue (his words in bold, mine in brackets):

It is not essential that a past president [the apparently venerable Bill Clinton], bullied ['Why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them [al-Qaeda] out of business?' ... a question respectfully and civilly asked by his interviewer] and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster [highly-respected FoxNews commentator, Chris Wallace, who, unlike Olbermann, makes a genuine attempt at unbiased news reporting/commentary, and never resorts to unfounded personal attacks] finally lashed back [launched into a crazed, borderline-psychotic diatribe would be more accurate].

Footnote: Somewhere else within this diatribe, he also passionately referred to Mr. Clinton as 'honest' and 'brave'. (You may pick yourself up off the floor now. Try to regain your composure. I have a little more to say ...)

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks [apparently at least some leftist ideologues can count, but notice ... not beyond the digits contained on both hands], the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance in American history [apparently Mr. Olbermann was in hibernation during the Decade of High Crimes, Treasons and Felonies].

To hear him [President Bush] bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity ... [I no longer believe that Olbermann even watched the Wallace/Clinton interview ... otherwise he would at least subliminally recognize that he is accusing the man he is smearing of behaviors claimed nearly exclusively by the very man he is defending].

That [the abovementioned 'bleating and whining'] hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive [insert my last bracketed comment in here as well, while simultaneously reflecting on the ‘manliness’ of the circumstances surrounding his defendee’s other notable finger-wagging rant, staged during the aforementioned Decade of High Crimes, Treasons and Felonies].

Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history [See Clinton's very own 'Rewriting History for Dummies']

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan [See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this … I could go on, but my monitor is running out of ink ...]

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the [Bush] administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat [Diversion? Scapegoat? Was Olbermann indeed hibernating when our military made a habit of, among other expensive and deadly diversions, bombing camels in the desert in order to remove attention from misplaced cigars?]

... the Right Wingers ... who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment … [I can’t even bring myself to rebut this ludicrous accusation. Oh heck, maybe I’ll give it a try. Four words: Fonda, Streisand, Sheen, Glover -- and that’s just the tiny tip of the entertainment-industry-conspiracy iceberg].

[In reference to right-wing propagandists’] To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past, and [quoting George Orwell], The [Republican] Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power... [No comment necessary].

9/25/2006



Additional Reflections on the
Mir/Dawood Interview



I think the threat from el Shukrijumah must be taken seriously, even though on its face some of the assertions seem a bit outlandish--e.g., we won't be able to identify the bad guys because they will all have American names. So what? We will still be able to identify these scum. After the embarrassment suffered by the CIA, FBI and NSA, especially, resulting from their incompetent blundering which allowed the 9/11 attack to occur, you can be sure these bureaucrats have finally gotten their dead asses in gear and are watching and tracking anything and everything that even faintly resembles someone of middle eastern descent. Our government knows they cannot afford any more fumbling stupidity--one more of these and they will all be out of jobs. As for the ragheads, it won't matter what American names they may have assumed. I would bet that anybody seen entering or exiting a mosque is already on file and being monitored in some fashion, and there can't be much doubt that el Shukrijumah's parents in Florida are being closely watched.

I find it entirely consistent that this particular terrorist is another Saudi. No wonder the Saudis do such a marvelous job of corrupting our politicians, especially once they're out of office. It's pretty well understood in Washington that, after you establish your "friendly to Saudi interests" bonafides while in office, you are assured of financial rewards when you are no longer in office. This is a scandal of immense proportion, just waiting for someone to focus the right kind of bright light on it, rather than the periodic brief references and mentions it has been previously accorded.

Particularly interesting is the mention of this traitor, Adnan, having smuggled "deadly materials" into America through Mexico. This will surprise nobody. If there is another attack inside our borders and this assertion is proven, I will be in the first wave of citizens demanding impeachment, and urging removal from office, by force if necessary, of each and every politician and bureaucrat in Washington who bears even the slightest responsibility for that second attack due to their inexcusable failure to secure our borders. Despite the lessons that ought to have been learned from 9/11, here we are over five years later with borders that are just as vulnerable today as they were then. There is no excuse for this--absolutely none.

Dawood's assertions may or may not be credible. They may in fact be nothing more than bluster, intended to instill fear and uncertainty in Americans. But those assertions cannot be ignored, and the fools in Washington know they dare not dismiss them out of hand. With their sense of political survival having now been finely tuned, and recognizing there will be no chance of another cover-our-asses phony commission to rescue them, I believe Dawood/Adnan's assertions, empty terrorist bravado or not, are being carefully checked out.

by Czar

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

Anti-American Americans Incite and
Encourage Foreign Anti-Americans


I was at the local cafe eating breakfast this morning. I live outside a small town in North Central Texas and we only have one cafe.

Anyway, I was eating my meal and reading a book, aware of, but not really listening to, the conversation of several men known to me as the village idiots at the table next to me.

Then I heard "yea he (President Bush) wanted to torture those people down in GITMO but, Congress stopped him..., blah, blah, blah."

I sat there stunned, wondering how these guys could be so utterly stupid.

Don't get me wrong. I personally think it's just fine to torture the assholes if it's effective. Generally I think it's not good practice, because how do you know if they are saying just anything to get you to stop. But making them feel vulnerable frightened, and uncomfortable does work. It's been proven.

What has been used on these people up until now is not torture. The methods used are not permitted under the Geneva Conventions, but the Geneva Conventions were not intended and do not apply to these nationless, criminal savages. These people are not irregular freedom fighters. They are slaughtering anyone and everyone including their own people who don't agree with them or who just happen to be in the way, or whose death will advance their cause.

Back to my point: What makes these fools sitting next to me say such stupid things? Basically, they are ignorant, not prone to thinking for themselves, born and bred Democrats, and listen to the irresponsible, disrespectful rhetoric and outright lies from liberal Congressional so-called leaders and assume it must be true.

And what makes a foolish dictator like Hugo Chavez think it's permissible to come as a guest to our country and stand in a public forum and insult and disparage the leader of this nation? Well, he hears prominent members of our own Congress do it on a routine basis, so why not? And why not others, especially the dim witted Arab Street, who are primed and ready by their religious and political leaders to believe such crap?

So don't be outraged by the idiot Hugo Chavez; direct your outrage where it belongs: At self-promoting, disloyal politicians who are fomenting and abetting the misguided rage directed at our country. They lend false legitimacy to the anti-Americanism around the world and encourage our enemies. The Communists of North Viet Nam and the USSR benefited from them and so does al Qaeda

I give absolutely no credit to Nancy Polosi or Charlie Rangel for recently speaking out against Hugo Chavez's tirade at the UN and in New York. They gave him license to do it and their outrage is completely disingenuous.

by Seaspook

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

Take Note of This Name:
Adnan el Shukrijumah



Hamid Mir, one of Pakistan's leading television and newspaper reporters, and an internationally acclaimed journalist, has interviewed countless political VIPs all over the globe -- Pakistan’s President Musharraf and former Prime Minister Bhutto, Afghanistan’s President Karzai, as well as Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Richard Armitage, among numerous others.

His most noteworthy interview was with Osama bin Laden, in November of 2001. He is the last known journalist to have interviewed bin Laden, and he is currently putting the finishing touches on a bin Laden biography, to be released later this year.

This man is not a flash-in-the-pan would-be journalist who is looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. Anything but.

Mir’s prophetic reports of last year, generally rebuffed by most in the mainstream media, regarding the resurgence of the Taliban with support from Iran and Russia, have generally panned out in recent months.

Mir appeared on the Glenn Beck show today and spoke about the political and military situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, terrorist threats to America and Europe and the probability of coming al-Qaeda attacks.

Earlier this month, Mir interviewed Abu Dawood, one of the newly appointed commanders of the al-Qaeda ‘insurgents’ in Afghanistan. The interview took place on the outskirts of Kabul, at a time when Mir was traveling as an embedded reporter with British troops.

According to Mir, final preparations are being made for another (‘larger than 9/11’) attack on the U. S.

He warned that, during the interview, he was told the following:

Muslims living in the United States are being warned by high al-Qaeda operatives to leave the U.S.

The next major terrorist attack on American soil will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah, who already has a $5 million FBI reward (click on link) on his head.

El Shukrijumah is a Saudi national, but has spent most of his life in the U.S. His parents live in Florida.

The FBI believes that el Shukrijumah has been trained extensively in al-Qaeda camps, as a terrorist organizer and field commander, to lead and plan a terrorist assault in the same way that Mohammed Atta was brought up through the ranks before he operationally organized and led the 9/11 hijackings.

El Shukrijumah was last seen in southern Florida area in the spring of 2003. The FBI does not know his whereabouts today.

The al-Qaeda ‘soldiers’ (many of whom have adopted Christian or Jewish names) who will launch this attack are located in cities throughout America, preparing, training, and awaiting orders from high al-Qaeda operatives.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will initiate a major strike against American and British forces in Afghanistan during Ramadan (September 24th through October 24th).

Below are the answers to just two of the questions Mir posed to Dawood. I am excerpting them here because I believe them to be the answers that most require our attention and analysis:

I met Adnan [el Shukrijumah] in early 2004, in Khost. He came to Khost from the North Waziristan … He is very well known in al-Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago … He is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn't want to panic his people ...

... Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel. You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians. 9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the US-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by US-made cluster bombs. Bush and Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like Musharraf and [Afghani President Hamid] Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them ...

... We have a different plan for the next attack. You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Muhammad Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.


I believe that Mir is reporting Dawood’s words as they were spoken. The question is, can we believe Dawood? Al-Qaeda generally does not forecast its atrocities. But if this interview is evidence that their leadership is changing its tack, American vigilance, preparedness and deterrence were never more imperative. And politically correct anti-terrorist policies were never more potentially deadly.

9/24/2006

The Heck With 'Fair and Balanced'!
How About 'Comprehensive'?


I generally take pride in not allowing myself to be sucked in by the mainstream media’s propaganda, but I must admit (head hanging) that, after hearing early news reports regarding this week’s military coup in Thailand, one of our staunchest allies in the war on Islamic fascism, I found myself thinking, ‘It sounds as though Prime Minister Thaksin had it coming – once he was elected, he morphed into a corrupt despot.’

That’s apparently what the media would have us believe. But there’s something very troubling about the recent coup that you won’t read in the mainstream media ...

Thailand has seen eighteen primarily bloodless army coups since the end of World War II. The vast majority of them have involved zero deaths. The leaders of the coups have usually enjoyed the support of the army brass, and the fact that a coup would occur was generally in the wind for a long time prior to the actual takeover, so the overthrown leadership usually disappears without much of an argument. It seems to me that, given the recent violent terrorist activity in the southern provinces, and the position that the coup’s leader takes on that activity, we would be extremely foolish – bordering on irrational -- to consider this recent coup as business as usual.

Thailand Takes a Dangerous Step

While the cat’s away, the mice seize power. On Tuesday, while Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in New York attending the UN General Assembly, the Thai army’s commander, General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, seized power in a bloodless coup. Styling itself the Council for Democratic Reform, Sondhi said the coup was needed to restore Thailand’s political order. Nonetheless, the coup was condemned by the U.S. and other nations. Thaksin was elected in 2001 and re-elected in 2005, and he enjoyed wide support among the rural poor for his populist policies. Pro-democracy activists, the middle class and intellectuals were unhappy with his rule, though, and held mass demonstrations last year, demanding he step down. Thaksin dissolved parliament, planning to hold new elections to reaffirm his mandate, but to no avail. On Wednesday, Sondhi pledged to hold elections by October, 2007, but it remains to be seen exactly what his plans are.

Perhaps most worrisome is that, in an overwhelmingly Buddhist nation (94.6 percent), Sondhi is a Muslim. This is particularly troubling given that Thailand’s Muslim-majority south has persistently proffered organized, separatist violence with strong connections to Islamist terrorism (over 1,700 Thais have died from acts of Islamic extremists). While Thaksin has taken the hardline, Sondhi, on the other hand, has pressed for compromise. The possibility of an autonomous region emerging in southern Thailand dominated by violent Islamists is a major concern.

Though Thaksin Shinawatra may not have been one of Asia’s better angels, he was overwhelmingly elected in popular elections boycotted by the opposition. Then, given widespread dissent, he promised to step down from his role as “caretaker” PM following new elections. Now, at the very least, we can say this: Military juntas in a democracy never produce better government.

The Patriot Post
Patriot Vol. 06 No. 38 Digest, 22 September 2006
A pre-post disclaimer (for the benefit of any hand-wringing, bellyaching liberal lurkers): It is not my intent to diminish the terrible tragedy of lost courageous American and Iraqi civilian lives, but instead to poke fun at the media’s feeble, agenda-driven, drumbeat attempt to portray the loss of life in this war as historically unprecedented (I would imagine that convoluted concept would be a hard pill to swallow for the descendants of the 19,000 British soliders who lost their lives in one day during World War I's Battle of the Somme.)
Today's Media-Reported Iraq Death Toll


According to the mainstream media, as of today the number of people killed in Iraq equals the death toll from the Irish potato famine ... plus the amount of wood that a woodchuck chucks ... plus the square root of Katie Couric’s IQ ... plus the length of the hypotenuse ... plus 19.

We’re obviously in a quagmire.

9/23/2006

The Angst of the Evil


the Chinese symbol for uranium

Bill Clinton, in an interview with Chris Wallace to be aired on FoxNews Sunday (check your local listings), became incensed, and launched into a screaming harangue, when Wallace suggested that Clinton may have missed the chance to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

Hmmm ... let’s look at just a small handful of no doubt hundreds of thousands of comments made by respected experts and pundits in the years since the debacle known as the Clinton administration:

From the book ‘Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America’ by Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II (thanks, Mia T, for the steer):

It would take a year and a half for the House of Representatives, the people’s body, to begin stripping away the Clinton administration’s camouflage disguising the truth about Communist China. In May of 1999 a select Congressional committee, in a unanimous bipartisan vote, identified President Clinton’s betrayal of his most sacred trust – safeguarding the national security of America. This is President Clinton’s legacy ...

After a five-month struggle with the Clinton White House over the report’s declassification and release, Cox and Dicks revealed the conclusion of their committee’s six-month investigation: The PRC has stolen America’s most advanced nuclear weapons secrets, and Chinese espionage ‘almost certainly continues today’ ...

The thesis of this work is simple: The democratic countries are about to be unpleasantly surprised by the emergence of a hostile, expansionist, nondemocratic superpower armed with the most modern weapons … and it will be our fault ...

In short, through a misguided foreign policy that has sacrificed national security for money and personal political power, the Clinton-Gore administration has materially assisted Bejing’s military ambitions.


Adding a few more dots in the depressing connect-the-dots exercise …

In November 2004, Iran gave China the rights to exploit the giant Yadavaran field. Importantly, China plans to bring this oil into China, not across the Indian Ocean and through the Malacca Straits, but by pipeline across central Asia, free from the surveillance of the US fleet. China’s attitude to Iran is foretold; it has refused to condemn Sudan over the killings in Darfur since Sudan allowed it to build a 500-mile pipeline to the coast. Ahmadinejad can therefore be 100 per cent certain that China will veto any attempt to win UN approval for military intervention in Iran … Will Hutton in U.K.’s Obsever

China supplies arms to Iran. Some of its firms are suspected of supplying missile technology and dual-use chemical weapons-related production equipment … Many suspect that Iran has continued to get Chinese help directly or indirectly through Pakistan or North Korea … Tehran has evidently acquired the technology to turn the yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride gas both by using lasers and centrifuges. This can be used to make nuclear weapon … earlywarning.com

The successful effort by China to obtain U.S. microchip technology included espionage, sabotage and perhaps bribery. The red intelligence windfall freed the Chinese army to more accurately target American cities with atomic weapons using advanced U.S technology … The legacy that President Clinton left for the 21st century is a modern Chinese army equipped for global nuclear war … Charles R. Smith, President and CEO of SOFTWAR, and leading expert on cyber technology and its implications for war and terrorism

In all likelihood we will be glowing in the dark before we discover the true extent of the Clinton decade of betrayal … Rick Fisher, Asian Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy

Yet the same man who single-handedly oversaw the most treasonous acts in the history of this republic, placing personal political power over maintaining the integrity of our national sovereignty and security, became incensed (take a look -- He is even more red-faced and enraged than he was in the 'I ... did ... not ... have ... sex ... with ... that ... woman!' episode) when Chris Wallace suggested that he dropped the ball in his ‘efforts’ to corner Osama bin Laden.


(Help me out here. Where have I witnessed that wagging finger before?)

The accusation that Clinton fumbled the ball when he had the opportunity to capture bin Laden absolutely pales in comparison to the knowledge that he provided our greatest ideological enemy with dozens of advanced technological devices and systems (including, but by no means limited to, radiation hardened chip sets which are critical for atomic warfare and are required by advanced nuclear tipped missiles), which China apparently intends to share with other hostile countries, and which are surely destined to represent the means to destroy the nation he was elected to protect and defend.

9/22/2006

Our Government -- Hypocritical?


(If you look real closely, you can see the “fence” ….. )

Something occurred to me the other day while watching a program on the history channel. It seems that many of the American Indian people like the Navaho were not given the right to vote here in America until the early and mid part of the last century. It seems that even the females here in America waited a long time to get the vote. Right now if you are an illegal living here in America, however, you can get a driver’s license and the vote without even being a citizen, not to mention the other benefits that they receive.

Now this seems to me to be very hypocritical of our government. How is it that citizens of our great land were denied the vote and we can just allow those who arrive in our great land to illegally vote in our elections? You and I never voted to give them this vote and we never allowed our government to vote to give them the vote. So how did this happen?

One thing we all know is our two party system here in America is about an even split. This makes it very difficult when a third party comes along and enters a race for office. Many times our elected offices are filled with a person who never got the majority of the vote, or they lose the race by a very small margin. If one party can get the majority of the illegals to vote their way, then they can once more win elections and keep the power of being in a majority in all offices. I have a strong belief that this is what is behind this effort.

The problem is that, to get the illegals to vote for them, they must give those privileges you and I must pay for. This gives them housing, jobs, drivers licenses, medical benefits, and other social programs. The party that appears to give them these privileges will then get their vote, which will break the even split.

To get the illegals to come and stay, the laws are ignored by those who have the power to enforce them. The criminals are not captured and sent back by our government and there is no effort to stop them from entering our country.

This has angered the majority of Americans and rightly so. We see our tax dollars being spent on criminals and our medical and school system being over run by criminals who have no legal right to be here. The worst of all this abuse is they are given rights under our Constitution. Many Americans who have immigrated to this nation and become citizens through the legal system we have in place for doing this feel cheated and abused. Who can blame them?

Our upcoming election will be critical to this issue and I think many people who will win office will do so by promising to do something about this abuse of all Americans by these criminals.

The one thing I find most egregious about all of this is many of these illegals are also breaking many of our other laws. They have formed gangs, import drugs and cause all kinds of crimes in our society from murder to simple assaults. Our over-crowded correction systems are further crowded. Again, our tax dollars are paying to keep them in our systems.

It’s time to stop this stupid violation of our laws and hospitality. The way to stop it is by enforcing our laws, deporting illegals and closing our borders. If anyone running for office is unwilling to take this on and bring it to a stop, then that person doesn’t deserve your vote.

God bless America and God bless our troops still in harm's way.

by Michael E. Cook
Sheriff of Coos County, Oregon, retired

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

9/21/2006

List of Questions You Will Never
See the Media Ask Democrats
During the Mid Term Debates

How many Democrats so far have been quoted on Al Jazeera TV standing against our nation?

You say it is possible to support the troops in Iraq but not their mission? How is that possible?

You refuse to identify the estate tax as its rightful name the death tax. Why?

Democrats have stated that military generals and soldiers oppose our President in Iraq. What percentage of the vote do you expect to receive from our military overseas after the mid term election if you accept their absentee ballot at all?

You state you can keep America safe, yet your party gave a pass to a congresswomen (Cynthia McKinney) who assaulted a police officer as she was stopped going through a metal detector. How does that make us feel safe?

You state you want election reform but when the idea of a national ID card was being presented as a prerequisite for US citizens to vote you disappear? Are you still encouraging illegal immigrants and convicts to vote for your side?

Why do you fear the second amendment and why do you keep referring to our United States Constitution as a Living Document?

You blame President Bush for Hurricane Katrina. If there is ever an earthquake in California will you forgive the San Andreas Fault and restate it "Bush’s Fault"?

Many Republicans during the debate House RES.861 have stated to you that the mainstream media has only focused on negative news stories in Iraq promoting failure. Do you agree or disagree? Would you ever under any circumstance condemn treasonous behavior by our liberal media?

The economy and stock market are doing very well. What contribution will the Democrats make after the election other than growing big government?

Whose ideology do you fall more in line with fighting the war on terrorism? Would it be the United Nations that ignored resolution 1441 and was involved in the Oil for Food Scandal? The U.N. that is now ignoring Iran's nuclear threat? Or would you go with our President who is sworn to protect our country by following the Constitution of the United States when there is a clear and present danger?

You state that there were no connections between Al Qaida and Iraq prewar yet what information have you read about Operation Able Danger, The Harmony Database (Docex Project) or Salman Pak?

Is there not a left wing mainstream media? Is Bernard Goldberg wrong?

Many Democrats stated Saddam would never be caught and Zarqawi could never be killed. Should they regret that?

How have illegal immigrants gained access to our medical care? How did their qualifying for government assistance bankrupt our hospitals while our seniors worry about their own health care coverage as citizens?

Why do Democrats appoint judges that legislate from the bench? Why are these judges giving lenient sentences to sex offenders, advocating for abortion rights, loathing religion and not having a problem with the Supreme Court's eminent domain rulings that take away property rights?

Who would best represent the mission statement for your party? Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Al Gore, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Jersey Girls, Harry Bellefonte, Madonna, Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, DailyKos.com, John Stewart from the Daily Show or all of the above?

Is it more important to teach to children political correctness and cultural sensitivity agendas in our schools before the basics such as math, english or spelling?

by Chris Donohoe

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)