The institution known as the Twin Cities Conservative found an easy target to label as “Today’s Villain.” Sean Penn, upon returning from a meeting with DICTATOR Hugo Chavez, castigated Fox News while praising erstwhile Venezuelan despot while promoting a new film on the Late Show with David Letterman.

I found an interesting reaction to Penn from Radar Online. Can you say double-standard? Can you say hypocrite? Note the following: “In a prescient, hard-edged open-letter to President Bush before the Iraq war, Penn indicted the president for his ‘intolerance of debate’ and ‘marginalization of your critics.’ And after his highly publicized trip to Iran in 2005, Penn wrote about the lack of free speech there and the courage of those who spoke against the oppressive Iranian regime nonetheless.”

“But when it comes to Chavez’s repression of the media (as he vastly expands his unilateral powers), it seems Penn may refrain from any criticism in the upcoming article. He suggested to Letterman that the media outlet Chavez shut down earlier this year would have received much harsher treatment here in the states, noting that the ‘loons on Fox News broadcast there every day.’”

What a joke…check out the transcript of his appearance on Letterman’s show:

Sean Penn Hails Hugo Chavez, Hits Fox News

By E&P Staff

Published: October 02, 2007 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Sean Penn, appearing with David Letterman on CBS on Monday night, defended his recent visit with Venezuelan leader Huge Chavez, and said there is indeed freedom of expression for the media in that country.

"I found him a very fascinating guy," Penn said, referring to Chavez. "He’s done incredible things for the 80% of the people who are poor there."

Asked why he visited, Penn quipped, "I felt almost invited to go by Pat Robertson, because he was encouraging that Chavez be assassinated, and I always can assume that whatever he says it ought to be the opposite."

When Letterman said that from he’d read, Chavez must be "nuts" or at least "wacky." Penn replied: "I think if people have oil in the ground they are called wacky.

He also defended media freedom in that country. "One of things said about him is that he shut down a television station," Penn said. "Since 1998 they had been encouraging the assassination of Chavez every day.
So he just did not re-up their license.”’

Penn disputed "the idea that there is no freedom of expression there," explaining, "the loons of Fox News are broadcast there every day."

He was on the show promoting his new film, "Into the Wild."

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

This article is so illusory that it ALMOST defies conventional wisdom.

But it doesn’t…in a classic case of Leftist warped thinking, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi “said a plan to build fencing along parts of the United States-Mexico border is a terrible idea’ that overlooks local communities,” according to Fox News.

The twisted thought process from the Left on a whole is stupefying, to be polite. The first question I pondered was, “how are border communities perched on both sides of the border?”

Is she confused? Does she think, for example, that El Paso and Ciudad Juarez are one city? She adds, “’I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion,’ said Pelosi, D-California. ’These are communities where you have a border going through them; they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them.”

Obviously, the Democrats espouse open borders, where all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc, live in equality…a sort of modern-day Walden Pond. It’s a fantasy world to which the Left strives, and is also their death knell. When attempting to create this utopia, they careless fail to categorize the very real fractures, biases, and rivalries that occur within people.

The only hate they contemplate is the hatred towards the United States, despite the endless philanthropic endeavors to which it contributes globally. For example, President Bush, for all the scorn he has endured, has earmarked more money for AIDS prevention in Europe than Bill Clinton could ever imagine.

To this end, the Twin Cities Conservative considers the Left lucky; for they have capitalized on an unpopular war, and PERCEIVED, wildly imagined human rights and civil liberties abuses, as well as tough, but necessary, steps in the war on terror. For if times were better, the average, sensible, normal American, would neither tolerate nor stomach the Left’s inane message.

Here’s the complete article:

Read the rest of this entry »

Shameful is the word that came to mind after reading this report from Newsday. In it, “The Senate on Wednesday approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, a move aimed at bringing additional economic pressure on Iran.”

On the surface, this is an all-important win for Western Civilization. Despite roadblocks from the Left, Russia, China, and the United Nations; as well as ramblings from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country DOES see the dangers originating from Persia. The country DOES recognize that Iran IS waging a proxy war against our soldiers, and has been since 1979.

Yet, the Democrats, so foolhardy and shameful in their pandering, refuse to classify an Iranian paramilitary group as a terrorist organization. INSTEAD, they pander to the Left-wing loonies who abhor any military conflict, regardless of the rationale. Furthermore, they refuse to chide the Iranians MERELY due to their hatred of President Bush and all-things RIGHT.

Shameful…

Note some of the rhetoric from the Left:

“Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was among those voting against the amendment. Dodd referred to the 2002 congressional vote authorizing the use of force that led to President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq: ‘We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this president again,’ Dodd said in a statement.”

“Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., branded the Lieberman-Kyl measure as Vice President Dick Cheney’s ‘fondest pipe dream.’”

Rather than defend our young men and women serving in Iraq and subsequently hurt by Iranian-made IED’s, they stab the military in the back ONCE AGAIN.

Not only are the Democrats advocating defeat, assuring the terrorists a valuable propaganda victory, they are also guaranteeing regional supremacy on behalf of the Iranians.

Here’s the complete article:

Read the rest of this entry »

You, on the Left, represent a contemptible faction in this country. “What? Who, me?” You ask?

Yes, you…While you blithely castigate President Bush, Vice President Cheney, et al. with purportedly usurping civil liberties in the name of security, your legion of anti-war defeatist hounds have sullied this country with it’s surrender rhetoric.

Whether it’s your uncanny ability to blame the United States for all woes in the world, or turning a blind eye to endless and senseless hypocrisy in the Muslim (while embracing terrorists as “insurgents” and “freedom fighters), or ramming your progressive agenda down our throats, you do not represent the majority of the American citizenry.

Consider this condemnation, but The Twin Cities Conservative institution was absolutely incensed after reading this article from RealClearPolitics. In it, Senator Joe Lieberman, FORMER Democrat and now Independent, is attempting to accomplish the following:

-pass a condemnation of Iran

-categorize the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group

YET, the Democrats stand in his way. Why? Because they blithely believe that the United States will, in their words, wage an illegal act of aggression against peaceful Iran.

Note some of the rhetoric from the Left, whether it’s an elected official, or a Leftist loon who claims to speak for America, and it’s easy to see our country, if led by Democrats (with the far-Left as their puppet masters), is headed in a downward spiral.

First, we have the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: ““I’m being very, very cautious on this.”

Next, we have American disgrace Tom Andrews, one-time Maine congressman now the director of Win Without War, a coalition of anti-war groups, “The resolution ‘opens the door for U.S. military operations within Iran, would put our nation on a dangerous and deadly course, and sets conditions for war with Iran. At a time when U.S. troops are already stuck in Iraq’s unwinnable civil war, it is unconscionable that the United States Senate would seek to escalate tensions with Iran.’”

This type of defeatist rhetoric occurs on a regular basis in the Leftist world. Rather than identify the true enemy (terrorists), they set their sites on President Bush, conservatives, Christianity, and our soldiers.

I work with a man who was served in Iraq; his convoy was hit by an IRANIAN-made IED; thankfully, only his arm was injured. Nevertheless the point is this: the Iranians are responsible for killing and injuring American soldiers.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to condemn Iran, despite this proxy war, their rhetoric towards Israel, and their defiance regarding their burgeoning nuclear programs. Their motivation? Simply to emasculate President Bush and those of us on the Right.

Here’s the complete article:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Twin Cities Conservative found this article, courtesy of AllAmericanPatriots.com, prepared by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I wanted to examine certain points the good Senator makes…

First, he states, right from the start, ““The fight to end the war in Iraq – and refocus our efforts against those who attacked us on 9/11 – has now raged in this chamber and throughout this country for many, many months, now years. On one side, Democrats stand united: to responsibly end the war; to begin to bring our brave troops home; and to refocus our attention to Osama bin Laden, his Al Qaeda operatives, and others around the world who seek to do us harm.

Newsflash, Reid…the group that perpetrated 9/11, along with the USS Cole attack, 1998 Embassy bombings, etc, and the “insurgents” (as you would call them) fight under the same ideological banner: the destruction of Western Civilization.

Furthermore, Reid and his Leftist ilk champion wave the flag of surrender: to end the war and bring the troops home. Translation: provide a heroic ideological victory for terrorism and demonstrate to our allies that our government and leadership cannot be depended upon. 

Second, Reid states, “Regardless of where we stand on the war, we should stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world. And we can only sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform are given the respect they deserve and the opportunity to reset and rebuild their capabilities. That’s not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point – it is common sense. And it’s long overdue.”

At first read, I was absolutely incredulous at Reid’s statement. After MoveOn.org slandered General David Petraeus in the New York Times; after the Left, including Democratic leadership have attempted at every turn, to weaken our military through non-binding resolutions to end the war and thus cut off funding to the military; to deny that militant Islam poses a threat to our country, we’re supposed to take Harry Reid, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, et al. for their word, that they support the military, that they are resolute in fighting global terrorism?

Third, the Majority Leader cites the stories of a few brave soldiers. How hypocritical. As I stated above, he and his Leftist ilk have betrayed our military at every step, accusing them of atrocities in Iraq, accusing them of failing to secure the country, etc. Yet, Reid has the audacity to USE stories from our fallen heroes in this statement.

DEPLORABLE and SHAMEFUL

Here’s the complete article:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Twin Cities Conservative has come to a hardly surprising (note: sarcasm) conclusion:

The Huffington Post is nothing more than sleazy tabloid reading. I came across this article from, ahem, respected Leftist author Jane Hamsner on the Huffington Post.

Let’s discuss the following excerpts from Hamsner’s essay:

First, “Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush’s failed war.”

Right from the outset, Hamsner recites the Leftist rhetoric that the Iraq War is 1.) George Bush’s war; and 2.) a failed one at that. Sounding the surrender bell, Hamsner and her Leftist brethren do not understand that Iraq, part of a greater war on terror, is ALL OF OUR’S. This is a war fought between civilizations.

Second, “The quite simple fact of the matter is that last week’s carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show just bought us several more Friedman Units of war, and all that cabbage on Petraeus’s chest had its desired effect –

But don’t let this sort of Leftist rhetoric fool you: the Democrats SUPPORT the troops. Don’t be fooled by the double-talk, the backstabbing, the pandering, etc. They really do support the troops (note again: sarcasm).

There is an undeniable point to which the Democrats cannot challenge: they have overtly declared their disapproval for the United States military. While they claim to care for our fighting men and women, their actions speak otherwise (Hillary Clinton calling Petraeus a liar, John Murtha impugning Marines at Haditha without evidence, Harry Reid declaring the war lost, the collective Democratic effort to halt funding to the war, and THUS, our soldiers, ETC.).

Third, “But I guess not, because she decided instead to join with such leading moral barometers as Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn.”

The Left attacks someone like McCain, a POW, a true hero, and someone who’s support for the military has never wavered. Furthermore, the Left has become a giant McCarthy-like machine, impugning and embarrassing anyone who fails to toe the party line and utter the tired Leftist talking points.

Here’s the complete article:

It seems like only yesterday in these very pages I wanted to put my head through a wall when Hillary Clinton decided to pile on John Kerry on the eve of the 2006 election, just as the right wing was swarming him over his bad joke. It’s just such a basic, elemental principle at play here — you don’t help the right wing out by repeating their talking points, ever. Why was this so hard to grasp?

But here we are, almost a year later, and Hillary seems to have internalized that principle very well. Because when baited by Rudy Giuliani and offered the chance to frag MoveOn over their Petraeus ad, she thought the better of it:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush’s failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton’s record in the campaign’s first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics.

Bravo. Hillary seizes the opportunity to pivot and attack — forcing Rudy into embracing George Bush and his horribly unpopular war. She sticks the landing.

Elizabeth Edwards? Not so much. You would thinks that she of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about – the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he’s a rescue worker, but they’ll try to demolish John Edwards over a haircut because they know that they’ll get hammered by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter.

But I guess not, because she decided instead to join with such leading moral barometers as Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn. So did John Kerry, whom one would expect to know better by this point in time. Granted, we really don’t expect much better from Joe Biden — somehow he continues to find the obvious quite elusive. So I guess we have to say it once again until everyone gets it — you never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a cudgel to beat the left with.

Just. Don’t. Do. It.

The quite simple fact of the matter is that last week’s carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show just bought us several more Friedman Units of war, and all that cabbage on Petraeus’s chest had its desired effect — politicians were so afraid of criticising a military man they couldn’t say what needed to be said, namely that Petraeus is betraying the trust of the American public by using his credibility as a General to present George Bush’s politicized and inaccurate facts to Congress. The war is not going swimmingly, it’s a full on, four-flushing disaster and the entire country knows it. Rather than turning around and kicking MoveOn in an overweening desire to have the right wing pat them on the head, maybe everyone should remember that their failure to criticize Colin Powell for the very same reasons five years ago bought us this mess in the first place, and be thankful that someone is injecting some skepticism into the conversation this time around.

Much hand wringing has ensued in the wake of the ad, and Enron Ed and Karl Rove’s short term strategy to pillory MoveOn may have George Bush’s desired effect of driving all the Republicans to his defense. As Digby observed, it certainly hornswoggled the media into missing the real story. But what did they really buy along with those Friedman Units? In forcing all the Republicans to rally ’round George Bush, they’ve left them no room to run in 2008. Says Bill Schneider:

It probably contributed to the affect that I described earlier, which is that Republicans were expected to rally behind the president. This probably gave them a little more fire.

And as you indicated and as Candy said, that could be very damaging to Republicans in the long run because they feel like they’re forced to stick with this president and this policy and the political damage could be catastrophic.

I don’t expect useless DLC consultants who are advising Harry Reid to hump the leg of the GOP like a neutered terrier to understand it, but driving Republicans into the waiting arms of George Bush and making them take ownership of this war could be the best thing to happen to Democrats in 2008. That MoveOn plans to go straight at uber fraud Rudy Giuliani today for the same betrayal of trust he displayed when he decided to abandon his responsibilities on the Iraq Study Group is to their credit.

Nobody wants to deal with this messy war, but our representatives are not going to be allowed to punt this time around. Many are going to get banged up and bruised in the process but that’s just how it’s going to go down.

Good for MoveOn for being willing to say what needs to be said and take the hit. Democrats should take their cues from Hillary Clinton when asked about their efforts and seize the opportunity to wrap this war around the exposed necks of the GOP.

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

I came across this brief article from WJACTV.com…Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, one of the primary architects of the Leftist defeatism rhetoric will be offering his take on General David Petraeus’ Iraqi report.

“JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Rep. John Murtha will talk to the national press this week on his take on the Iraq report card.

Talking to Channel Six, Murtha is still holding firm in his belief that we cannot win this war in Iraq. Again, Murtha is calling for troop redeployment. He said he will use facts to combat what the administration is saying. Murtha will also continue to push for Iraq to make a move. He said they need to take responsibility for themselves.

Murtha will address the media on Monday.”

Does it really take a soothsayer to anticipate what Murtha will say?

Let’s review the good Congressman’s rhetoric from the past few years (notably within the confines of the Iraq War). I thought it would be interesting to discuss Murtha’s rhetoric and, like his Democratic brethren, his flip-flopping on the war.

First, Murtha voted for the October 10th, 2002 resolution that authorized the use of war against Iraq. Now, when one affirms this indisputable point, the Democrats always, without fail, retort that they were hoodwinked into voting for the war (i.e. the evidence was faulty). Yet, the Democrats were 1.) looking at the same evidence as the president; and 2.) President Clinton and Vice President Gore, as well as several intelligence agencies (foreign and domestic), believed Saddam to be developing a clandestine WMD program. THAT is the inconvenient truth to which the Democrats cannot answer.

Second, Murtha in 2005 argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated.

How do you change your view from 2005 to 2007 on the ramifications of removing our troops from the Iraqi theater? Regardless, the dangers of a withdrawal, precipitous or gradual, would be catastrophic. The Twin Cities Conservative has reviewed the consequences of an early exit ad nauseum.

Third, on November 17, 2005, Murtha stirred controversy when he implored the redeployment of our troops in Iraq. "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.” Later, Murtha stated that he would opt for redeployment rather than withdrawal.

Simply put, this sort of thinking is disingenuous at best, dangerous at worst. For example, in a Meet the Press interview, Murtha stated that it would be feasible to withdraw our forces to Okinawa: “We can go to Okinawa. We can redeploy there almost instantly.”

Supposedly, the Right took his comments out of context. Yet, if you read his next quote, Murtha knew exactly what he was saying. “We currently have a Marine division headquartered in Okinawa, thus logistics and existing facilities are already in place. Additionally, during the course of this war, Marines at the battalion level or lower have already been deployed from Okinawa to Iraq.”

Murtha, like so many on the Left believes Iraq is NOT part of the global war on terror. “I think they’re trying to get this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because we have united the Iraqis against us. We’re spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we’re involved in a civil war in Iraq.”

When will Democrats learn? The “jihadists” waging war against our forces in Iraq, like their Taliban brethren in Afghanistan, Jamel Islam in Indonesia/Malaysia, and sleeper cells in Hamburg and Madrid are fighting the West under the al Qaeda banner. When a Democratic presidential candidate for example, lectures the President for diverting attention from the war on terror, that is simply incorrect.

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

The Twin Cities Conservative spied this article in CBSNews.com, and my first reaction was such that I was positive I would read endless news reports, press releases, etc. from the Left decrying the surge as a complete and abhorrent failure.

CBS News is reporting that the a top U.S.-allied Sunni sheik was killed in an explosion near his house in al-Anbar province.

Here’s the moral of the story: the Left lacking will, resolve, strength, heart, etc. (you get the idea) is akin to a small child (I’ve been using this analogy the past day or so). In their twisted, perverse, warped world, Iraq should be a Babylonic-paradise by now.

Little do they know about nation building. The adage, “Rome wasn’t built in a day” is appropriate here. Evidently, Iraq should have been rebuilt by now, jihadists appeased, utopia discovered, etc.

For they lack the attention span to see through an endeavor, during time of struggle they turn tail and run, or cry in a vain effort to be heard and get their world.

Once again, we on the Right will hear the endless reports that the surge isn’t really working, but rather, creating more “jihadists.” It would kill the Leftist movement if the surge actually worked, for under the shameless guise of progressive patriot, they are destroying this country as well as its collective psyche.

Pure children…

Here’s the complete article:

Read the rest of this entry »

I wanted to examine the Democrats’ reaction to General Petraeus’ testimony at Capitol Hill. Since his report, the Left, notably it’s elected leaders, have come forth in a cavalcade of collective protest.

I propagated the notion in part II of my surge reaction essay that the Left is nothing more than a bunch of small, ill-behaved children. Upon not getting their way, in this case complete and utter withdrawal and surrender from Iraq followed by head bowing to terrorists, they throw themselves violently on the floor, kicking and screaming.

The reaction demonstrated by the following Democratically-elected officials has not changed my opinion whatsoever. Naturally, the Democrats disliked Petraeus’ report, for it conveyed news, recommendations, suggestions, that the Left does not want to hear. Furthermore, it countermands the notion that we are losing in Iraq.

First, in the following article from WEAU news (Wisconsin news station), Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has voiced his opposition to the Petraeus report:

“Senator Russ Feingold raised tough questions when the top commander of US forces in Iraq and the US Ambassador there appeared at a congressional hearing.

Feingold, a Democrat, described the Iraq War as a diversion from the task of fighting terror. He says the US should have focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the fight against al-Qaeda.

He challenged ambassador Ryan Crocker to say what was more important, the situation in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

Feingold raised similar questions with General David Petraeus

Then he said both men were not willing to comment seriously about how the war relates to the global fight against terrorism”

And in this article from the Chicago Sun-Tribune:

Pelosi to Bush: ‘It’s an insult’

IRAQ | President will pull out 30,000 troops, but Democrat scoffs

September 12, 2007

BY MATTHEW LEE AND ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON — President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer.

Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at hearings in Congress.

The president will say he understands Americans’ deep concerns. Bush will continue by saying that, after hearing from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, he has decided to reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos.

Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that events could change the plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Bush appears poised to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress — with 130,000 troops in Iraq. ”Please. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq,” she said.

Petraeus’ testimony appeared to solidify Bush’s support among Republicans — key because they have the power to block a fixed withdrawal deadline.

”My sense is the general has been so successful in his testimony that positions have hardened,” said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). AP

And finally, from AOL News Election Blog:

Pelosi Slams Bush Policy on Iraq

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release slamming the Bush administration’s current plans regarding Iraq mainly because, according to Pelosi, the overall plan of the administration is to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for ten years or more.

Here is an excerpt:

"Under the Bush plan, 130,000 Americans will remain in harm’s way in Iraq at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars. This status quo policy was rejected by General James Jones, whose recent report stated that significant force reductions are possible and that we must reduce our military footprint in Iraq."

The press release has been reprinted on the web via Yahoo News and it clearly shows the General Petraeus’ report had little impact on the Democratic leadership as this press release is a clear response indicating that the anti-war factions of the Democratic leadership have yet to be swayed. How this press release goes over with the public remains to be seen, but more than likely the public would not support another ten years in the theater.“

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

I thought I would analyze Gary Kamila’s essay on the “real lessons of 9/11.”

Essentially, the article epitomizes systemic denial and appeasement from the Left: the false accusations, concocted evidence, and convenient forgetfulness. In their perverse, twisted reality, President Bush is actually King George, purveyor of fear and civil rights usurper. On the other friend, Islamic terrorists are actually noble freedom fighters, waging a heroic struggle against Imperial America.

Before reading Kamila’s column, be sure to take a few deep breaths, for it will attack every sensibility. Upon first read, the fires of anger were stoked. But upon second read, I approached the article with annoyance; Kamila’s words typify the deranged views on the Left.

The bottom line is this: to this day, Islamic fundamentalists profess their hatred for the West, openly declaring their desire to 1.) destroy Western Civilization; 2.) create a pan-global Islamic caliphate. Yet, the Left sees the George Bush administration, in partnership with Christians and Jews as their true enemies.

Noted Middle East expert Daniel Pipes states the following, to which Kamila and his Leftist ilk completely embody:

“This negativism reflects twin realities: Islamism (outside Iran) is waxing everywhere, while the civilized world is making profound mistakes — blaming itself for Muslim hatred, underestimating and appeasing the enemy. Several trends:

• Governments negotiating with Islamist terror organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.
• Leading institutions (the press, the academy, etc.) accepting non-violent Islamists as part of the solution.
• The left making common cause with Islamism against their capitalist/Judeo-Christian opponent.

Here are some specific talking points that deserve comment:

“(President Bush) has been using 9/11 ever since to scare Americans into supporting his "war on terror." He has incessantly linked the words "al-Qaida" and "Iraq," a Pavlovian device to make us whimper with fear at the mere idea of withdrawing. In a recent speech about Iraq, he mentioned al-Qaida 95 times. No matter that jihadists in Iraq are not the same group that attacked the U.S., or that their numbers and effectiveness have been greatly exaggerated.”

Point number ONE in Kamila’s essay is this as noted in the last sentence of this paragraph: the Islamic terrorists’ threat is “greatly exaggerated.” Conveniently, he forgets the endless threats and open declarations, while looking the other way when car bombs, suicide bombers, etc. PRIOR TO THE IRAQ WAR, exploded in Bali, Madrid, and points in between.

“Gen. Petraeus, Bush’s mighty-me, will insist that we’re making guarded progress. Bush, whose keen grasp of military reality is reflected in his recent boast that "we’re kicking ass" in Iraq, will promise that he will reassess the situation in April.”

Where does Kamila base his assertion that Petraeus is nothing more than a Bush-lackey? Which evidence does Kamila cite to affirm Petraeus as nothing more than a “yes man?”

“Sept. 11 is a totemic date for the Bush administration. It justifies everything, explains everything, ends all argument. It is the crime that must be eternally punished, the wound that can never heal, the moral high ground that can never be taken. Bush’s reaction to 9/11 was to declare a "war on terror," of which the Iraq adventure was said to be the ‘front line.’”

Kamila’s statement epitomizes the Left’s position that the war on terror is merely a bumper sticker slogan. For them, 9/11 was a freak occurrence; terrorists are misunderstood.

“Bush’s, and America’s, response to 9/11 was fundamentally flawed for two reasons: It was atavistic and instinctive, and it was based on a distorted, ignorant and bigoted view of the Arab/Muslim world. These two founding errors are qualitatively different: The first involves emotions, the second ideas. But mixed together, they created a lethal cocktail. The grand justification of "spreading democracy in the Middle East" merely provided a palatable cover for vengeance and racism.”

“Bush’s America responded to 9/11 by lashing out. We chose vigilantism over justice, instinct over reason. Bush demanded that America play the role of the angry, righteous avenger, and America followed him. But we were not taking vengeance on the guy who attacked us but on somebody standing on the corner. The war was like the massacre in Haditha on a global scale.“

“Of course America was enraged and fearful after the attacks. But reacting to the attacks as we did, like an angry drunk in a bar, was not in our national interests. It was vital that we think clearly about our response, who attacked us, why they did, and what our most effective response would be. But here the American establishment ran up against its ideological blind spot — its received ideas about the Arab/Muslim world. Combined with the hysterical emotionalism, those ideas, which amount to a kind of de facto bigotry, allowed Bush to push through one of the most bizarrely gratuitous wars in history.“

In the Left’s twisted world, they would rather fall to a knee and bow a head to their Islamic master, although they either don’t know it yet or won’t admit it. In their minds, we can negotiate with those with whom we might disagree.

What they don’t comprehend, for example with Iran, is that we are dealing with a madman (Ahmadinejad), somehow who wishes to expedite the arrival of the apocalyptic imam while opening professing his desire to annihilate Israel.

How is it possible to reason with someone who is unreasonable? How is it possible to negotiate with a group, person, etc, so consumed with religious fervor that they are willing to not only kill themselves, but take innocent people, including fellow Muslims, along for the ride?

Here’s the full article:

Read the rest of this entry »

You’ll see in the article below that Democratic presidential candidate and bonafide phony John Edwards is talking out of both sides of his mouth. According to the AllAmericanPatriots.com, Edwards had some sharp words for Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

In a recent statement, Thompson asserted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is “more symbolism than anything else,” for which Edwards released the following statement:

“Fred Thompson said today that Osama bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else’– after the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself to its pre-9/11 strength. Not only has the Republicans’ so-called ‘war on terror’ failed to make us safer, now they’re taking their eye off the ball again.”

Here’s the bottom line: John, you can’t have it both ways. How can you be so disingenuous to deny a war on terror exists, yet declare that if elected president you would hunt Osama bin Laden to ends of the earth, thus bringing him to justice for orchestrating the murders of over 3,000 innocent civilian in New York, Washington D.C, and Pennsylvania.

Here’s the full article:

“Sept. 7, 2007, Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In response to Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s assertion that Osama bin Laden is “more symbolism than anything else,” Sen. John Edwards released the following statement:

“Fred Thompson said today that Osama bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else’– after the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself to its pre-9/11 strength. Not only has the Republicans’ so-called ‘war on terror’ failed to make us safer, now they’re taking their eye off the ball again.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Six years ago, President Bush declared that he wanted bin Laden ‘dead or alive.’ That bin Laden is still at large is Bush’s starkest failure. I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice. And I can tell you one thing: I don’t care what bin Laden says in his video about our politics or our policy in this country. This murderer of thousands of innocent Americans has no right to be heard. The only thing he deserves is justice, and as president I will do everything in my power to deliver it to him.

"Unlike Senator Thompson, I have offered a bold new counterterrorism policy defined by the principles of strength and cooperation that will actually counter terrorism. The centerpiece of my plan is a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) that will unite strength and cooperation to create a new coalition of nations cooperating to root out and shut down terrorist cells."

"Fred Thompson should know better. Responsible candidates for president talk about real solutions that will make America safer from terrorism. They don’t ignore the fact that George Bush’s policies have only made the threat of terrorism worse."

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

I enjoyed this blurb from the CourierInternational.com…

Finally, a voice of reason from Europe…for all the talk of Europe conforming to Muslim demands, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has called a spade a spade (more analysis below).

The consequences of Sweden’s cartoon dispute In the aftermath of the dispute over a Swedish Muhammad cartoon, Swedish Prime (Minister) Fredrik Reinfeldt has received ambassadors from several Muslim countries. After the meeting the ambassadors decided not to go ahead with their plans to present a list of demands which included setting up a parliamentary committee for combating Islamophobia. The newspaper comments: ‘Religious fundamentalists and the henchmen of dictators know how to exploit the weaknesses of open societies. They should not cast themselves in the role of the offended and try to take control of the Swedish agenda. [Were Sweden to give in to their demands] it would be letting down democrats everywhere - not least those Muslims who have fled the dictatorships which these ambassadors represent.’"

This is essentially what The Twin Cities Conservative details, how the Left has succumbed to the romance of the Islamic terrorist as a noble, freedom fighter. Thus, the Democrats/Left have become the Dhimmicrats instead; and now they’ve hedged their bets, dropped to a knee and bowed their collective heads to Allah.

Well-known conservative author Marc Steyn, a frequent guest on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, wrote an interesting book (America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It) that predicts, according to the OCRegister (Orange County, CA) “Western Europe soon will be overwhelmed by the same radical Islamic ideology that spawned Osama bin Laden, the Taliban of Afghanistan and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Steyn contends the following: “Declining birth rates prompted European governments to pursue liberal immigration to keep their economies supplied with labor. Arabs and other Muslims made up the largest portion of those migrants. Instead of adopting the beliefs of their new countries, these Muslim immigrants and their descendants have demanded that Europe change to accommodate their religious views.”

Therein lies one of the greatest challenges Europe, among other Western societies faces, Muslims immigrating to OTHER countries are now forcing their host countries to adopt their strict Wahhabi-like religious dogma.

I found the following statement frightening: “Muslim populations soon will be large enough in the European Union countries to push aside Christian and secular governments and establish new Islamic states, Steyn argues. The United States doesn’t face the same immediate threat because Muslims haven’t migrated here in such large numbers, he says, and our revolutionary founding in 1776 has more deeply ingrained our commitment to democratic values.”

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

Like undoubtedly many of the RealClearPolitics readers, I like to peruse the JihadWatch.org website, hosted by noted author Robert Spencer. Here, Spencer posts countless topics per day regarding atrocities, murders, hate-crimes, etc perpetrated by Islamists.

I thought a fairly brief essay was in order to discuss the pressure “civil rights” groups like CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) and the IAC (Iranian-American Council) have placed on corporations, universities, and other sponsors. Here this pressure is to block JihadWatch as a hate-speech site on their servers, as well as excoriate Spencer and his site for espousing hate. Also, the intention of this essay is to rebuke the Left, who have embraced dhimmitude, for their hypocritical stance towards First Amendment rights.

I was inspired by a well-written article (White Jihadists) from Erik Rush, a contributor of social commentary to numerous print and online publications, and a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc., and is acting Associate Editor and Publisher of TheRealityCheck.org.

We’ve heard for years now that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and his hoards of neocons have used stormtrooper-like tactics to usurp the Constitution, thus creating a police-state (I can’t make this stuff up). “Respected” media institutions like the New York Times, in a outright act of sedition, exposed a secret NSA electronic wiretapping program in 2005.

Yet, in one of the most frightening forms of legislation ever witnessed, we’ve seen the Democrats attempt to stifle free speech with HR 192, prepared for presentation to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. This bill, essentially, would stifle free RELIGIOUS speech. According to Brad Dacus, as cited in World News Daily, “the misuse of "hate crimes" laws that give those claiming "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" discrimination special legal rights, pointing out that such a maneuver recently was used, as WND has reported, by the Hindu American Foundation to label a long list of Christian ministry websites who promote Christian beliefs and offer the choice of those beliefs to those involved in other religions as "hate speech."

Reverend Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition states the following, “(this bill is) an attempt by the ultra liberals and the homosexuals to force Americans to accept homosexuality and gender disturbance as equal to God’s Created Order of heterosexuality.

This while Muslims, treated with kid gloves in this country by the Politically Correct Left, have practiced Free Speech endlessly with their attacks against Christians and Jews.

Furthermore, the Liberals, notably Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, have attempted to resurrect a piece of legislation that would require radio stations to broadcast liberal and conservative talk radio evenly. This legislation is overwhelmingly political in nature, as efforts to revive liberal radio ventures like Air American have ended in abject failure on multiple occasions.

It’s telling that groups like MoveOn.org have staged a full frontal attack on people like Congressman Brian Baird. For those of you who don’t know, Baird is a Democrat, who while opposed to the Iraq War, visited Iraq and noted the successes of the surge. Upon return, Baird instructed the masses that it would be wise to exercise restraint and allow the surge time for complete success.

The Daily Kos has jumped in on the action, castigating, often maliciously and obscenely, Democrats like Baird and others who share his beliefs. Ironically, it is this form of subjugation to stifle dissent that has shown the Left’s true colors.

It’s pretty telling, the party that advocates the rights of the people, actually advocates the rights of a FEW people. It’s obscene how destructive this Democratic party has become; can anyone see our country awash in flames because of them?

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

I found this article quite telling…I felt compelled to document this issue, as 1.) one of my elected officials is one Keith Ellison; and 2.) the state of Minnesota has become the “beta-testing” site for entitlements, sharia law, and welfare.

Naturally, Ellison, as you will read later in the article, condemns the voice of concerned congressman.

Essentially, the crux of the article depicts the average American citizen as arrogant, narrow-minded Islamophobe…

My initial reaction to those on the Left who wish to become dhimmis and their terrorist masters: YOU are perpetuating the notion that you wish harm to us. We, average American Joes, are merely reacting. You proclaim that Imperialist America is plundering your lands, and you are acting out of self preservation. Well I have a message for you:

SO ARE WE…

Here’s why:

1.    Approximately 10% of the religious population adhering to some form of extremist dogma
2.    Violence against “infidels” occurs in Muslim countries is a common occurrence.
3.    Non-muslims enjoy NO rights in Muslim countries
4.    The notion of killing innocent civilians to meet your god and 72 virgins is propagated ad nauseum
5.    Your extremist leaders have declared war against the West
6.    I would claim that 99% of all terrorist attacks, with the exception of a rare ETA act, are carried out under the banner of Allah.

Furthermore, when supposedly moderate members of the religion refuse to condemn terrorist attacks, it only further validates the theory that all members of your religion. Consider the source with this article: the New York Times, the biggest media traitor in the country.

Note the following highlights:

Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans should distinguish between mainstream Muslims and the radical fringe, the leaders said.
As mentioned previously, the supposedly moderates MUST condemn all terrorist attacks. Furthermore, they MUST force their extremists to embrace, tolerate, and accept all religions.

“Leaders of American Muslim organizations attribute the growing intolerance to three main factors: global terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, disappointing reports from the Iraq war and the agenda of some supporters of Israel who try taint Islam to undermine the Palestinians.”

The bottom line with this statement is this: do Muslim concerns not always center around their perceived ills from Jews? Is it not ALWAYS Israel’s fault? The Palestinians, while completely shunned in most Muslim circles privately, have always and will always be the convenient scapegoat for the fanatics in the streets.

“Zaid Shakir, an African-American imam with rock star status among young Muslims, described how on a recent road trip from Michigan to Washington he heard comments on talk radio from people who were ‘making stuff up about Islam.’”

Of course this wouldn’t be anything like the lies and slander which completely saturates the Muslim community: e.g. Jews are pigs and apes, America invaded Iraq for oil, and the government, urged on by the Jews, orchestrated 9/11.

I wrote about this last week; when non-Muslims are afforded reciprocity in Muslim countries, more credibility MAY be lent to perceived Muslim slights. Until then, condemn your extremists and embrace tolerance.

Here’s the full article:

Read the rest of this entry »