Thursday, November 02, 2006

Pelosi's (and other Dhimmicrats) War Blunder

From Washington Times (H/T Real Clear Politics):

By Jack Kingston
November 2, 2006

In a stunning performance on "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proved again why she cannot be trusted to keep America safe from the threat of global terrorism and Islamic extremists.

Mrs. Pelosi demonstrated that she does not understand the global nature of the threat when she stated flatly "the war on terror is the war in Afghanistan." She may think the war is limited to Afghanistan, but where does al Qaeda believe the war is? Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a letter to the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, was clear about the location of the global jihad and the importance of victory in Iraq:

"Victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world ... As for the battles that are going on in the far flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world."

Zawahiri reminds Iraqi terrorists, like Abu Musab Zarqawi, that God has blessed them "with the splendor of the spearhead of Jihad." Translation: Islamic fascists led by al Qaeda are fighting a global jihad to establish a Muslim caliphate from Egypt to Iraq. They will attack anyone, anywhere, with any means, that will further their violent cause.

Tourists in Indonesia, embassy workers in Africa, commuters in Spain and London, schoolchildren in Russia, office workers in New York and Washington, and 40 Americans on a plane over Pennsylvania could all tell Nancy Pelosi where the war on terror is, if their voices had not been silenced.

For Mrs. Pelosi, Iraq is not even part of the war on Islamic terrorism, while for our terrorist enemies Iraq is "the spearhead of jihad." Zawahiri's letter details a four-part strategy for global jihad starting with Iraq; "the first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq." In this first stage at least, Zawahiri seems to have found his "useful idiot" in Mrs. Pelosi.

She acknowledges that there are terrorists in Iraq, but naively submits that "they'll stay as long as we're there. They're there because we're there." What Mrs. Pelosi doesn't say is where she thinks the terrorists will go if we leave Iraq to fall into chaos. According to Mrs. Pelosi, our presence created the terrorists and when we leave they will put down their suicide belts and IEDs. She might want to read the rest of al Qaeda's plan before she is so sure:

"The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority ... over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq ... in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans ... The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq ... The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel."

Our actions to liberate Iraq from the butcher of Baghdad did not cause Islamic terrorists, but our premature departure will surely embolden them. Zawahiri's letter exhorts his followers to learn the lessons of history as "things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy... we must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies."

While we may not have entered Iraq to defeat al Qaeda, there is no doubt that al Qaeda has entered Iraq to defeat us and begin the defeat of all nations in the region who do not share their extreme view of an Islamic caliphate, under strict Sunni rule, stretching across the entire Middle East. Like Osama bin Laden's fatwas declaring war on the United States and the civilized world, Zawahiri points to American retreat from Vietnam for inspiration. Maybe Mrs. Pelosi can answer how giving al Qaeda what they want in Iraq will keep Americans safe and secure from Islamic terrorism in the future.

Al Qaeda knows that they are in a war with many fronts. Zawahiri concludes that "more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media ... we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma (people)." Part of the battle against terrorism is taking place in our media as well. Last week, Mrs. Pelosi lost one battle for our side. America cannot take the risk that she will lose the war.

Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican, is vice chairman of of the House Republican Conference and a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee.

Yet another useful idiot from the dhimmicrats. Now, we can question their patriotism.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Ted Kennedy: Alcoholic, Killer, KGB Agent?

From Cybercast News Service (special thanks to Political Dogs for the poster above):

Kennedy Offered to Help Soviets Thwart U.S. Policies, KGB Papers Show

By Kevin Mooney Staff Writer
November 02, 2006

( - While Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan in 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked in close concert with high level Kremlin officials to alter the direction of U.S. policy, according to documents made available through a KGB defector.

Details concerning Kennedy's correspondence with KGB agents are included in the writings of the late Vasiliy Mitrokhin who defected to Britain in 1992. The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980.

The exchange of information between Tunney and the KGB is included as part of a report Mitrokhin filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. The former KGB man continued to work with British intelligence until the time of his death.

Noted Cold War author and researcher Herbert Romerstein told Cybercast News Service Mitrokhin was a "highly credible source" with vast knowledge of the now-closed KGB archives.

Prior to his defection, Mitrokhin made meticulous copies of KGB documents by hand, explained Romerstein, who headed the U.S. government's Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures during the 1980s.

The KGB defector smuggled out six cases of notes that formed the basis of his reporting.

The KGB files Mitrokhin retrieved indicate that Kennedy fixed the blame for heightened international tensions on the Carter White House, not on the Kremlin. Kennedy at the time was challenging incumbent Carter for the Democratic nomination for president.

Tunney told his KGB counterparts that Kennedy was impressed by the foreign policy statements made by then General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. Kennedy saw in Brezhnev a leader who was firmly committed to the policy of "détente," the report said.

But, in Kennedy's estimation, the Carter administration had assumed an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan, Mitrokhin wrote.

In Kennedy's view, "the atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter" as well as by some key advisors, the Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex, the Mitrokhin report states.

Throughout the meeting Tunney remained focused on the separation between Kennedy's proposals and the official stance of the Carter White House. While official U.S. policy called for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, Kennedy avoided "touching the question of the legality of the presence of Soviet troops," Mitrokhin reported.

Instead, Kennedy relayed through his envoy, Tunney, his support for a withdrawal of Soviet forces that would be coupled with policy directives that "guaranteed non-interference" by competing foreign powers in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

Since there was intense disagreement between Kennedy and the administration on policy toward the Soviets, Tunney told the KGB that the Massachusetts senator had concluded "it was his duty to take action himself, which could force the Carter administration to act to de-escalate the crisis," Mitrokhin wrote.

In 1980 Kennedy lost to Carter in the Democratic primary, and the incumbent in turn lost to Ronald Reagan in the general election.

As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service Kennedy also subsequently made overtures to Soviet officials aimed at thwarting Reagan's military buildup in the 1980s.

Kennedy had offered to help the Soviets organize a public relations campaign in the U.S. that would dilute support for Reagan's policies. Once again, it was Tunney who traveled to Moscow on Kennedy's behalf to relay the senator's proposals.

The particulars of Kennedy's proposals are discussed in a letter dated May 14, 1983, that was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then general secretary. Romerstein acquired a copy of the letter from a contact in Moscow who had access to the Kremlin archives.

"The letter speaks to the degree of opposition and the lack of understanding liberals like Kennedy had toward Reagan's policies," said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"Reagan knew we had to build up our armed forces before we could apply pressure to the Soviets." The notion of fighting to win the Cold War was an alien concept to liberals like Kennedy, Edwards added, because they had grown accustomed to the policies of containment.

A copy of the letter is reproduced in a new book entitled "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism." The author, Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College.

The pattern of behavior should concern members of both political parties, Kengor said, because it shows Kennedy was willing to work against American foreign policy, regardless of who occupied the White House.

In his book, Kengor points out that Tunney acknowledged making 15 separate trips to the Soviet Union where he acted as an intermediary not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators.

'Clear violation'

Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, told Cybercast News Service Kennedy's activities were in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority."

The secret overtures to the KGB during the Reagan years were particularly insidious, Dunn said, because Tunney and Kennedy were working to undermine what ultimately proved to be a very successful policy that brought an end to the Cold War.

"If another country gets the idea that it can deal outside of official channels then that undermines presidential leadership," he said.

For his part, Romerstein said that Kennedy, and other senators, may have violated the Logan Act, which has been on the books since 1799, but is rarely enforced. The law prohibits American citizens from engaging in private diplomacy with a foreign government with the intention of influencing public policy.

At the same time, however, Romerstein cautions against viewing Kennedy as an agent for the Soviets. Instead, he said, it is appropriate to label him a "collaborationist" who sought out Soviet contacts to advance his own interests, not theirs.

When Kennedy spoke highly of Soviet leaders like Brezhnev and Andropov, he may have been "pretending," in an attempt to curry favor, Romerstein said.

"He [Kennedy] was no more loyal to the Soviets than he was to the United States.," Romerstein said.

Kennedy's office was contacted but declined to comment on the communication the senator had with the KGB, as reported in the Mitrokhin papers.

Now, we can question their patriotism.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

The Homosexual Agenda

Grins from Stop the ACLU blogburst:

The Homosexual Agenda
by kender on 10-31-06 @ 11:26 pm

Filed under ACLU
Wow, things are heavy this week, what with elections a week away with control of the country hanging in the balance. Then along comes this info from one of my operatives. I always knew there was a homosexual agenda, now we have the proof.

You’ve heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others speak of the“Homosexual Agenda,” but no one has ever seen a copy of it.

Well,someone managed to sneak into Homosexual Headquarters and got acopy…Here it is:


6 a.m. Gym

8 a.m. Breakfast (oatmeal and eggwhites)

9 a.m. Hair appointment

10 a.m. Shopping (Macy’s or Nordstrom)

12 p.m. Brunch

2 p.m.
(1) Assume complete control of U.S. Federal, state, and local governments,as well as all the other national governments

(2) Destroy all healthy marriages

(3) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with militant homosexuals who seek to recruit children for the homosexual lifestyle

(4) Bulldoze all houses of worship

(5) Seize control of Internet and all other media

(6) Be utterly fabulous

3 p.m. Beauty treatment to prevent facial wrinkles from the stresses ofworld conquest, followed by aromatherapy

4 p.m. Cocktails

5 p.m. Light dinner (soup, salad with arugula & balsamic vinegar dressing,Chardonnay)

8 p.m. Theater

10 p.m. Cocktails in a charming neighborhood bistro

12 a.m. Bed (du jour)

Wow. Thounds Fabulouth. I forgot to mention we should also bitch-slap those mean Republicans (except that hottie Mark Foley).

Nancy Pelosi's Sour Grapes

Typical liberal elitism-- Pelosi wants to keep the borders open to keep a steady flow of workers for her vineyards. From Investors Business Daily (H/T Bookworm Room)

Leaders: Rep. Nancy Pelosi has her own "grapes of wrath" scenario going on. Is her opposition to enhanced border security due to the fact that the House Democratic leader personally profits from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor?

If Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, the San Francisco Democrat will not only be the first female speaker, but also the richest. The liberal Center for Responsive Politics puts her net worth as high as $55 million.

There is no record of Pelosi's ever returning her portion of those "tax cuts for the rich" to the U.S. Treasury. Or any record, for that matter, of using her (dare we use the word?) windfall to give the workers at her Napa Valley vineyards a raise.

As Peter Schweizer notes in his best-selling expose of liberal hypocrisy, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)," part of the fortune of this defender of the working man is a Napa Valley vineyard worth $25 million that she owns with her husband. The vineyard produces expensive grapes for high-end wines. Napa grapes bring up to $4,000 a ton compared with $300 a ton for, say, San Joaquin grapes.

But Pelosi, winner of the 2003 Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers, hires only nonunion workers and sells these grapes to nonunion wineries. Schweizer places Pelosi in a chapter titled "Workers of the World Unite Somewhere Else." UFW members need not apply at the Pelosi family vineyards.

Which makes Pelosi's steadfast opposition to any attempts to enhance border security and stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. all the more interesting since she seems to be among those rich employers who financially benefit from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor.

She led the opposition and voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006 recently signed into law by President Bush to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

She opposed the Real ID Act of 2005, a valuable anti-terror tool, while bragging that Democrats under her leadership "defeated Republican attempts to restrict the easily forged Matricula Consular card" issued by the Mexican government.

She voted against a bill to make employers such as herself financially liable for hospital costs if undocumented employees seek medical attention, preferring that either taxpayers foot the bill or that hospitals close under the burden, as many are doing throughout the Southwest.

In 2005 she voted against barring the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens and against a requirement that businesses use an electronic system to verify whether new hires have the legal right to work in the U.S.

Nor has Pelosi been a fan of employer sanctions against the hiring of illegal aliens. In 2003, she accused immigration officers of conducting "terrorizing raids" on Wal-Mart stores that led to the arrest of more than 300 illegal aliens.

Loraine Stewart, a farmworker advocate with Napa Valley Community Housing, in a 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article estimated that half of the migrant labor force in the valley consisted of undocumented workers, without whom "not one bottle of wine would get made here."

The people coming across our southern border aren't just seeking better lives. They're joined by drug smugglers and an assortment of people with criminal records. There are also what Immigration and Customs Enforcement calls OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) among whom potential terrorists could sneak in undetected.

Pelosi apparently puts her financial interests above the security of this nation and the safety of its citizens, exploiting undocumented workers in the process. If the people at Immigration and Customs are looking for an employer to check out, we know this little vineyard in the Napa Valley.

Now, I think we can question her patriotism.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Seymour Hersh: A Leopard Never Changes His Spots

Seymour Hersh, military-bashing leftist, pulitzer prize winning writer (think Vietnam's My Lai massacre) is up to his old tricks: bashing the American military any way he can. Here's what this liberal traitor sh*tbag had to say, in this article from McGill Daily:

“There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq”
Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh slams Bush at McGill address

By Martin Lukacs
The McGill Daily

“The bad news,” investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told a Montreal audience last Wednesday, “is that there are 816 days left in the reign of King George II of America.” The good news? “When we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one less day.”

Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. government for nearly 40 years. Since his 1969 exposé of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, which is widely believed to have helped turn American public opinion against the Vietnam War, he has broken news about the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia, covert C.I.A. attempts to overthrow Chilean president Salvador Allende, and, more recently, the first details about American soldiers abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

During his hour-and-a-half lecture – part of the launch of an interdisciplinary media and communications studies program called Media@McGill – Hersh described video footage depicting U.S. atrocities in Iraq, which he had viewed, but not yet published a story about.

He described one video in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer.

“Three U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village, passing candy out to kids,” he began. “Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles, and they do what they’re told to do, which is look for running people.”

“Never mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control,” Hersh continued. “[The soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game.”

“About ten minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop weapons there. It was reported as 20 or 30 insurgents killed that day,” he said.

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Hersh came out hard against President Bush for his involvement in the Middle East.

“In Washington, you can’t expect any rationality. I don’t know if he’s in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn’t do it, or because it’s the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program,” he said.

Hersh hinted that the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with eight or nine members of the administration who have a “neo-conservative agenda” and dictate the U.S.’s post-September 11 foreign policy.

“You have a collapsed Congress, you have a collapsed press. The military is going to do what the President wants,” Hersh said. “How fragile is democracy in America, if a president can come in with an agenda controlled by a few cultists?”

Throughout his talk Hersh remained pessimistic, predicting that the U.S. will initiate an attack against Iran, and that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate further. “There’s no reason to see a change in policy about Iraq. [Bush] thinks that, in twenty years, he’s going to be recognized for the leader he was – the analogy he uses is Churchill,” Hersh said. “If you read the public statements of the leadership, they’re so confident and so calm…. It’s pretty scary.”

What's scary is this dipsh*t is roaming the streets. Put this nutjob in a straight jacket and put him away.

I take exception to many of his comments. For example, he says that returning Vietnam soldiers were treated with disdain, as baby killers... that is a myth that's been blown out of proportion in the popular media. Most Vietnam era vets that I've talked to were greeted with open arms when they returned.

Maybe he and John Kerry should hook up (if they haven't already). Cowards R Us.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Is Islam inherently violent? [Rhetorical Question]

From WorldNet Daily:

New blockbuster, 'Religion of Peace?,' reveals disturbing facts
Posted: November 2, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006

It's the secret question in official Washington, D.C., in the Pentagon, and in the White House. It's the question that is so radioactive that most in government and the press dare not even pose it, let alone answer it:

Is Islam inherently violent and expansionist?

In the days following 9/11, President Bush assured America and the world that Islam was a "religion of peace" and that the violent followers of Osama Bin Laden had twisted the true Muslim faith. Acting on this belief, President Bush and other Western leaders sent troops to the Middle East in an effort to bring freedom and democracy to the Muslim world.

But what if this "understanding" of Islam is based not on fact, but instead on equal parts wishful thinking and Islamic deceit? It would mean that the entire War on Terror is based on a faulty – and increasingly deadly – premise.

In a disturbing but thoroughly researched new book, Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World, author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. Instead, he exposes it as a form of totalitarianism, a belief system that orders its adherents not to baptize all nations, but to conquer and subdue them. Islamic law's governance of every aspect of religious, political and personal action has far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism.

Davis details how Islamic thought divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat: There's dar al-Islam ("House of Islam," where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb ("House of War," the rest of the world). This concise yet thorough book leaves no doubt as to why most of the world's modern conflicts are connected to Islam – and calls into question why Western elites refuse to acknowledge Islam's violent nature.

Virtually every contemporary Western leader has expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This widely circulated claim is false, says Davis.

Read the entire article here.

All rhetorical questions, in my mind. Just ask Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and the recently published The Truth About Muhammed.

Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Er, uh, Dhimmicrat, that is.

From WorldNet Daily:

Posted: November 2, 2006 9:27 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2006

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Read the entire story here.

Vote for Ken Blackwell Nov. 7

Mr. Blackwell is right on every issue. He is an upstanding conservative politician who stands apart from the rest of Ohio's RINO Taft party.

If you want lower taxes and business growth for Ohio's economy, vote for Blackwell. If you want someone who is anti-abortion, pro- heterosexual marriage, vote for Blackwell. If you want someone who walks the walk, vote for Ken Blackwell.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I just want to make it official: Connect the Dots 2006 officially endorses Ken Blackwell for Ohio Governor.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Strickland: I got yer back, JK!

From the Blackwell campaign HQ:

COLUMBUS Gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland yesterday told a radio talk show host that Americans would have "a different attitude" about the war in Iraq if it were not disproportionately fought by the poor.

During an interview with Tom Roten of News Talk 800 WVHU, Strickland refused to denounce Senator John Kerry's controversial don't study and "you get stuck in Iraq" comments. Democrat leaders and candidates across the country including Hillary Clinton have distanced themselves from Kerry's comments. Kerry has since apologized. However, Strickland suggested most Americans do not care about the young men and women fighting in Iraq.

"I strongly believe that if this war was being fully shared by all segments of our society and by all income levels and so on that a lot of people may have a different attitude about what's happening and the lives being lost and the young people that are being maimed," Strickland told Roten during the on air interview.

Gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell expressed disappointment with Strickland's comments. Blackwell's campaign demanded Strickland immediately apologize.

"Playing class politics on this important issue is simply disgraceful," Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said. "To say Americans don't care about who is fighting and dying in Iraq is outrageous. Strickland needs to apologize for his callous and irresponsible comments."

Further, Strickland inferred his colleagues in Congress do not care about war casualties because their children are not fighting in Iraq.

"Michael Moore would be proud of Ted Strickland," LoParo added. "Even Hillary Clinton condemned John Kerry. Strickland just doesn't get it. He is an unabashed Washington D.C. liberal who doesn't understand Ohio values."

Following are links to the audio of Strickland’s irresponsible comments:
[Audio Clip 1] [Audio Clip 2]

Ted, you're a bigger dope than your pal Kerry. Many of us haven't been directly touched by the war, but we do identify more with the brave men and women fighting for freedom around the world than with a clueless fake minister.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Treasonous NY Times Leaking Secret Info - AGAIN!!

From Michelle Malkin, the NY Times has released more damaging (to the American cause) info:

NYTimes blabbermouths strike again
By Michelle Malkin · November 01, 2006 08:26 PM

Meant to get to this earlier, but the newspaper of wreckage is at it again--publishing illegally leaked classified information about the war in yet another transparent effort to sway the election.

The article title: "Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos."

After blabbing about the classified info revelaed in the article for 11 paragraphs, the Times notes:
A spokesman for the Central Command declined to comment on the index or other information in the slide. “We don’t comment on secret material,” the spokesman said.

The article then continues to blab about the illegally leaked info for another seven paragraphs.

When is the administration going to investigate these pundits? I won't be satisfied until I see a NY Times editor or writer face a firing squad. We know that's not going to happen, but it should.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Associated (w/Terror) Press: Free Fauxtographer Bilal Hussein

From Michelle Malkin:
The Associated (with terrorists) Press reported yesterday on a lobbying campaign to free its Iraqi-based photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been in U.S. military detention since April (a fact first reported not by the A(w/t)P, but here on this blog).
More from the story:

One editor compared the Pentagon to Saddam Hussein's brutal regime:

David Zeeck, president of ASNE and executive editor of The News Tribune, of Tacoma, Wash., said Hussein's detention was reminiscent of how Saddam Hussein dealt with reporters."He would hold them incommunicado,"Zeeck said.

This, dear readers, underscores how utterly biased, ignorant, and muddle-headed the vast majority of mainstream journalists are in their coverage of the war on terror. These people see no difference between American troops detaining a suspect captured on the battlefield in the company of an alleged top al Qaeda leader in wartime and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein repressing civilian journalists in peacetime.

Isn't it possible that Bilal Hussein is coughing up valuable information about insurgent associates involved in kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces? Isn't it possible that Hussein is providing ongoing intelligence that may be saving both American and Iraqi lives? Isn't it possible that the troops on the ground who captured Hussein in an apartment with bomb-making materials have better judgement about his security risk than A(w/t)P execs a world away?

The A(w/t)P and its minions refuse to entertain the possibilities. They're too busy maligning our troops and our military leaders as Saddam-esque tyrants and moaning about how the lack of new terrorist propaganda photos is having a "chilling effect" on journalism.

Read the entire story here.

End of the NSA Program? Yes, if the Dhimmicrats are elected

In this article at FrontPage Magazine, Ken Timmerman discusses the latest video from Citizens United (posted to Connect the Dots last night):

The importance of next Tuesday’s election to the security of each and every American can be summed up in a single thirty-second spot, called “Wiretap.”

It was written by former Clinton pollster Dick Morris, and is being aired nationwide by Dave Bossie’s Citizens United, a conservative interest group.

Here is the script.

Two Arabic-speakers are discussing an imminent terrorist attack, as an NSA tape-recorder captures their conversation.

“All is now prepared,” says the first.

“Is everything in place?

“It is done. When do we attack?

“Be prompt. Plant the bomb at—“

At that point, the screen goes blank, and the narrator delivers the come-on: “This terrorist wiretap has been disconnected by a Democrat-controlled Congress.”

Referring to Democratic party opposition to the President’s terrorist-surveillance program, the narrator then says: “If the Democrats win, the NSA won’t be allowed to listen as terrorists plot attacks.”

Read the entire article here.

This year, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Spencer Discusses 'Muhammed' Book at Front Page Mag

Robert Spencer, who runs Jihad Watch, has written a new book: The Truth About Muhammad. There's a new interview at Front Page Magazine this morning, discussing the book.

FP: So tell us what inspired you to write The Truth About Muhammad. In your book, you discuss why you didn’t want to write it at first. How come?

Spencer: I was inspired to write this book by a phenomenon I have observed many times over the years: moderate Muslims would invoke Muhammad's example in arguing that Muslims should become more peaceful, and jihadists would invoke his example also, but to justify their acts of violence. I give some examples of this in the book's first chapter.

This is a very important question, for since Muslims traditionally have looked to Muhammad as the supreme example for human behavior (cf. Qur'an 33:21), what he was really like according to the sources Muslims themselves consider reliable will reveal a great deal about what non-Muslims can realistically expect in the long term from the Islamic world and the American Muslim community.

Meanwhile, the prevailing assumption among policymakers and the mainstream media is that Islam is fundamentally peaceful. Since a range of American policies are based on this assumption, I thought it useful to examine the origins of Islam and the character of its founder -- again, strictly according to the texts Muslims consider most reliable -- in order to determine how Muslims themselves who take such texts seriously regard their obligations as believers. This will illuminate a great deal about the readiness of Islamic nations and groups to make common cause and form lasting alliances with America and the West.

The interview continues to enlighten us into the behavior and thinking of the 'prophet'...

Spencer: Jamie, you're articulating one of the fundamental differences between the Christian and Islamic traditions. In Christianity, vengeance belongs to God only: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord; I will repay" (Romans 12:19). But in Islam, the faithful are commanded to take revenge, for Allah will repay the offenders by means of the Muslim warriors: "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame" (Qur'an 9:13-14). So in the first place, it is much more acceptable within an Islamic context than within a Christian one to avenge a wrong, and in Islam blaspheming or insulting the Prophet is a very serious wrongdoing.

Muhammad himself also sets an example for Muslims in this. He ordered the assassinations of several people who had dared to mock him and his prophetic pretensions - notably, two poets, Abu 'Afak and 'Asma bint Marwan. Abu 'Afak was reputed to be over one hundred years old, and had dared to criticize in verse Muhammad's killing of another of his opponents. Muhammad asked his men, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" He found a ready volunteer in a young Muslim named Salim bin 'Umayr, who dispatched the old poet as he lay sleeping. 'Asma bint Marwan, a poetess, was incensed when she heard of the murder of Abu 'Afak. She wrote verses denigrating the men of Medina for obeying "a stranger who is none of yours," and asked, "Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

When Muhammad heard of this, he looked to strike first, asking for a volunteer to kill her: "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" A Muslim named 'Umayr bin 'Adiy al-Khatmi took the job, and killed her along with her unborn child that very night. But after he had done the deed, 'Umayr began to worry that perhaps he had committed a grave sin. Muhammad reassured him: "You have helped God and His apostle, O 'Umayr!" But would he incur punishment?

"Two goats," replied the Prophet of Islam, "won't butt their heads about her.".

Read the entire interview here.Even if you've never read any of his books, it's very enlightening. I also suggest you visit his website. Frequently. Daily.

I first became aware of Mr. Spencer after reading his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). If you think Islam is a religion of peace, think again.

I urge you to read the book, and pass it along to your muslim friends. Most 'moderate' muslims are in denial about the prophet and the religion -- mostly, I'm guessing, because the Qu'ran is written in arabic, and most islamics around the world are NOT arabic and don't read that language.

I'll have a review of the book here as soon as I receive it and read it.

Vote as if your life Depends on it. (It does)