Monday, August 29, 2005

Michael Yon: Gates of Fire

Michael Yon has already become known as one of the best, if not the best, war correspondent in Iraq this year. His blog is a must-read for anyone seeking the truth about what's going on over there. Time after time, Michael's semi-professional blog puts the MSM to shame. His latest post, "Gates of Fire" is the best war blog post I've read yet.

Follow Michael as he tags along with his Deuce4 imbedded unit in Mosul and comes face to face with the enemy. The action gets so intense, Michael--with special forces combat experience--even picks up an automatic weapon of a fallen soldier and opens fire on the enemy, trying to save the pinned-down life of the battalion commander (LTC).

Please read "Gates of Fire" and donate to Michael. This is the best way to encourage war coverage that's far superior to your local newspaper or TV.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Putting Politics Before Humanity

Don't think for a minute that the American Left is in a constant state of protest againt Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. because they are utterly concerned with the gravest of humanitarian circumstances (see Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, Niger, N. Korea, India...). No, their opposition stems from their lifelong dedication to the denial of any rightousness of the American Right or justification of its ideals and methodologies. To the Left, President Bush is the iconic reminder of all that is evil about the Right. Long before Mr. Bush met with his presidential exploratory committee in the mid-90's, before Iraq Invasion Part 2, before Afghanistan, before 9/11, before World Trade Center Part 1 (1993), and even before Slick Willy turned the prestigious presidential dwelling into his personal frat-house/brothel, the scene was set. Whomever the Right put in the White House and regardless of what evil they were doomed to confront in the 20th century, the Left had already positioned itself in opposition.

You see, the "American" Left is preeminently anti-Right rather than pro-America. After all "American" ideals such as equality, perseverence, opportunity, and the willingness to confront evil anywhere it exists, regardless of whom it directly threatens, are of no real concern to the Left. They'd just as well see America collapse than terrorism defeated. For nearly 100 years, this irrational discontent for American righteousness has plagued the Left, but it has become even more apparent recently that they are putting politics before everything, including that one endeavor which may be the most significant for the survival of human society: humanitarianism.

Christopher Hitchens, a left-leaning idealogue, explains the Left's weaknesses and utter hypocrisy in his recent Letter to the Left.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Mark Steyn: "The more the Islamists step on our toes, the more we waltz them gaily round the room."

From The Australian:

WITH hindsight, the defining encounter of the age was not between Mohammed Atta's jet and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but that between Mohammed Atta and Johnelle Bryant a year earlier. Bryant is an official with the US Department of Agriculture in Florida, and the late Atta had gone to see her about getting a $US650,000 government loan to convert a plane into the world's largest crop-duster. A novel idea.

The meeting got off to a rocky start when Atta refused to deal with Bryant because she was but a woman. But, after this unpleasantness had been smoothed out, things went swimmingly. When it was explained to him that, alas, he wouldn't get the 650 grand in cash that day, Atta threatened to cut Bryant's throat. He then pointed to a picture behind her desk showing an aerial view of downtown Washington - the White House, the Pentagon et al - and asked: "How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it?"

Fortunately, Bryant's been on the training course and knows an opportunity for multicultural outreach when she sees one. "I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from," she recalled. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could." Read more.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Chinese General Threatens U.S. with Nuclear Weapons over Taiwan

Chinese Major General (a two-star general to the amateurs) Zhu Chenghu warned the U.S. today that if it intervenes in China's pending military invasion and overthrow of sovereign neighbor Taiwan, China will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against the United States.

The U.S. State Department has already dismissed the comments as "highly irresponsible" and doesn't consider them to be the policy of the Chinese government.

Ironically, this weekend China is joining in discussions with five other nations about disarming North Korea of its nuclear weapons cache. Even though China has been running the puppet government of North Korea, led by our favorite maniacal dictator Kim Jung Il, for some time now, could North Korea be next on China's "Hostile Takeover Short List"? How better to clear the way to invade a nuclear nation than to use the international community to disarm them first?

Just a little information to put China's world domination ambitions into perspective...according to, China has less than 400 nuclear warheads that could hit U.S. territory soil, versus the United States' 6400 that could hit Chinese mainland. Even if you believe a supposedly secret document smuggled out of the Chinese government, China boasts over 2300 warheads, but they still only have a few dozen ICBM's and submarines with the range to deliver them to U.S. soil.

If China hit the U.S. with nuclear weapons, WW3 would be over in less than a week. Several million Americans would be dead and parts of the West Coast, Hawaii, and a few islands would be uninhabitable for a long time, but China and her 1.35 billion peasants would be annihilated.

Is the takeover of Taiwan and another notch on your communism headboard really worth it, China?

VIDEO: 1999 ABC News Report on Iraq-Terrorism Link

I'm getting even more annoyed than usual at the liberal talking points lately. They keep repeating this line that "Saddam had no ties to terrorism" as part of their standard We-Hate-Bush-And-Blame-America-For-Everything rhetoric. Alan Colmes repeats this garbage fairly regularly and this is exactly what Ron Reagan was trying to put out before Christopher Hitchens put him in his place rather severely the other night.

Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorism and harboring international terrorists, including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. But in their effort to discredit Bush and the war effort, liberals have suddenly developed post-9/11 amnesia about Iraq's historical ties to terrorism.

View the Video

The video report details some of Saddam's known ties to terrorism at the time, including Osama bin Laden's attempt to seek assylum in Iraq following the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as tracing bin Laden's effort to locate weapons-grade uranium.

Audio: The War Room radio show out of Pittsburgh also has a spliced audio version of the report.

VIDEO: American Soldier Survives Sniper

PFC Stephen TschidererArmy Medic PFC Stephen Tschiderer of the 101st “Saber” Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was shot by an insurgent sniper from 75 meters on June 2, 2005 and lived to tell about it. Tschiderer was knocked to the ground and immediately got back up, took cover, and located the sniper's position. After calling in support, the area was cordoned off and the two combatants were captured. Tschiderer even treated the wounds of the sniper who had just tried to take his life.

Soldiers at the scene recovered the video below that the insurgents took of their act. Listen closely and you will hear the common "Allah Akbar" chant.


Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Christopher Hitchens Scores a 1st Round TKO Against Ron Reagan

On Thursday (7/7/05) night on MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, host Ron Reagan got his rhetorical derriere handed to him by Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens about the reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place. Like all good liberals, Ron Reagan can't think for himself so he simply repeats DNC talking points about the Iraq War daily.

The entire transcript below was taken from Radio Blogger.

Ron Reagan: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

Christopher Hitchens: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

Ron Reagan: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

Christopher Hitchens: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

Ron Reagan: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

Christopher Hitchens: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

Ron Reagan: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

Christopher Hitchens: How can you know so little about...

Ron Reagan: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

Christopher Hitchens: Absolutely nonsense.

Ron Reagan: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

Christopher Hitchens: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

Ron Reagan: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

Christopher Hitchens: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

Ron Reagan: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?

Ron Reagan: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...

Ron Reagan: That's right. No substantive operational connection.

Christopher Hitchens: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

The Misguided Live8 Crowd

What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah
By Mark Steyn
Telegraph Newspaper Online Opinion

'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8, "demeans the generosity which they embody".

Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage. Read more.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Still Praying for Matt and Scott

MaupinA PFC when he was captured on April 9, 2004, Keith "Matt" Maupin was promoted to Sergeant in absentia on April 1, 2005. A native of Batavia, OH, Maupin is the only man or woman that the U.S. military lists as "captured" since the Iraq war began. No conclusive evidence has surfaced about his fate.

SpeicherNavy LCDR Michael "Scott" Speicher was flying his F/A-18 over Iraq on January 18, 1991 when his plane was shot down by an Iraqi SAM. He was listed as KIA, but is now listed as MIA/Captured. Two sets of "MSS" initials have been found carved into the walls of Iraqi prisons, the most recent in late 2003. Speicher was later promoted to Commander and then Captain (equivalent to an Army Colonel) in absentia in 2002. The U.S. Navy announced on April 4 that a panel has been assigned to review Speicher's status. All indications are that it will be changed to KIA.

These are the only two men suspected of still being held captive in Iraq. Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume they are still alive. Please join America in praying for the safe return of these two precious lives.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Experts Predict Bad Wildfire Season in Western United States...Again

Suprise, Surprise, "experts" have predicted that the 2005 wildfire season will be bad in the West. In this April 4, 2005 AP story, the named culprit in the Northwest is unusually low snowfall. And in the Southwest, the suspect is record rainfall. Yes, record high rainfall is now a predictor of a really bad wildfire season. I remember way back when record low rainfall was the best indicator of a bad wildfire season, say in 2003 when this UPI story warned of a bad, upcoming fire season because of a lingering drought.

If these doomsday predictions sound familiar, there's a good reason. Some hasty internet research revealed the following wildfire season projections for 1999-2004:

  • In 2004, predicted a bad wildfire season because of "unseasonably warm and dry" air with "little moisture in the forecast."
  • In 2003, besides the UPI story mentioned above, Jim Mann of the Daily Inter Lake reported in this August 28 article that a windy, dry cold front was going to make a bad fire season.
  • In 2002, Christopher Thorne of the AP reported that the upcoming fire season was going to be worse because of "below-normal rainfall" and lack of federal funding. Arizona Governor Jane Hull warned of a "very, very bad [fire] season" and seemed to blame the recent rash of Phoenix-area fires on children playing with matches, even though no scenario like that was ever suspected. Not to be outdone, an NPR affiliate predicted a "very bad fire season" because of "ultry dry conditions" in parts of the West.
  • In 2001, Reuters reported that officials at the National Interagency Fire Center predicted a "potential record-breaking fire season" because of "bone-dry conditions, coupled with thick underbrush." In this May 12, 2001 article, Douglas Jehl of The New York Times reports that a "drought in the West [was] raising fears of another bad fire season." Red Cross staff writer Stephania Kriner predicted a dangerous U.S. fire season because of "lingering drought, below-normal snow pack and ice storms that felled trees in several states." She reported that Red Cross spokesperson Bob Hall claimed that the conditions were ideal for fires because...get this...there was "snow on the ground but [with] little moisture in it."
  • In 2000, Paul Fattig of the Jackson County, Oregon Mail Tribune wrote that a representative of the Oregon Department of Forestry predicted a bad fire season and said that a wildfire could be sparked by "Memorial Day weekend, which marks the traditional beginning of camping season and related outdoor activities." Other culprits, according to the spokesman were campfires, barbecues, and dried grass in residential areas. CBS News blamed the bad fire season on federal budget cuts, "dryer than dry drought spawned by La Nina," and a weather system that diverted moisture away from the West by redirecting the jet stream.
  • In 1999, in an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times a bad fire season was forecast because of "excess wood levels in the nation's forests" because of "a century of U.S. Forest Service mismanagement."

This is getting old. Basically there are two ways to look at it:

  1. This is a major case of the "boy who cried wolf". The extraordinary need to make doomsday predictions to advance a Global Warming agenda is wearing thin.
  2. The same folks that brought you Global Warming theory (read: enviro-fascists) have effectively shut down tree-cutting and undergrowth cleanup efforts that, in the past, reduced the likelihood of massive, out-of-control wildfires.

Take your pick.

Friday, April 01, 2005

Muslim Scholar's Koran Analysis Reveals U.S. Destruction in 2007

Relatively unknown Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi's recent research of the Islamic holy book Koran (aka "Qur'an") has revealed that the United States will be hit by a massive tsunami in 2007, larger than the December 24, 2004 disaster that devastated Southeast Asia. Thankfully, Silwadi confirms that the world would be worse off with the complete destruction of the USA, and he personally prefers that the U.S. simply lose its superpower status.

Our favorite Islamist explained that the reason for this destruction at the hands of Allah was centuries of heavy-handedness toward the world but particularly black slaves and Indians (the feather variety, not dots). Oddly, no mention of the judicial execution of an innocent woman via starvation/dehydration.

Mr. Silwadi gets an F for his understanding of American history. But that's not really his strongest subject. He is, after all, a self-proclaimed Muslim "scholar".

Lucky for me, I live safely buffered between America's two largest mountain ranges.

I don't care to go into detail about the idiotic interpretations, so you can read it all here.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Schiavo Attorney Lies About Reason for Autopsy

George Felos is securing his future as an attorney that will say and do anything to win one for his client. Of the dozens of lies Felos has been spewing over the past few years, last night's may have been the ultimate whopper.

In a news conference on live national television, Felos stated that he spoke with the medical examiner to arrange an autopsy:

George Felos"We didn't think it was appropriate to talk about an autopsy prior to Mrs. Schiavo's death, but because claims have been made by, I guess, opponents of carrying out her wishes that there was some motive behind the cremation of Mrs. Schiavo we felt it was necessary to make that announcement today."

And of course, the lapdog known as Reuters is lapping this right up:

"The husband of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo has ordered an autopsy after she dies to silence allegations his plan to cremate her body is aimed at hiding something, his lawyer said on Monday."

But this is all yet another big, fat lie. Not once did Reuters or the AP mention that the autopsy isn't voluntary at all. Florida law, in fact, requires an autopsy to be performed because the body will be cremated!

Florida Statute Chapter 406, Section 11, Part 1 clearly states, "(1) In any of the following circumstances involving the death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine the cause of death and shall, for that purpose, make or have performed such examinations, investigations, and autopsies as he or she shall deem necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:...(c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at sea."

So, no doubt, the public will be duped again by a crafty lawyer. I'm sure most people who saw and read the news coverage will be too busy to do any research and will believe that Michael Schiavo is trying to exonerate himself from any accusations by "volunteering" Terri's body for an unnecessary autopsy. How good the all-American husband must be to get to the bottom of all this, right? He has nothing to hide, right? We'll see.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Gun-Free Zones: The Most Dangerous Places in America

Two more shooting rampages in the past week that began at a Wisconsin hotel church service and an Atlanta courthouse will no doubt bring the gun control fanatics out of the woodwork again to preach to us about the indiscriminate danger of firearms, need for expansion of gun control laws, and the unnecessary insanity the 2nd Amendment brings to our lives. But every time something like this happens, these hypocritical freaks "shoot" themselves in the foot.

Schools, universities, fast food restaurants, post offices, hotels, shopping malls, banks, courthouses. These are the locations of all of the worst shooting rampages in this country in the past two decades. What else do they have in common? Either by established rules or by law, these are all gun-free zones. Yes, these cordoned areas that are liberal utopian wonderlands where everyone is happy to roam free of the worry of gun violence have all been subjected to the worst gun violence imaginable. If you have to ask why, then you have obviously been far outside of the gun control debate for far too long.

Each time these incidents occur, firearm ownership advocates are proven right. We have proclaimed since the beginning of the founding of this nation that the safest and most worry-free lifestyle is one surrounded by firearms. The liberals can give up their only means of self-defense if they want, but political ideologies take a backseat to my family's safety. If you've ever read or heard the typical gun advocates' proclamation that they would continue to arm themselves even if the gun controllers had their way, you can count me in that group as well. To a gun-wielding conservative, the only difference between guns being legal and illegal is the number of people that know about the gun in the top of the closet.

Liberals can try all they want to disarm me and make my family as vulnerable as possible, but this is one man that loves his family a little too much for that.