Friday, September 29, 2006

Wisdom Of Ronald Reagan

"Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I’m here to help."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."

"The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t take the civil service exam."

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

"I’ve laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

Thanks to NewsMax for this group of quotes.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Conspiracy Against Common Sense

by Joe Soucheray - September 27th, 2006 - St. Paul Pioneer Press

The other day I learned that gas prices are arranged by the Bush administration. That had not previously occurred to me, any more than they might arrange the price of computers or yogurt. One of the cable news channels did a piece on the theory that Republicans are conspiring to pressure big oil to lower the prices. Bloggers and activists and the always-available roster of college professors offered the belief — some of them, hearing themselves, seemed sheepish — that lower gas prices would get more Republicans elected in November.

Even the Gallup Poll weighed in. According to its research, 42 percent of those polled agreed with the following statement: "The Bush administration deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.''

And of those who believe such a thing, nearly two-thirds are registered Democrats. Wow. Talk about enough said.

Let me see if I understand: We have — living in America, perhaps right in our own neighborhoods — a frightening number of people who believe the Bush administration is capable of lowering gas prices. That can only mean these same people believe Bush, in fact, caused Hurricane Katrina, which knocked out gulf oil supplies, driving up the prices, but now, so close to the election, Bush has decided against hurricanes, of which there currently are none.

Man alive, I thought Bill Clinton was the smart one, and he never got credit for starting and stopping hurricanes or raising and lowering gas prices. Bush manages to control nature itself, while at the same time we are told daily in the editorial pages what a dummy he is.

I do not understand how anyone can be so stupid that they believe this. Yet college educated friends have insisted to me in the last week that they believe Bush is driving down the price of gas. Sometimes you really do have to have a lot of faith to continue to believe in democracy in the face of such infantile stupidity.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Clinton Doth Protest Too Much

by Andrew Klavan - September 26th, 2006 - Los Angeles Times

"There's no limit to what a man can do," President Reagan used to say, " … if he doesn't care who gets the credit."

Former President Clinton's motto seems to be a little different: "There's no limit to how much credit a man can get, if he doesn't care what he's actually done."

There are occassions when even the liberal extremists of the Main Stream Media (MSM) cannot quite tolerate something one of the left's darlings does or says. Howard Dean learned that lesson when he blew his cool. Clinton is now learning that lesson too. For the same reason. He blew his cool.

This is an excellent article by the liberal Los Angeles Times which explains clearly why Clinton will never be considered a good President. It is also a reminder of the facts of Clinton's President with regard to the islamofascist movement, written by someone who is not an opponent. It may be the closest anyone will get to the truth . . . something in very short supply in our current political environment.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

A Combative Clinton
Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism

by Michael Grunwald - September 24th, 2006 - Washington Post

Former President Faults Neocons for Inaction on Bin Laden

Former president Bill Clinton angrily defended his administration's counterterrorism record during a Fox News interview to be aired today, while accusing "President Bush's neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring Osama bin Laden until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Clinton had planned to discuss his climate change initiative during his appearance on "Fox News Sunday," but he turned combative after host Chris Wallace asked why he hadn't "put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business." Clinton shot back that "all the conservative Republicans" who now criticize him for inattention to bin Laden used to criticize him for over-attention to bin Laden.

Do you remember the last time Bill Clinton got angry and wagged his finger at the American people? It was when he said "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I challenge anyone to provide a link to even one neo-conservative who ever criticized President Clinton for doing too much about terrorism, the rising problem of islamofascism or Bin Laden. It was Bin Laden himself who insisted that Clinton's gutlessness in Somalia was the reason they decided to escalate the war and attempt what became 9/11. The criticism from neo-cons was that unless Clinton was going to allow our troops to fight, they should be withdrawn. Why was fighting not an option? Is Clinton ever going to answer that specific insult to his legacy besides avoiding it as he does here?

As far as his claim that the Bush administration did not hold meetings on Bin Laden for 9 months, it was reported that the President, Vice President, Powell, Rice and Tenet held a meeting 2 days after 9/11 to discuss Bin Laden and that was only 7 months and 2 weeks after Bush took office. Typical Clinton not getting things right. However when he was accused of having an affair with Gennifer Flowers and the time frame was off by a couple of months he claimed the accusation was a "total lie" as if he never had the affair.

Many of the people in positions of power in the Bush Administration on 9/11 were still Clinton holdovers including his buddy Clarke. Why did they not go public until much later with this claim that "they had a plan"? It was not until the obvious negative impact on the war against islamofascism of the Jamie Gorelick "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that they started attacking the Bush administration. Standard Clinton strategy. When you are wrong, attack. He learned this from the slimy James Carville.

What I want to know is what was on those papers that Clinton's boy, Sandy Berger, stole from the national archives and destroyed?

People don't lose it when you confront them with false information. They lose it when what you confront them with the truth. Watching Clinton lose his cool was like watching the maniac Howard Dean when he blew it.

Clinton blew his cool. I have not stopped grinning yet!

Saturday, September 23, 2006

ACLU: Conceived In Tyranny

Editorial - September 21st, 2006 - Investor's Business Daily

The Enemy Within: From the beginning, the American Civil Liberties Union has aligned itself with America's adversaries. Its unrelenting strategy has been to twist our Constitution into a weapon against American values and security.

ACLU founder and longtime executive director Roger Baldwin's infamous quote still haunts his organization today, a quarter-century after the radical activist's death:

"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

What is sad is that the VAST majority of members of the democratic party support the ACLU and consider its still open practice of fostering communism (or you can say socialism if you want to pretend it is not the same thing) a good thing.

If you do not believe that the freedom of America is based on the free ability to work as hard as you like, and enjoy the rewards of your work, then it is my contention that you do not know what America is. To argue that you can work to replace free enterprise with socialism and that is not anti-American is not logical. Yet many people believe this is so.

What makes the ACLU so evil is that they claim they are not anti-American. However the ACLU stands for socialism, socialism is tyranny and America does not stand for tyranny. If you are uncertain about this truism, go back and read Frederick Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". If you haven't read it, go to the library today and read it. Unless you understand how evil socialism is, organizations like the ACLU may be able to presuade you that they are not anti-American.

But they are.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Are Videotaped Beheading Covered By Geneva?

by Ann Coulter - September 20th, 2006 -

It turns out, the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities -- be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."


But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese -- enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

John McCain does not care about the Constitution. Claiming that turning over control of whether you have the right to participate in the last 90 days of a campaign to a pack of liberal democrat bureacrats (who have never shown much lack of bias against those they consider political enemies) was OKAY with John. Now McCain has decided that people who are currently beheading those they disagree with are doing this in response to supposed outrage that we are giving people who have violated all the rules of war three square meals a day down at Guantanamo.

Even worse, John thinks that if we give them the "rights" liberal judges have granted to criminals, they will stop torturing our soldiers. John, the last two they captured were tortured and butchered because these people are savages, not because of anything we did at Guantanamo.

It is articles like this that cause many on the right to see Ann Coulter as a hero. She has accurately ridiculed what should be ridiculed. This whole idea of letting the incompetent buffoons who have destroyed so many lives here in America by turning our criminal justice system into a revolving door joke have any say in waging war is wrong. Judges must not be allowed to take over and provide rights to enemies of our nation. Terrorists captured by our soldiers while fighting them in enemy countries don't have Constitutional rights. The courts, especially our courts, are not competent to wage and win a war.

Anyone who says they do is an enemy of our nation too.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Jihad Enablers

by Jonah Goldberg - September 20th, 2006 -
Before you can discuss the manifest seriousness of the latest controversy involving the pope, you have to acknowledge its hilarity. Pope Benedict XVI, in an austere philosophical address, invoked Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the 14th century ruler who offered a harsh assessment of Islam. While the Koran says, "There is no compulsion in religion," Manuel couldn't help but notice that Muslims were setting up more franchises in his neighborhood than Starbucks - and they weren't doing so by selling the best darn Mocha Frappuccinos on his side of the Bosphorus Straits.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new," Manuel complained sometime around the siege of Byzantium, "and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his [Mohammad's] command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Why Pope Benedict quoted Manuel is hotly debated. But one explicit reason was to enunciate the Church's opposition to using faith to justify violence or intolerance.

And this is where the hilarity comes in. A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman responded: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

During Friday prayers in Iran, a senior cleric changed his usual script to denounce the pope, but the crowd of worshippers hadn't seen the memo, so they chanted back the usual refrain: "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

So the Pope is merely a front man for the jews of Israel and America? Benedict usually condemns Israel so it is hard to see where they get that opinion from. Certainly there is strong evidence that liberal Catholics like Benedict can be counted on to defend Muslims against Israel and castigate America for our failure to avoid annoying the islamofascists. It is equally hard to see how our actions seem to be so annoying islamofascists in Indonesia that they are killing thousands of Buddhists in that country. Buddhists are American supporters? I don't think so.

Democrats want us to start a dialog with these islamofascists. I don't understand how you start a dialog with people who say that you must stop taking any actions which offend us and convert to our religion or we will behead you. Where exactly do you start the dialog? On your knees praying to Allah?


Tuesday, September 19, 2006

N.C. Public Works Earn Mediocre Grade

by Bruce Siceloff - Septermber 19th, 2006 - News & Observer

North Carolina needs to invest tens of billions of dollars to rejuvenate its aging roads, schools and water systems and to support economic growth, a professional engineers' group said in a report released Monday.


The state's roads also earned a D grade for poor pavement condition, worsening congestion and a widening shortfall in funds needed to keep up with traffic growth. North Carolina trails most states in supplying enough roads to handle congestion, the report said.

"Congested highways, outdated schools, corroding bridges -- they're all constant reminders, and you see them all around you," Grant K. Autry of Raleigh, a former president of the engineering group's 2,500-member North Carolina chapter, said at a news conference. "The infrastructure situation out there is a looming crisis that jeopardizes our nation's prosperity and our quality of life."

It is especially appropriate to read this article while we are pushing so hard for the Inner Banks Scenic Parkway. As bad as the road situation is throughout North Carolina, it is worse right here in the Inner Banks. We need the North South corridor of U.S. 17 / U.S. 13 finished, we need U.S. 158 and U.S. 264 widened and we need the Inner Banks Scenic Parkway.

However I question the "Mediocre Grade" evaluation in the title as being harsh enough for what is really happening. It is good to find that the dire situation created by the State's Democratic leadership is starting to be noticed.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Camden County Republicans
Hold Campaign Rally

Walter Jones, U.S. Congressman from this area of North Carolina, was the keynote speaker for a great campaign rally today. Along with a powerful speech from State Senate Candidate Ron Toppin, attendees heard an enthusiastic endorsement of voting for the Republican ticket in this area.

Republican Campaign Rally Headquarters

This was an old style rally with lots of enthusiasm for the Republican Party, and all of their candidates.

Candidates Pat Duckwall, Walter Jones, Michael McClain, Phil Faison, Ron Toppin And John Flora

Local candidate for Sheriff, Pat Duckwall, had a huge banner just inside the door, where several of his supporters gathered for some informal discussions of politics.

Pat Duckwall, Candidate For Sheriff Of Camden County, Gets Lots Of Support

Two other candidates that are well loved in this area are Judicial Candidate John Flora and Candidate for State Senate Ron Toppin. Ron is running against the powerful but ethically challenged Marc Basnight.

Judicial Candidate John Flora And State Senate Candidate Ron Toppin Discuss Issues

Ron and U.S. Congressman Walter Jones are old friends and spent some time talking about this year's campaigns.

Keynote Speakers U.S. Congressman Walter Jones And State Senate Candidate Ron Toppin Before The Event

Perry Morrow, Chairman Of Camden County Republican Party, Introduces Speakers

As the formal speeches got started, Camden County GOP Chairman Perry Morrow greeted all of the attendees, made sure everyone knew where the free food was, and got the program rolling.

U.S. Congressman From NC, Walter Jones

Then Ron and Walter made their speeches to get the crowd revved up.

Senate Candidate Ron Toppin

It was a great day.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Making A Decision On Iran

by Charles Krauthammer - Septermber 15th, 20906 -
WASHINGTON -- In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not ``leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.

The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ``It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''

``Before'' implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.

The costs will be terrible:

Do you know what country has an official "Death to America" day?

Do you think that these people are joking?

Do you wish to withdraw from the middle east and expect someone else to deal with the problem?

Tell me your answers to these three quesstions and I would like to think I could tell you whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. However this is now becoming unclear. To me it seems that our nation has a large element that has totally lost touch with reality. The world is what it is. Wishful thinking will get you dead. Doubt that? Ask the 6 million jews who thought they could get along with Hitler. At the time "He can't be that bad" was the contstant refrain.

Today we have more and more who are saying, "let's just get out of Iraq and let them solve their own problems." The problem is that they are going to solve their problems . . . . by blowing up the world, starting with Israel and America.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Why The Clintonistas Did Not Want You
To See "The Path to 9/11"

by Larry Elder - September 14th, 2006 -
Before the airing of ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11," former members of the Clinton administration and several Democratic senators complained about the docudrama's "fabrications" and "lies" in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, ABC's parent company.


Bottom line, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter. And neither he nor former members of his administration want Americans to understand or remember this.

Thanks Larry. You will not see this in the MSM.

Larry Elder is one writer who gets annoyed by the democrats attempts to rewrite history. The beserk attempt to suppress this docudrama is on a par with the attempt to whitewash Jamie Gorelick's actions. Is anything more bizarre than assignement of Gorelick to the commission so she can evaluate her own performance. She successfully hid accountability for any of her actions to create the uselss and illegal "wall" which was the primary reason for our intelligence failures. How can the "9/11 Commision" be said to have done a good job when they sat there and never challenged Gorelick's self serving defense of her own actions? This was done as a committee member!

There is still no rational justification for letting someone who had such a critical role in Clinton's administration to be allowed to serve on the "9/11 Commision" which looked at what was done. Democrats appear to have successfully hidden once again the ridiculous efforts by the Clinton administration to treat war as a crime and use the criminal justice system to fight it rather than as a war.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Couric Starts 2nd Week In 3rd Place

by Michael Learmonth - September 12th, 2006 - Variety

Katie Couric's "Evening News" fell to third place Monday night, just six nights after she stormed into first in her debut week at CBS.


CBS' fall to third was received with no small amount of glee in the news departments of NBC and ABC, which had little to do last week but stand by and wonder how many viewers who sampled her show would stick around long-term.

Ah, the Main Stream Media (MSM). Variety calls Katies new position 3rd place. What they overlook is that 3rd place is LAST PLACE. There is no 4th place amoung the networks. I wonder if Katie feels justified in taking her reported $15 million in salary for being in last place?

Perhaps "Quirky" Katie can re-run her special on her colonoscopy and get her ratings back up. Now that is prime time news. Certainly more important than the war in the middle east or the campaign for control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Katie Couric's colonoscopy. Yuck.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Rules of Evidence

by Thomas Joscelyn - September 8th, 2006 - The Daily Standard (The Weekly Standard)
A new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions.

The committee's staff made little effort to determine whether or not the testimony of former Iraqi regime officials was truthful. In fact, Saddam Hussein and several of his top operatives--all of whom have an obvious incentive to lie--are cited or quoted without caveats of any sort. In Saddam's debriefing it was suggested that he may cooperate with al Qaeda because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." According to the report, "Saddam answered that the United States was not Iraq's enemy. He claimed that Iraq only opposed U.S. policies. He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China."

Anyone with even a partial recollection of the controversy surrounding Iraq in the 1990s will recall that Saddam made it a habit of cursing and threatening the United States. His annual January "Army Day" speeches were laced with threats and promises of retaliation against American assets. That is, when Saddam claimed that the United States was "not Iraq's enemy," he was quite obviously lying. But nowhere in the staff's report is it noted that Saddam's debriefing was substantially at odds with more than a decade of his rhetoric.

The drumbeat of attacks on the Bush administration by liberal democrats is simply amazing. Anyone who seriously wants to know why many people consider the democrats who are attacking the war and supporting withdrawal to be "appeasers" needs only review the history in this article. Noted democrats who have a public history of supporting the contention that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allied, now claim they never believed this. Not that they have changed their minds, but that they never believed it. Their statements and actions are simply ignored as they attack the current administration.

Any dialog about public matters requires that we at least agree on the facts. There are times when opinion and fact are arguable. However democrats today practice a form of dialog that is not just based on lies, but brazen lies that fly in the face of known facts, including statements they have previously made. There are a small number of Republicans who practice the same arrogance, but it is my contention that they are marginal at best. Only in the democrat party has the practice of arrogant lies become standard operating procedure.

Is this because the MSM is so supportive of the democrat's attacks that they know the lies will never get reported?

Friday, September 08, 2006

Is The Western Way Of War Dead?

by Victor Davis Hanson - September 8th, 2006 - National Review Online
Is the Western Way of War Dead?

Not yet, but it may soon be irrelevant.


The real problem is not that the Islamists have crafted a new way of warfare, but that we could lose this war at home without being defeated by the enemy on the battlefield.

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the best writer's of the modern era. He often makes truly brilliant points and I think this article is one of them. If anyone wants to understand why many accuse democrats of appeasement and treason when they defend the "rights" of the islamofascists, this article makes the case well.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

President Demands Prior Restraint
Over Conservative Professor

by Mike Adams - September 4th, 2006 -

Dennis the First Amendment Menace

Although I’ve been writing about free speech issues for years, I’ve never actually called for the immediate firing of a university president. That is, until today. Anyone remotely familiar with the part SUNY-Fredonia President Dennis Hefner (716-673-3456; played in denying the promotion of Stephen Kershnar must surely agree.


I have a special name for college administrators who are willing to withhold a promotion (and the money that goes with it) from a professor until he agrees to permanently relinquish his First Amendment rights. I call them academic extortionists.

When did liberals abandon all their principals? And since they have, why would anyone be a liberal anymore?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Justice For Scooter Libby

Editorial - September 3rd, 2006 - New York Post
Still, [Colin] Powell emerges from all this as damaged goods - and rightly so.

He gets a call from his No. 2, who admits to leaking the Plame-Wilson info - the focus of a huge furor. But does Powell tell this to his boss, the president of the United States?


Rather, according to Isikoff, Powell directed State Department counsel to give the White House a bare minimum of information - and to leave Armitage out of it. He let the investigation expand, fester and envelop the White House, the vice president's office and elsewhere.

In a time of war, when the president and his team needed to be fully focused on far bigger issues, the administration was distracted by a "non-scandal" that Colin Powell could have stopped at a moment's notice.

Though he has left the administration, Powell's betrayal by not speaking up has had major ramifications.

There is no question but that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should be charged with prosecutorial abuse. He certainly should be fired. It is now clear that no crime was commmitted in outing Valerie Plame, outing her was not done by the Bush Whitehouse as charged, there was no conspiracy to punish Joe Wilson (the liar), and that Scooter Libby could not have been lying in furtherance of a conspiracy that did not exist.

Patrick Fitzgerald has essentially charged Libby with numerous felonies on the basis of one disagreement about what was said at a single interview between Lbby and the reporter who was there. However Fitzgerald has insisted that since there was a conspiracy (which there wasn't) Libby knowingly lied to federal investigators.

There was a time in this nation when the American Court system was not a system of blackmail and extortion, but that time has long since passed. Our court system is the most corrupt and immoral court system in the world. Our Judges should all be impeached, from top to bottom. This FARCE is simply one more example of how evil our system has become.

If either Patrick Fitzgerald or Colin Powell are not punished for what they have done there is no justice. However this is America, and today, there is no justice in America. Nothing will happen to either.

The Plamegate Hall Of Shame

by Fred Barnes - Pubished in the 09/11/2006 Issue - The Weekly Standard

. . . the Plamegate Hall of Shame consists of favorites of the Washington elite and the mainstream press. The reaction, therefore, has been zero outrage and minimal coverage. The appropriate step for the press would be to investigate and then report in detail how it got the story so wrong, just as the New York Times and other media did when they reported incorrectly that WMD were in Saddam's arsenal in Iraq. Don't hold your breath for this.

Not everyone got the story wrong. The Senate Intelligence Committee questioned Wilson under oath. It found that, contrary to his claims, his wife had indeed arranged for the CIA to send him to Niger in 2002. It found that his findings had not, contrary to Wilson's claim, circulated at the highest levels of the administration. And Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union to the effect that British intelligence believed Saddam had sought uranium in Africa--words Wilson insisted were fictitious--had been twice confirmed as true by none other than the British government.

Worse, Wilson failed in the single reason for his trip to Niger: to ferret out the truth about whether Iraq had sought uranium there. Wilson said no, dismissing a visit by Iraqis in 1999. But journalist Christopher Hitchens learned the trade mission was led by an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat. And uranium, of course, was the only thing Niger had to trade.

This article tells the truth about a story that has been a lie from the beginning. However don't expect anything like justice to happen. Scooter Libby has had his life destroyed by a lie. As usual Geoge Bush is too concerned with his own problems to do anything to help Libby. Pardoning him and bringing charges against Fitzgerald would be the honorable thing to do. It will not happen.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Fascists, Lies and Presidential Videotape

by Curly Morris - September 1, 2006 - Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

I've been called many things in my life, but I never expected to be called a fascist by the Secretary of Defense.

Actually Curly, he did not call you a fascist. He said that the people we are at war with are fascist and that you are wrong to think that fighting them in the middle east, including Iraq, is not the best policy. Rumsfield's boss, Bush was even careful to say that he did not think you were an appeaser for having your view. He said you were well intentioned but wrong.

My opinion is that Bush was wrong when he gave you credit for not being an appeaser. No one who so egregiously mis-states the comments of another, as you did here, can claim the moral high ground. Your comments are extremely offensive.

There are a few other of your comments I would like to disagree with too, so I am going to include a few more quotes than usual from your article to make it clearer what I am responding to.

Here goes.

For my politically challenged readers, fascism is defined as a governmental concept that is led by a dictator that has complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

So, declaring yourself the winner of an election where you received 47 percent of the total vote when your main competition received 48 percent doesn't make you a fascist?

George Bush did not declare himself the victor. The U.S. Supreme Court, by 7 to 2, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to overturn the Florida Secretary of State affirmation of the Democratic Party Controlled Boards of Election vote counts in two Florida Counties which were accurate under the rules in place at the time of the election. They stopped the Florida Supreme Court from "inventing" a new state law to allow a recount by their rules, since the U.S. Constitution provides that the rules must be made by the Florida Legislature, not the Florida Supreme Court. Part of the reason is that the Florida court wrote rules that were so biased in Gore's favor they were an embarassment. I repeat that ruling was made by 7 to 2. Even a democrat should have to concede that is a pretty solid victory. But you don't!

It has always astonished me that all these nationwide democrat partisans who claim Bush stole the election ignore that the vote counts they insist should have been overturned were made by two Boards of Election that are overwhelmingly controlled by Democratic Party officials.

It is also curious that the court vote that is always touted by democrat partisans is the 5 to 4 vote by the Supreme Court as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than the Florida Supreme Court, could "invent" new rules to do a recount that would be a better set of rules than the Florida Legislature had written. 5 Justices ruled that the election had been run by the rules in force at the time, properly passed by the Florida Legislature as the U.S. Consitution provides, and the election was therefore over. That ruling merely stated neither the U.S. Supreme Court or the Florida Supreme Court could "invent" new rules to hold another recount which the law in Florida did not allow. However the original ruling was by 7 to 2 that the election had been run properly.

To claim this means Bush declared himself the victor is so stupid it would not be worth addressing again, except you had the audacity to write it. You don't like the result so you lie about what happened. Anyway, even the pro democrat Miami papers have since written that under the biased Florida Supreme Court rules for a recount, BUSH WOULD STILL HAVE WON!

During an interview at the White House last week, President Bush was asked by Cox News' Ken Herman what Iraq had to do with 9/11.

"Nothing," Bush said. "Absolutely nothing."

If you don't believe me, the press conference is posted all over the Internet.

Bush had just as well made that statement to the families of every soldier killed or maimed in the Iraq war.

I can't imagine how the mother of a child blown up by Iraqi insurgents must have felt when she heard that.

Actually this is a rather amusing charge for you to make. Bush has never said that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The charge that Bush has claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 is a lie invented and repeated by democrats.

The argument Bush and the neo-conservatives made has always been that the islamofascist movement and its many factions were supported by Saddam (check out the $25,000 payments made to Hamas and Hezbollah suicide bombers by Saddam - and the Saddam support for Al Zarqawi who was both Al Qaeda and head of Saddam's foreign forces) and that for a list of reasons, we needed to remove Saddam from power to reduce the chances of his getting and giving these radicals access to nuclear bombs. Since the major work being done for an Iraq bomb was being carried on within the Lybian nuclear program, Qaddafi's giving up his nuclear program actually means that is one accomplishment that cannot be taken away from Bush. I know it doesn't stop you from pretending it did not happen, but it did!

Those who support the war believe that we are trying to stop nuclear bombs from going off here. You dismiss this happening. Under your illusion about the islamofascists they are mad about us invading Iraq. So why have they bombed and attacked us repeatedly for 30 years?

Your simplistic dismissal of the arguments made by neo-conservatives, as you did with your comments above, merely proves you are unwilling to honestly discuss the merits of the war.

Your article is nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks on Bush and all Republicans who disagree with you. What I find amusing is that you and Pat Buchanan agree on this. Buchanan smears Bush with the same attacks at every opportunity. There is a major argument going on inside the Republican Party with neoconservatives on one side and Buchanan on the other. Who would have thought you and Buchanan would have so much in common!

Including it would seem the willingness to use ad hominem attacks against anyone you disagree with.

Friday, September 01, 2006

American Hiroshima

by Mark M. Alexander - September 1st, 2006 -

What, specifically, is the threat posed by these Islamic fascists? Is the threat limited to the occasional believer mowing down a few American Jews with an SUV?

Of course not. Nor is the threat limited to the sort of mass murder we witnessed five years ago this month in New York, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

Rather, as this column has stated time and again, the real threat posed by Islamic fascism comes in the form of a nuclear device in the hands of a terrorist surrogate. In the present case, the Cold War's deterrent doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) does not apply. A nuclear strike against the United States won't come in the form of a missile launch from silos on the other side of the world, or a submarine lurking off our shores. Rather, as a recent RAND study speculates, a nuclear terrorist attack against the U.S. will come from a cargo container aboard a freighter arrived in a U.S. port, or, alternately, transported across the porous southern border with the same mechanisms used to smuggle tens of thousands of illegal aliens every year.

This article really points out two different serious problems. The first is that most of our main stream media (MSM) will not even cover the growing problem with Islamic individuals taking an individual action to kill innocents. After all, we can't have people thinking this really is a war, now can we. (Sarcasm intentional)

The second problem is the more serious though. There really is little doubt that at some point nuclear bombs will be going off in America. This is becoming more and more certain as the Democratic Party continues to insist that any action to defend ourselves as if we are at war, hurts their chances of election, and is therefore "politicizing the war".