Fifteen Minutes of Peace

News has now come across the wires that Barack Obama has given his first interview as the President. Instead of giving it to a US station, however, he gave it to Al-Arabiya. His message? It was to the Sharia-loving Muslim nations:


Really? When did this happen?

I have no doubt that there are people in Sharia nations that actually don’t hate us. Unfortunately, I do doubt that there’s enough of those people to make a real difference. It only takes one to strap a bomb to his body and walk into a crowded mall. It takes one to build, place and remote-detonate a charge in an underground parking garage. It only took a handful to hijack four commercial jetliners and crash them into three of the most famous buildings in America, killing thousands.

That minority in those Sharia nations that doesn’t hate us? They haven’t been able to stop the extremists. Why? Because their governments support the terrorists and their missions in any way they can. They provide money, shelter, and equipment to get the job done. If their country doesn’t, then Osama will. And there’s always another non-Sharia country out there willing to give these predatory ingrates the benefit of the doubt.

In reading some of the comments on local news sites, I’m reading things written by people who are either completely daft or deliberately ignorant. They say it’s all Bush’s fault, that US-Muslim relations suffered because of the policies that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate to tell you this, folks, but it started WAY before that. Ever hear of the Barbary Wars? When America was still a young nation, just after the Revolutionary War, Muslim pirates were raiding settlements up and down the New England coast. Our government appeased them: they paid the ransom demanded by the Sharia governments for a time. Then along came Thomas Jefferson, and he changed everything. He asked the emissary of Tripoli why their people were committing these crimes, and the emissary told him, “it is the right of all good Musselmen (Muslim men) to take what they wish from infidels and force the infidel into submission.” Jefferson bought a copy of the Qur’an and read it, then took the fight to them. We won twice.

More recently, in the mid-1970’s Muslims started becoming openly hostile to Americans again. Iranians raided the US Embassy in Tehran and took the Americans inside hostage, holding them for 444 days. What did Jimmy Carter do? He negotiated. He placated them. After that the Muslims thought we were pushovers. They bombed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. They drove a truck laden with explosives into the Marine barracks in Beirut. Reagan bombed their turbans off, and we saw a lull in the action.

Then came Bill Clinton. Saddam stopped allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq, and the bombings resumed. The Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole…nothing was done about these attacks. Clinton ordered a single building to be bombed in the Mideast, and the Muslims claimed afterward that it was a pharmaceutical factory (and presented evidence to prove it). Clinton had Osama in the crosshairs and his inept Secretary of Defense gave the order NOT to shoot. The Sudanese government offered Clinton help in capturing Osama and giving intel on militant Muslim organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but Clinton refused the offers.

Along comes Bush, and eight months into his first term they hit the World Trade Center again. This time, the smiling Osama bin Laden gets his wish–the towers fall, the Pentagon is hit, and we’re shaking our heads wondering how it happened. To this day we have people claiming Bush didn’t do enough to stop it. These are the same people who decry the US PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional and wail for us to close Guantanamo Bay.

The lesson I’d have thought we’d have learned by now is that the more you placate an extremist, the more time and resources he has to figure out how to kill as many of us as he can. They don’t dislike Americans because of Iraq or Afghanistan; hell, we helped ’em win their war for independence from the Soviets. They don’t dislike us because of Guantanamo bay. They dislike Americans because we’re infidels, we are an open ally of Israel, and we do not obey Sharia law. According to their religion, they’re supposed to kill us for those reasons. We have two options here: submit or die. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like either of those.

Obama was quoted saying thus: “…the U.S. has made mistakes in the past, but the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

I’d like to know which alternate reality he was living in 20 or 30 years ago. I have no interest in restoring that hell. We’re not the ones carrying out suicide bombings, so I don’t see how the mistakes were ours. If you appease them now, you may win your fifteen minutes of peace, but they’ll only come back with the same murderous bloodlust, ready to kill you as soon as look at you.

I know. I’m just being Islamophobic.

Who’s Stopping Him From Getting the Hell Out of Here, Anyway?

Obviously, this Kevin Sites “journalist” had nothing negative to write on the war in Iraq this week since even liberals now have to admit the success of the troop surge and the massive decline in violence.  It kills ’em, doesn’t it?  This week, he chooses to showcase an Arab with a chip on his shoulder about the FBI investigating him after having good reason to do so.

The Arab in question is 35-year old Hasan Elahi who was investigated by the FBI after the agency was given tip about a storage shed he had rented which was believed to have been filled with explosives and emptied right after 9/11. 

After being investigated, Elahi was cleared of suspicion by the FBI.  Now; of course, he has a chip on his shoulder about it and has decided to videotape every single moment of his life and share it with us all on the web.  So; in other words, he’s violating his own “right to privacy” now.

In being interviewed by Kevin Sites, Elahi said:

We’re in this mentality where anyone who looks a little bit different is automatically a suspect.

NO!  The FBI was given a tip about a storage shed he had rented and merely followed through on it! 

You know when Ann Coulter talked about the Jersey Girls and the old Democratic trick of using “victims” as spokespeople?  Someone now who was appalled to be a suspect now feels compelled to share every moment of his life with us on a website?  Do the words “attention whore” come to anyone else’s mind?

I’m not sure if he’s checked the statistics but 100% of attacks overseas and on our own soil were committed by Arabs.  100% of the men who committed 9/11 were Arab men.  If 100% of the people killed overseas and in the World Trade Center on September 11th were all Arabs, perhaps I wouldn’t feel the same way.  But all people are falling victim to this lunacy.  All people are suffering because of a certain colored skin that manages to remain at 100% when it comes to calculating those involved in attacks with bombs strapped to their chest and simultaneously shouting “Allah Akbar!”  If it were up to me, more of them would be investigated while standing in line at airports but they are not.

While I completely agree with the notion that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the fact becomes less vivid every single day when someone like this chooses to showcase his “peace” by attacking the United States government because it’s doing everything in its power to protect 300 million lives! 

Moreover; his claim of being looked at because of the way he looks is preposterous in his specific case!  The FBI were given a tip!  What did he expect them to do with it?

If overfed Polish boys were guilty of the same thing and someone had reason to believe I was a threat, I would expect nothing but the same thing that happened to Elahi. 

Taking into account the fact that 100% of Democrats’ hope that the U.S. would sustain an embarrassing loss in Iraq have diminished, I see now that certain liberal journalists have shifted the attention somewhere else.

Kevin “Drama-Queen” Sites; the magnificient journalist that he is, begins the article (which includes a video) by asking:

What would you do if you were suspected of a crime that could send you to a jail cell in Guantanamo Bay for untold years?

Well, I’d like to end this post by asking three things:

  1. Why in the hell was he allowed to stay in the United States when it was even suspected that he had explosives removed from a storage shed after 9/11!?
  2. If he doesn’t understand that there are 299,999,999 other people residing in this country that need protection from people that look like him, why doesn’t he use his P/R to attack the crazy lunatics that have brought this kind of embarrassment onto him?  No, somehow the U.S. Government is who he has the problem with.  If you ask me, the U.S. Government might need to take one more look!
  3. If he truly doesn’t understand why we have to be protected, why the hell doesn’t he just leave?

The sad fact is he was suspected to have had explosives stored in a rented shed AFTER 9/11 and he was still allowed to stay in the country during the investigation.  The moral of the story here isn’t that his life was terribly interrupted, rather that the Patriot Act isn’t harsh enough.

Killing Two Birds With One Bomb

As Pakistan mourns the death of Benazir Bhutto, Obama’s campaign camp wasted no time appeasing the crazed far-left and the Code Pink nuts by using opportunity to attack both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton — linking the Iraq war to the assassination carried out by Al-Queda.

Hillary Clinton responded by saying she regrets that Obama’s camp “would be politicizing this tragedy.”

For once, I agree with Hillary Clinton.

She could have surprised us and took one more step by pointing out that this tragedy is yet another reminder of how insane Islamic militants are.  She could have reminded us that this is why we have the Patriot Act in the United States or why we hold suspected nuts at Guantanamo that choose to intermingle with the likes of Zarqawi and Bin Laden.

Well not only did Obama’s camp sadly kill their chances of winning any national elections by taking such a cheap shot at their country’s war aims, they have also reminded us just how “junior” the Illinois senator really is in dealing with national issues.

I’m embarrassed that he’s from my state.

Can We Take Another Hissy Fit?

You know the old saying “if you can’t beat em….”

I’m amazed everytime the NY Times decides to “expose” the administration by pointing out its intent to protect American citizens – a real act of treason to liberals.  Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers among others are being called in to explain CIA videotapes being destroyed which contained the interrogation of two AlQueda suspects.  May I ask, what the hell does this have to do with any of us anyway?  As long as we are being kept safe from American-slaughter religious fanatics, should any of us care of the CIA’s procedures?

To those out there who will lose sleep over this, here is a nice Christmas present from me to you.  Chances are the same people screaming bloody murder over the above will be screaming about this video:


CIA Review Released Today: Democrats’ Conclusion?

rockefeller.jpg Jay Rockefeller (D)

It’s George Bush’s fault!

“Sadly, the CIA’s 9/11 accountability review serves as a sobering reminder that the Bush Administration policies for the past six years have failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden”

That is what West Virginia Democrat, Jay Rockefeller had to say in response.

Every major news agency is reporting this tonight.  Basically it gives up everything we already knew:

–During the Clinton administration, we knew (or “suspected”) that Al-Queda wanted to attack us.  Some called this clever CIA intelligence, others were tipped off by the various attacks that Clinton did nothing about during his administration.

–From 1998-2001, the CIA refused to do enough to track Al-Queda’s every move to keep us safe here in America.  (But at the same time, liberals would not have allowed us to throw suspicious Arabs out of the country, profile them at airports, or create a Patriot Act back then.)  Democrats cry over the Patriot Act post 9/11, we are supposed to believe they would have supported the CIA taking more serious measures in monitoring Al-Queda before it happened?  Would liberals have supported NSA wiretappings before 9/11?

Suffice it to say that with liberal policies and crazy rules and regulations delivered by them to the CIA along with the fact that most of this “pre-9/11” surveillance occurred during the Clinton administration, I can see why liberals could blame this on George Bush.

The article goes on to clearly state:

“Yet the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson found neither a “single point of failure nor a silver bullet” that would have stopped the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.”

So in conclusion we had a planning and tracking phase that the CIA could basically do nothing about thanks to half-baked liberal policies, a President in the White House who refused to do nothing in response to the largest number of attacks on America’s interests since it all began in 1979, and a report that basically tells us: they could have done stuff, but in the end none of it would have done any good anyway!

And Jay Rockfeller says this is a reminder of Bush’s policies that have kept us safe since 2001?

I swear, if they could get away with it they would find a way to blame George W. Bush for the stain on Monica’s dress.

3,000 Americans and How Many Civilians? Thanks Anti-War Folks!


Take a good look at this photo.  This is what happens in wars that we win effectively and we move through like champions.  This is what happens when we ignore tree-huggers that run around claiming to love and support the troops while simultaneously waiting for them to be defeated.

Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama took potshots at the military this week.  Read the whole story at Sweetness & Light.  Obama said recently:

We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”

What an asinine thing to say!  He’s right, we do have to get the job done.  We could have gotten the job done a lot sooner had it not been for the stupid liberals (not to mention Ron Paul supporters trolling the internet) who have done everything imaginable to make excuses for terrorists and lay the blame of all of it on the USA. 

Obama does not realize apparently that concern for civlilians in a time of war is “red-flag number one”when identifying language of people who are trying to protect our enemies.  We had killed and/or captured hundreds of thousands of insurgents and members of Al-Queda.  We have captued the 9/11 Mastermind and while most us were grateful to the military for it, liberals in Congress cared more about his rights to read the Koran and whether or not he was being water-boarded.  We killed Zarqawi and we have rounded up much of Al-Queda’s top guys.

Democrats and supporters of Ron Paul say that this war miraculously gave birth to terrorists.  I say that it got the roaches out of their cracks and gave us the opportunity to drop bombs on them.

But thanks to Democrats, the MSM, and blowhards like Ron Paul, the roaches have been able to run back to their cracks and plan for more attacks as is evident of the large bombings in Iraq last weekend.

We could have cleaned up Iraq AND Afghanistan in a week if we fought this war like our brave men fought WW2 as illustrated in the picture above.  Civilians would have died, and so would have members of our troops.

But because we are unable to fight it the way we once did, more troops and civilians have died slowly over time than would have if we would have handled this the right way from day one.

If it continues this way, we will lose.  Harry Reid can be confident in his position because individuals like himself are making sure of it.  Ron Paul and his supporters and making sure of it, and with Rove leaving, something tells me Bush will be making sure of it.  Just today, General Patraeus — in response to the Al-Queda suspected bombings over the weekend — is already advocating troop cuts.

2008 is right around the corner folks.  We need a real wartime leader who isn’t going to cave-into caterwauling. 

All of our lives are at risk here.  If the way we fight this war does not change, then I will have absolutely no choice but to fully support Giuliani.  At least he will get us past this by fighting this war without much regard for civilian casualty or Democratic whining for Constitutional Rights of terrorists.

While Ron Paul supporters and liberals run around crying about their precious civil rights and bash the Patriot Act, I can somehow in my mind wish that their hysteria would materialize with a few choice amendments to the Bill.  The sad fact is folks; these people are just as dangerous to us as Al Queda is.  By supporting Ron Paul and using their freedoms to bash our President and troops in wartime, it means they have the rights to go on with their blather because of the ways we once fought wars decades ago.  But unfortunately, they are simultaneously making sure that those same freedoms will eventually crumble for all of us.

Is Al-Queda or our other enemies giving much regard for casualties of civilians?  Do they care about treating their enemies with regard to constitutional rights?

We can thank one group ultimately for the death of civilians and troops in Iraq, the Democrats and anti-war crazies!  They have allowed Al Queda to fight us harder and have blatantly stopped our troops and country from properly defending us.

They Never Seem To Answer the Debate…..

Whenever I see a lefty-moonbat blog-post about me, I wonder if they are actually going to refute a point.  Apparently, not this genius piece of writing.  As liberals most often fall victim to, it shows that he was not even able to understand the point with coherence.

In response to the video via YouTube I posted on Ann Coulter, he proclaims (intellectually and full of thought of course) “It’s all in the perception.”

He begins his post by stating:

“Via Gay Conservative (I’m laughing right now. Sorry. A gay person proud to be a Republican always kind of makes me think of a Jew joining the Nazi League for Jewish empowerment)”

For the billionth time, as long as folks like this can run around proclaiming that it’s perfectly normal to be “liberal-American”, I say there is nothing shocking about being a gay-Republican.  I could say a liberal-American equates a Muslim-terrorist minus the Koran and the energy to do anything about their hate for America.  Unlike the fella that wrote these things about me, I find liberals who proclaim to be American anything but funny.  It’s sad, and it’s kind of sick.  Particularly when they run around pretending to care about equality for gays and blacks, plus let’s not forget their phony concern for our troops as well as their convenient sympathy for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls while they simultaneously support Stalin and the Taliban.  Perhaps I can direct this fine gent to my post regarding the liberal trick of “we like you more than they do.”

He goes on to say:

“Failing that, she then resorts to sarcasm and says that the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” wasn’t specific enough and shouldn’t have roused our Chief Executive to action on his vacation because it didn’t specify that it would consist of 19 Arab men boarding three different aircraft on September 11th and striking two specific targets by name.

In other words, since the PDB didn’t contain the gate and flight numbers on each of the 19 boarding passes, her idiot hero couldn’t have possibly had enough to go on. In other words, we have to spell things out for him in inhuman detail.

Naturally, Coulter didn’t want to go into the fact that Russia, Italy and Great Britain all warned Bush around the time of the G8 summit in Genoa that bin Laden would try to assassinate him or that the Hart Rudman report in December 2000 and Paul Bremer’s National Commission on Terrorism issued a report at about the same time that specified much the same massive threat or that Richard Clarke tried to warn the incoming administration of the al Qaida threat. Instead, Clarke was ordered to find a link between Iraq and al Qaida, despite Clarke telling the administration that it simply didn’t exist.”

First, he’s setting up a strawman to avoid the point.  He also avoids her point that Al-Qaeda is “still determined to attack.”  He mentions the President taking “action” but he doesn’t tell us — as Franken could not — what that action should have been.  The idea that post-9/11, liberals won’t let us racially profile men named Mohammed boarding planes speaking Arabic; and that they are still pretending that there was something George Bush could have done before the attacks is just preposterous.  When they are faced with these facts they jump right back to: “He was warned!”

If Bush would have held Arabs in preventative detention, thrown them out of the country, or directed airport security to give the attention needed, 9/11 would not have happened.  But liberals would have then said that Bush overreacted to the memo, that civil rights of Muslim fanatics should not have been violated, and that racial profiling is uncivilized.   Come to think of it, liberals along with the ACLU would have even had another made-up reason to impeach him on seeings as protecting the country is just not acceptable in their world of tofu and poetry reading.

Liberal policies have been cleverly designed to hurt America, punish anyone who defends it, and silence anyone like Ann Coulter that exposes them and their idiotic ideology which has made it impossible for our CIA and President to protect us properly.  Liberals like Carter and Clinton let 20+ years of attacks happen all over the world and on our soil.  When it is thrown in their face like Coulter gave it to Franken, all they can say is: “Bush was warned!”

So I challenge any liberal-moonbat out there to answer this very simple question: what policy was available to Bush that would have enabled him to find out the specifics and what would they have supported him doing in response?  Most liberals out there as well as Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 conspiracy nuts continue to insinuate that America deserved 9/11. 

I’d be willing to bet this clever chap is against the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, holding terrorists at Guantanamo, etc.  We cannot even get them to approve of just one of Bush’s anti-terror policies post-9/11 and they continue this endless blather about “He was warned!”

I just couldn’t leave this last part out:

“Although I’m amazed that you didn’t see the delicious irony of Ann sarcastically saying that Bush should’ve just rounded up all Arabs and thrown them out of the country, which is exactly what Ann would ordinarily love to do with them and then some.”

Well sir, if he were allowed to temporarily restrain them or do something of that nature, I suspect that there would be 3,000 Americans still alive and there would not be a gaping hole in lower Manhattan.  Then again, that would be too Pro-America for your crowd, now wouldn’t it?

I have plenty of quarters, the trouble is your game and I’m sorry but it’s a bit rusty.

Ron Paul Clutching Reagan’s Coattails – Continued

In response to a post I wrote just minutes ago, a commenter left the following Reagan quote in response:

“In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.”

“In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

What I find hilarious is that the following paragraph was left out:

 “After the marines left Beirut, we continued a search for peace and a diplomatic solution to the problems in the Middle East. But the war in Lebanon grew even more violent, the Arab-Israeli conflict became more bitter, and the Middle East continued to be a source of problems for me and our country.” –Ronald Reagan

The main point of my post was in response to Paul supporters’ “do-nothing” policy to terrorism.  What Reagan said there was after the bombings had occurred when Congress (Democrats) was pressuring him to leave.

I wondered what he would have said after the Italian ship incident in 1985.  How about the disco-club bombing in 1986?  How about the 1988 Pan Am flight bombing? 

We had a President that did nothing in response to terrorism, remember?  His name was Bill Clinton.  The highest number of attacks happened during his tenure and Clinton never struck back (aside from the pathetic aspirin-factory bombing.)  Moreover; after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia, OBL told ABC that our troops were “paper-tigers” who ran in defeat.  He simutaneously was planning 9/11.

Eight years of “doing nothing” led to the worst attack ever.  Since then with Bush’s war policies and domestic policies like the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked on our soil nor has an official American interest been blown up.  His efforts have stopped terrorist plots against us and the foiled JFK plot and Fort Dixx incidents is proof that terrorists are running out of professional juice.

My only regret is we won’t fight harder within our own borders with stronger terrorism policies like racial profiling.  I also think that adding a few more bombs to our war strategy overseas could end the war a lot sooner.

We need to fight like we did in WW2 without Democratic yammering about civilians.  We need to fight like we did when we actually won wars and opportunists like Ron Paul and his supporters of conpiracy theorists did not exist.

Mondale: Still Sore From ’84?


Former Vice-President, Walter Mondale wrote a column in today’s Washington Post in which he exudes fond memories of Carter’s move to “make the most of” the “underused asset” known as the office of Vice-President.

In a book-report that focuses on our current Vice-President; Dick Cheney, Mondale remembers the days of the Carter administration with fondness.

“I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.”

That’s a pretty strong statement for the Vice-President of an administration that allowed Islamic fanatics to overthrow the Shah of Iran.  Did the Carter administration fight back like Reagan or Bush or Cheney would have?  I seem to remember an embrace of the new Iranian government by the United States (led by Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale).  After that diplomatic and peace-loving decision was executed, Carter couldn’t even retain the backbone to cut off all ties to the Shah when he let him back into our country to get treatment for the Carter/Mondale- knife he had in his back cancer at the Mayo Clinic in 1979, which of course led to the hostage crisis in Tehran that lasted 444 days.

Apparently, Carter and Mondale were such “peace” activists, they still couldn’t figure out which team they were batting for. 

Carter then decided it was time to toughen things up a bit by executing Operation Eagle Claw on April 24, 1980.  In this attempt to end the crisis that Carter was initially responsible for, five USAF Airmen and three U.S. Marines were tragically killed.

This was the first major Jihadist-association-happening in U.S. history that demonstrated the left’s “be nice to our enemies” plan by exercising the kind of “diplomacy” that Barack Obama is campaigning on now.

Mondale continues his fond recollections of his special relationship with Carter.

“Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything.”

Apparently, devising clever military strategies was not part of their happy-meal repartee.  Come to think of it, clever economic and unemployment strategies were not part of it either. 

To their credit, they did manage to drum up a nomination and confirmation of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (a left-winger), who last year struck down Bush’s NSA Spying program (with the help of the ACLU).  Thankfully, just a few short weeks ago, her enemy-helping ruling was overturned.

It is apparent to me that whenever any liberal talks about “peace” or “law”, it’s just a shifty way of advocating the far stretches of both desired elements.  Every decision made during their administration along with current decisions made by their judicial appointees boil down to one ideal: help the enemies escape, be nice to them, and hope they don’t hit us while our necks are buried in the sand.

Mondale might want to think back to 1984 when he decided to run against Reagan and lost in 49 out of the 50 states in this country.  The only state he managed to pick up was his own of Minnesota; where even there, he only won by 3,200 votes.  America remembered the backlash of thoughtless and irresponsible “be nice” policies of Democratic politicians.  Either Mondale (along with left-wing blogs, front-running Democratic-Presidential candidates, and all of the mainstream media) is suffering from major political amnesia or he really does wish for the destruction of America.

What more proof do we need than the facts of Democratic policies along with Mondale’s charge of criminality against the current Vice-President?

“It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

To begin with, it is not only Dick Cheney that understands the fact that terrorists are not uniformed combatants represented by a formal military.  Moreover; if Carter and Mondale would have decided to take our enemies seriously back when they were showing the warning signs, it would have never progressed to the level that is has to today.

Forgive Bush and Cheney; sir, for attempting the clean up the mess that you and Carter made 28 years ago. 

John Doe Amendment Will Survive!

Two American victories in one day!

1.) Ward Churchill fired!

2.) Congress upholds the John Doe Amendment that Democrats tried to stomp on last week.

It means that Democrats have two things to complain about in the next week and it also means that the infamous flying Imams can finally throw their bogus lawsuits out.

I’d also like to point out that Michelle Malkin was the only mainstream conservative who brought real attention to this last week which led many Americans to contact their Representatives to voice opposition to the Democrats’ attempt to stomp the Bill out!