Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Myth vs Fact 16


Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. 3:125-127 “Yes, if you hold on to patience and piety, and the enemy comes rushing at you; your Lord will help you with five thousand angels having marks (of distinction).” Allâh made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And , the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated. Tafsir: 125 126 -129

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Jihadists, Studies In Islam, Terrorists | Leave a comment

Open Post


No particular topics…rant away.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Misc | 8 Comments

Banned by PBS: Muslims Against Jihad


Fox News presents:

Saturday, June 23 at 9 p.m. ET
Repeats Sunday, June 24 at 3 a.m. ET
Hosted by E.D. Hill

Tune in this weekend, as FOX News Channel presents the documentary the Public Broadcasting System didn’t want you to see.

It’s a film about the difference between moderate Muslims and the radicals who want to kill us. It asks where are the moderate Muslims and why aren’t they speaking out against the jihadists? And it was financed with $675,000 of taxpayers’ money.

It was commissioned as part of the PBS series “America at the Crossroads” about the post 9/11 world, but PBS executives rejected it.

PBS claims the filmmakers were “alarmist, overreaching and unfair.”

The filmmakers say they were censored because of liberal bias at PBS.

On a topic this important, we think you have the right to decide for yourself.

So what will anyone do about it? Will we help the “apostates”? Are they worthy? And what will the “apostates” do with the “kill the infidel” portions of the Koran? Can entire sections of their Holy Book be denied and if so, is their Holy Book still Holy?

Astute Blogger has it blogged:

ABG Films:

Islam vs Islamists

An America at a Crossroads film about the war within the Muslim world, how moderate Muslims are voicing their objections to the teachings of radical Islam, and how they are being persecuted for doing so in Europe, North America and Africa, demonstrating Islamist persecution of moderate Muslims is a worldwide phenomenon.

Muslims Against Jihad (not the original title)

An America at a Crossroads Research and Development project examining the way radical Muslims intimidate proponents of more moderate interpretations of the Koran and why Islamist beliefs have gained such popularity in the Muslim world.

Free The Film:

 

Pajamas Media:

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Jihadists, Studies In Islam, Terrorists | 12 Comments

The System at Work


WASHINGTON –– (typical WaPo moron apologist)

We have become political hypochondriacs. We seem eager to declare that “the system” has come down with some dread disease, to proclaim that an ideological “center” blessed by the heavens no longer exists, and woe unto us. An imperfect immigration bill is pulled from the Senate floor and you’d think the Capitol dome had caved in.

It sort-a-kind-a did there, skippy.

It’s all nonsense, but it is not harmless nonsense. The tendency to blame the system is a convenient way of leaving no one accountable. Those who offer this argument can sound sage without having to grapple with the specifics of any piece of legislation. There is the unspoken assumption that wisdom always lies in the political middle, no matter how unsavory the recipe served up by a given group of self-proclaimed centrists might be.

The wisdom lies with “We The People” which haven’t been represented in decades.

And when Republicans and Democrats are battling each other with particular ferocity, there is always a call for the appearance of an above-the-battle savior who will seize the presidency as an independent. This messiah, it is said, will transcend such “petty” concerns as philosophy or ideology.

It is said? By whom? Specifics, if you will?

Finally, those who attack the system don’t actually want to change it much. For example, there’s a very good case for abolishing the United States Senate. It often distorts the popular will since senators representing 18 percent of the population can cast a majority of the Senate’s votes. And as Sen. John McCain said over the weekend, “The Senate works in a way that relatively small numbers can block legislation.”

Especially when they are shoving something down the throats of the MAJORITY that don’t want said trash shoved down their throats…like the non-amnesty amnesty bill.

But many of the system-blamers in fact love Senate rules that, in principle, push senators “toward the middle” in seeking solutions. So they actually like the system more than they let on.

Says who? Your opinion? Where is your substantiation? Have milk?

As it happens, I wish the immigration bill’s supporters had gotten it through — not because I think this is great legislation but because some bill has to get out of the Senate so real discussions on a final proposal can begin.

Wrong. The bill needs to die a hideous death and those that support need to leave public office because they do NOT represent the public. They represent each other’s tenure in a life-time venture to suck the public dry.

Notice how tepid that paragraph is. The truth is that most supporters of this bill find a lot of things in it they don’t like. The guest-worker program, in particular, strikes me as terribly flawed. The bill’s opponents, on the other hand, absolutely hate it because they see it as an effective amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. And boy, did those opponents mobilize. In well-functioning democracies, mobilized minorities often defeat unenthusiastic majorities.

Minorities? Hardly so.

And some “centrist” compromises are more coherent and politically salable than others. Neither side on the immigration issue has the popular support to get exactly what it wants. So a bill aimed at creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is full of grudging concessions to the anti-immigration side. These have the effect of demobilizing the very groups that support the underlying principles of this bill. That’s not a system problem. It just happens that immigration is a hard issue that arouses real passion.

The fact is this…we have LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED so why should we have MORE laws on the books that WON’T BE ENFORCED?

Typically, advocates of the system breakdown theory move quickly from immigration to the failure of President Bush’s Social Security proposals. Why, they ask, can’t the system “fix” entitlements?

Because the socialists want entitlements and keep the populace lazy and dependent on government as to when to wipe their own asses.

The simple truth is that a majority of Americans (I’m one of them) came to oppose President Bush’s privatization ideas. That reflected both a principled stand and a practical judgment. From our point of view, a proposal to cut benefits and create private accounts was radical, not centrist.

Middle of the Roaders are cowards there skippy. Privatization is a proven SUCCESS. Then again, the socialists don’t like individuality or success…unless, naturally, one agrees with the socialists. Then, all is well.

An authentically “centrist” solution to this problem would involve some modest benefit cuts and some modest tax increases. It will happen some day. But for now, conservatives don’t want to support any tax increases. I think the conservatives are wrong, and they’d argue that they’re principled. What we have here is a political disagreement, not a system problem. We have these things called elections to settle political disagreements.

Tax increases squelch productivity and is bad for the nation. Currently our economy is doing very well thanks to the TAX CUTS. “Centrists” are horrible for ANY country and Centrists are non-committal weaklings.

Is Washington a mess? In many ways it is. The simplest explanation has to do with some bad choices made by President Bush. He started a misguided war that is now sapping his influence, he has treated Democrats as if they were infected with tuberculosis, and Republicans in Congress as if they were his valets. No wonder he’s having trouble pushing through a bill whose main opponents are his own ideological allies.

Bush started it? Where ya been? Head in the sand? The Jihad has been going on for decades and during the Clinton Administration, war was declared on the United States and “we” did what? Nothing. That’s what, moron. As for the mistreating the democrats, they deserve every bit of it. They are socialists. As for the “immigration” bill, Kennedy was all for it and so is GWB. How does that fit into your retarded article?

Maybe you would place blame elsewhere. But please identify some real people or real political forces and not just some faceless entity that you call the system. Please be specific, bearing in mind that when hypochondriacs misdiagnose vague ailments they don’t have, they often miss the real ones.

When CONgress and the Executive don’t do the bidding of We The People, there is definitely a problem and sugar-coating it as in your retarded article doesn’t cut the mustard.

postchat@aol.com

 

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Constitution | Leave a comment

Our Common Struggle


America had its civil war. Why expect freedom to come easy to Iraq?

BAGHDAD, Iraq–Americans keen to understand the ongoing struggle for a new Iraq can be guided by the example of their own history. In the 1860s, your country fought a great struggle of its own, a civil war that took hundreds of thousands of lives but ended in the triumph of freedom and the birth of a great power. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation signaled the destruction of the terrible institution of slavery, and the rise of a country dedicated, more than any other in the world of nation-states then and hence, to the principle of human liberty.

Our struggle in Iraq is similar to the great American quest, and is perhaps even more complicated. As your country was fighting that great contest over its unity and future, Iraq was a province of an Ottoman empire steeped in backwardness and ignorance. A half a century later, the British began an occupation of Iraq and drew the borders of contemporary Iraq as we know them today. Independence brought no relief to the people of our land. They were not given the means of political expression, nor were they to know political arrangements that respected their varied communities.

Under the Baath tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator’s wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty. I look with admiration at the American debate surrounding the Iraq war, and I admire even those opinions that differ from my own. As prime minister of Iraq I have been subjected to my share of criticism in that American debate, but I harbor no resentment and fully understand that the basic concerns of Americans are the safety of their young people fighting in our country and the national interests of their society. As this American debate goes on, I am guided and consoled by the sacred place of freedom and liberty in the American creed and in America’s notion of itself.

War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America’s way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

Before us lies a difficult road–the imperative of national reconciliation, the drafting of a new social contract that acknowledges the diversity of our country. It was in that spirit that those who drafted our constitution made provisions for amending it. The opponents of the constitution were a minority, but we sought for our new political life the widest possible measure of consensus. From the outset, I committed myself to the principle of reconciliation, pledged myself to its success. I was determined to review and amend many provisions and laws passed in the aftermath of the fall of the old regime, among them the law governing de-Baathification. I aimed to find the proper balance between those who opposed the decrees on de-Baathification and others who had been victims of the Baath Party. This has not been easy, but we have stuck to that difficult task.

Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq’s history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government and in the absence of law and order in some of our cities, even in some of the districts in Baghdad, imposed their own private laws–laws usually driven by extremism and a spirit of vengeance. Some of these militias presented themselves as defenders of their own respective communities against other militias. We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs. Iraq itself is eager to build decent relations with its neighbors. We don’t wish to enter into regional entanglements. Our principle concern is to heal our country. We have reached out to those among our neighbors who are worried about the success and example of our democratic experiment, and to others who seem interested in enhancing their regional influence.

Our message has been the same to one and all: We will not permit Iraq to be a battleground for other powers. In the contests and ambitions swirling around Iraq, we are neutral and dedicated to our country’s right to prosperity and a new life, inspired by a memory of a time when Baghdad was–as Washington is today–a beacon of enlightenment on which others gazed with admiration. We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

Mr. Maliki is prime minister of Iraq.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Civil War, Iraq | 1 Comment

Poor Bigot Jesse


Moron:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was arrested yesterday at a demonstration outside a south suburban gun shop and charged with one count of criminal trespass.

Jackson was arrested when he refused to move away from the entrance to Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, police said.

He has protested with other community activists outside the shop in recent weeks after a 16-year-old honor student was gunned down on a city bus.

Jackson says the shop’s proximity to Chicago provides gang members and criminals easy access to firearms.

REV. JESSE JACKSON SR.: Duke: Horror and Truth

Wizbang: (I knew this would bring Troll 2 in)

“Divorced Mother Of Two, Working Way Through College, Allegedly Raped, Abused By Gang.” Had the headline read that way, the fury would have been great. [because there was no fury about the case -ed] The facts that the police didn’t arrest anyone, that the gang was not talking, that it took two days for the police to search the scene of the crime would have added to the anger.

 

But that’s not how it was reported. Rather, it was reported that a black stripper was accusing members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape after she and another woman were hired to dance for them at a party. That method of reportage put race and class in the center of the story.

Broowaha:

Unfortunately, for three young men, Nifong’s getting “carried away” got carried too far – right to the feet of Jesse Jackson. Jackson came to the defense of the so-called victim in this case even going so far as to publicly announce on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes that he would offer a “don’t strip scholarship” to the accuser. On that same program, co-host Sean Hannity asked Jackson if he would recant his statement if the three players were found not guilty. Jackson replied, “no because I do not believe they are innocent and justice will prevail.”

Well, Mr. Jackson, you were half right. Justice did prevail. Three innocent men were exonerated for a crime they did not commit. The question now remains, Mr. Jackson, do you intend to offer an apology to the three falsely accused players? Mr. Jackson is guilty of one of the worst cases of racism in recorded history and yet he has not even offered one iota of an apology or other reparation. Jackson was so quick to judge these three because they were white and the so-called victim was black – a classic example of racism if there ever were one. Rather than wait until all of the evidence had been presented in a court of law before a jury, Jackson had already appointed himself judge, jury and executioner of these three Duke University students and now, with egg all over his face, Jackson acts as though he did nothing wrong. In fact, it might be safe to say that as far as Jackson is concerned, the three are guilty and no evidence to the contrary will change his mind, regardless of how irrefutable that evidence may be.

 

Why is Jesse the bigot so silent and where are the apologies?

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Bigots, Jackson | 90 Comments

Democratic Dinosaurs Turn D.C. into the Land That Time Forgot


With each passing day, Washington, D.C. is turning into the Land That Time Forgot.

While the rest of the country is dealing with the here and now — exemplified by Bush’s puny approval ratings and this new poll showing rural voters turning against the GOP’s handling of Iraq — the Beltway’s Democratic dinosaurs are acting like it’s 2002. For them, Bush still has credibility on Iraq, Democrats still need to tread lightly in opposing the war for fear of alienating red state and swing voters, and Iraq is still a right vs left issue.

Uh.  Darling?  Have you seen the approval ratings of CONgress recently?  GWB’s approval rating is TWICE that of CONgress.  Wake up, darling.  Wake up.

I have an area here sort of keeping up with polls.  There is one in particular which can be found here: it shows that cleary the majority of Americans are unhappy with CONgress and thew way the federal government is acting.  This explains why the government is so eager to develop a new voter pool by granting amnesty to MILLIONS of illegal aliens with no intentions of going after the law-breakers.

How important is a victory in Iraq?

Not sure and refused to answer: 5%

Not at all important: 19%

Not very important: 14%

Somewhat important: 26%

Very important: 35%

What does that mean?  Including the “not very important” with the “not at alls” and the “not sures”, the total is 39%.  Including the “somewhat importants” and the “very importants”, the total is 61%.  The 14% are the fence sitters.  Clearly,  the majority believe a victory is  important.

How hopeful are you that the US will be able to succeed in Iraq?

Not sure/refused to answer: 2%

Not at all hopeful: 21%

Not very hopeful: 22%

Somewhat hopeful: 28%

Very hopeful: 28%

The first two, totaling 23% would be the idiots and clearly not the majority.  The 22% would represent the other  idiots that listen to the Leftinistra Press.  The bottom two represents the majority of Americans that know a victory is a must.

Who would you like to see the president rely more on for advice on the conduct of the war?

Not sure/refused to answer: 7%

Congress: 23%

Field Commanders: 71%

Clearly, the majority don’t want CONGRESS messing with the war because they haven’t a clue.  There is only ONE CIC.

Which of the following must be a higher priority for the US?

Not sure/refused: 11%

Immediate troop withdrawal: 47%

Winning in Iraq: 42%

In Poll World, it is a draw.  Immediate troop withdrawal for various reasons is not given.  I am all in favor of creating glass factories of the region.

Would you agree the war is lost?

Unsure/refused to answer: 4%

Disagree strongly: 30%

Disagree somewhat: 24%

Agree somewhat: 18%

Agree strongly: 24%

Again, clearly, the majority see the need to become victorious.

Would you agree that the US is fighting a global war on terror?

Not sure: 5%

Disagree strongly: 16%

Disagree somewhat: 16%

Agree somewhat: 27%

Agree strongly: 38%

Again, the majority disagrees with Reid and Clan.

The rest of this poll and the overall results of the poll clearly show the MAJORITY of Americans disagree with the Reid/Pelosi control and that they are the reason the CONgress has the LOWEST approval rating in the history of our country.

Good job, morons.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Polls | 34 Comments

Congress’s new voice


ROUGHLY half a year after the Democrats seized Congress, nobody could deny that politics has grown more interesting. Judging from the newspapers today it is Capitol Hill, not the White House, where the action is in Washington, DC.

What have the Democrats achieved, besides enabling the enemy of the American people?

The new Democratic majority certainly started strong. In its first 100 hours the House passed six popular bills to show that this was no “do-nothing Congress”, as its Republican-controlled predecessor had been labelled. The Iraq debate heated up with congressional calls to pull the troops home. The Senate has held public, sometimes riveting, hearings with the attorney-general and other administration officials, holding their feet to the fire as Congress is meant to do. And recently, the Senate unblocked the debate on immigration by considering a vast compromise bill that would overhaul America’s system for welcoming foreigners.

And yet the past six months has also shown how painfully blocked-up America’s checks-and-balances system can be. For all of the attention-grabbing activity, nothing concrete has yet been achieved. That 100-hours plan? Except for changes to the House’s own rules, none of the other bills has become law; most are languishing in the Senate. A bill on stem-cell research recently passed both chambers, but it now faces George Bush’s veto. The “100 Hours” may be remembered as a catchy campaign slogan, but it may produce precisely nothing of legislative substance. At least the 1994 “Contract with America” helped to get the ball rolling on welfare reform.

Old news, you say?  Yes it is.  The stem cell bill was vetoed and rightfully so.  The ILLEGAL non-amnesty amnesty bill  was also defeated and rightfully so.  The question is this.  When will the CONgress and the Executive listen to We The People?

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Congress | Leave a comment

Forgotten Threat


Late last week you could have been forgiven for thinking that the Star Wars era had begun. Space-age computer graphics dominated the news: Satellites orbited the globe, target sites throbbed on interactive maps of Europe and the Middle East. The talk was of Russia and Iran and of whether high-tech missile defense equipment might endanger human health. The pictures, in the wake of the Group of Eight summit, were of statesmen: George Bush‘s helicopter landing at a Polish beach resort, Vladimir Putin giving interviews (” I am a true democrat“). At any rate, that was the news and the talk, and those were the pictures, if you happened to be living in Central Europe.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | GWOT | Leave a comment

Jews Hammer Carter


Why does the worse president of the United States in recent history, Jimmy Carter, hate the United States so?

From One News Now:

The founder and director of Minnesota-based Olive Tree Ministries says she’s upset about recent comments about the Middle East made by former President Jimmy Carter while on foreign soil. Listen to the report.

And what could be the possible motivation of a former president to support terrorism?

The former president told a human rights conference in Dublin, Ireland, that the Bush administration’s refusal to accept Hamas’ 2006 election victory was “criminal.” Carter also said Israel and much of the West sought to subvert the election by shunning the terrorist organization.

Jan Markell, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries, is blunt in her reaction. “It would seem that Jimmy Carter has appointed himself, in this case, as the roving ambassador for Hamas,” she states.

And Markell says one cannot help but wonder where Carter’s loyalties lie and if he is, indeed, anti-Semitic. “If you just look at the black-and-white facts of what Carter says and what Carter writes,” she observes, “it’s very hard not to come away with a pretty clear, objective opinion that Jimmy Carter is anti-Semitic.”

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has harshly criticized Hamas for taking over Gaza, saying its members were “murderous terrorists” who recently tried to assassinate him.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Carter | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: