Monday, October 24, 2005

Casualties in Iraq

... and the disingenuous "concern" & use thereof by those on the Left.

(hat tip to Misha)

Exploiting the Dead (or if you don't want to sign up for the New York Post: here)

Very good, must read. Some very telling points in the article... At the rate of American soldiers killed we've had in Iraq over the last two and a half years, we would have to stay there another

  • 76 years to equal the American dead in Vietnam (Quagmire!!!!!)
  • 532 years to equal the number of American dead in WWII (in 4 years!)
  • 470 years to equal the number of Union soldiers dead in the Civil War
  • 729 years to equal the number of North and South soldiers dead in the Civil War
Every death, of course, is a tragic loss. However, I recently read this analogy for 20th century deaths due to wars, and 20th century deaths inflicted on populations by totalitarian regimes.

It said:

Fill a football stadium with fans and players.

The players on the field would represent the number of people lost due to wars in the 20th century. The stands full of fans would represent the number killed by totalitarian regimes.

Think of that the next time someone talks to you about the "illegal, imoral war."

Sunday, October 23, 2005

The Press - Making the News

The teaser for Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC for monday speaks volumes about the way at least a lot of the media see their role....

We're being told that Joe is going to "make sure" that the same "mistakes made by the fedaral government with Katrina" are not made with Huricane Wilma.

'Cause, you know, Joe -- it's a foregone conclusion, still, that it was the Fed's fault. And of course, the Press are the true leaders and heroes of our country.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

A little more about war

So let me get this straight.

We're fighting a war against people whose religion alleges that we are unclean, worse than dogs, our women can be raped at will, and they feel free to blow us up eating dinner at a restaurant. Their religion is what drove them to war with us. It is a religious war, and they started it.

Now there wouldn't be this flap if we just shot them on the battlefield. So it's apparently ok to shoot them.

But insult them? Burn their bodies? (remember, they'd strap napalm to themselves if they could and blow up a movie theater, THAT'S OK.) They don't think twice about burning our bodies and hanging them from utility poles.

Now lest you think I'm talking about all of Islam, I'm not -- though I do have some serious questions about the Quran. Even more serious are my questions about the lack of vehement condemnation of acts committed in the name of "Allah most merciful."

No, I'm talking about the beliefs and actions of the people we are fighting. Frankly, f*ck them! I don't give a damn about insulting someone who would just as quickly burn my family and rape my daughters before killing them.

If the U.S. actually felt this way about all Muslims or Islam, we wouldn't be working so hard all over the world to help Muslims out.

If I can insult a low life that wants a society that holds public executions and amputations in football stadiums and get him to come out to where I can get a good bead on him, let me do it. I don't care what your religion -- or mine -- is.

Somethin's Burnin'

A deeper dig into the "Burning Taliban Bodies" story reveals that they were burned for sanitary reasons. They were starting to decay, they were near our soldiers position. The Taliban wasn't about to come and get them, and we weren't about to stand out in the open and bury them.

PsyOps came by and decided to use the burning as a tool to rile up other hiding Taliban -- you remember, the ENEMY, the ones who harbored Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda Leadership as they planned and carried out 9/11 ... the ones who kill civllians because the Koran tells them it's all good in the eyes of Allah? (Unless they were devout Muslims, but even then it's still ok if it furthers the cause.)

Them. Yeah. We WANT to offend them. We want to piss them off so they'll make mistakes. That's what PsyOps DOES!

Those who want us to treat people who are out there with guns trying to re-establish a brutal totalitarian regime that harbors mass murderers of non-Muslims and not-good-enough-Muslims like they were Joe in the next cube in their Chicago Office building have a gigantic reality-disconnect.

I've noticed a definite pattern here. Take ANYTHING the United States does and twist it to come up with the WORST POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, while treating anything the enemy does with compassion, sympathy, and understanding.

That is not how to win a war. And make no mistake about it, the people doing it want us to LOSE.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Big Bad Bush - Elections & Saddam

Well, Iraqis voted on a new constitution last weekend. Saddam Hussein went on trial for his first Crime Against Humanity trial this morning. Al Queda fears democracy in Iraq. They're financially broken, and their leadership is pinned down and afraid the Pakistanis are getting a little too close.

Amazing how quiet the press was about the election. The coverage was pretty subdued compared to Katrina or Abu Graib or the alleged Koran flushing.

Saddam Hussein is on trial. They're showing quite a bit more interest in that -- although I imagine they'll go out of their way to avoid giving any credit to Bush.

Because Bush is a big, bad world terrorist who took us to an illegal, imoral war, humiliating and torturing Iraqis with a cold, evil heart. Anybody who buys the moral equivalency argument is delusional.

Stack of naked criminals in a prison. Live, innocent human beings put into chippers.

You make the call.

The Left is already howling that Saddam won't get a fair trial. And in the end, they will say he didn't as long as he is convicted. The only evidence they will accept that he got a fair trial would be his acquittal -- and somehow they would manage to find a way to blame Bush for that as well. Which just goes to show that their agenda has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with blindly partisan politics.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Get the Lead Out

911 Mix-Up Keeps Victim Waiting

of course if she'd had a gun strapped to her thigh .... he probably wouldn't have knocked her down in the first place.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Nice Speech, Mr. President

Very well put.

It's very telling that today, the day after the speech, one is very hard pressed to find anything about it on CNN's website. What's up with that? I found the audio on the BBC site. I eventually found it on CNN under a heading of "10 Foiled Plots". I noted the name of the video clip is "BushCutLosses" -- WTF?

I read a couple of bloviations by Kennedy and Kerry I'll respond to:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said it was "foolish for the president to brag openly about disrupting al Qaeda plots to attack us. His 'bring it on' attitude hasn't worked, and such statements can only goad al Qaeda into trying harder."

Um, I think we know the president well enough to know he wasn't bragging. This man is not a braggart. Could it be, perhaps, that he was responding to the daily denunciation of his performance by trying to tell the American People that dispite what they hear daily from the leftists -- "hey, look, we are doing something"? Is responding to the constant barage of criticism bragging? Or is that a clever transparent way of continuing the barage, by spinning his rebuttal into something negative in and of itself, so we can dismiss it?

And our dear almost-but-not-quite president Kerry (thank God) put up this strawman:

"There's nothing pessimistic about demanding that our government do better by our troops," Mr. Kerry said. "And there's nothing more pessimistic than an administration refusing to provide candor and leadership equal to our troops' sacrifice."

I think the president would agree. However, he was probably talking about all of the "pull out now", "illegal immoral", "Bush=Hitler", "Imperialism" crap, and you know it. The pessimism is embedded in your unwillingness to address those issues because they suit your political purposes, Mr.'s Kerry & Kennedy.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

That Does It. This is officially NOT FUNNY anymore.

I'm not kidding. This is it. Western Culture and those who value it need to draw a line in the sand.

Unfortunately, Liberal Western thought, an offshoot of Western Culture, is getting in the way. They need to choose which side of the line they will stand on.

In the name of "Tolerence", all pig-like items -- such as and including Piglet from Winnie the Pooh, have been banned from Dudley Council, West Midlands -- a government office in Great Britian.

Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”

No, it's not. It's a deference. There is a very, very big difference.

Liberalism has become so ensconced in far to much of the incestuous cycle of the self-appointed Western Intellectual Elite if any of them can say “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs” or agree with it with a perfectly serious tone and a straight face.

Tolerence would be for Muslims to tolerate my belief that Piglet is anything other than a lovable character in a childhood story that is very much a part of my culture. Tolerence would mean letting me display a figurine or image of Piglet in my office. This has nothing to to with tolerence, it has everything to do with intolerence and a not so sublte hatred of Western Culture by Islam and the Western Intellectual Elite.

Hey, dogs are impure, too. Even more impure than pigs. Are they next? If I have a picture of my dog in the office and it offends some Muslim, am I to remove it, too?

Muslims all over the world have to be laughing. This is insanity. If tolerence means we must bow to everything a particular religion is intolerent of, then we are intellectually bankrupt. We have lost it. There is no turning back if we accept this.

If Muslims by the thousands don't stand up right now and agree, then there is no place for Islam in Western Society. Period.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Democratic Rule - Gimme Your Stuff

"I vote you gimme the hard-won fruits of your labor and freedom."

China, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Switzerland, and Russia would like to see the United States relinquish its historic control of the Internet.

Yes, and there's a house out in the country I'd like to live in. I wish the owners would relinquish control of it.

Freedom, free-enterprise, and a lot of American tax dollars developed the infrastructure behind what we now know as the Internet. We allow, maybe even sell the services we developed to the rest of the world. But they want to tell us how to use our resource. You know, we could have just said "sorry, Americans only". But we didn't.

You want something that you control? Develop it yourself!

"M-om, Johnny down the street lets me ride his bike, but he won't let me tell him what he can do with it."

"This situation is very undemocratic, unfair and unreasonable," said Sha Zukang,
the ambassador from China, which this week imposed new rules that allow only
"healthy and civilized" news to be read by the mainland's 100 million Web users.

It's always fun to be lectured on democracy by a totalitarian regime.

"We want your stuff. I vote we take it."

Monday, October 03, 2005


Hmmm... this looks like a website to check out more frequently.

In the mean time, you should check out this article about just how subtle media bias can be -- there's pictures, and it is worth looking at. It speaks volumes.