Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Editorial Arrogance


On January 2, 2008, the Seminole Chronicle published an article headlined ” Muslim camp draws protest” under thje byline of Vickie DeSormier. I quote two excerpts from that article.

An event held by Muslim environmental activists was protested Saturday by several activists who claim the group putting on the event has ties to terrorism.

“If he (Kornman) would spend more time doing charitable work than he does attacking other charitable organizations, the world might be a better place,” Danette Zaghari-Mask said.

As a rank and file member of the United American Committee, I have no standing to represent the organization. The opinions I express here are my own, not those of the U.A.C.

Regardless of the fact that officers and staff of C.A.I..R. have been investigated, tried or sentenced for terror related activities, members and associates of C.A.I.R. have ties to terrorism. Those ties can be measured by their zeal for Islam. To whatever extent they are Muslim, they endorse terrorism because terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. [Emphasis added.]

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). [Noble Qur’an, Hilali & Khan]
    • Allah then mentioned the defeat of the unbelievers on the Day of Uhud, saying: (We shall cast terror) fear of you such that they run from you (into the hearts of those who disbelieve)[Ibn Abbas]
    • Allah next conveys the good news that He will put fear of the Muslims, and feelings of subordination to the Muslims in the hearts of their disbelieving enemies, because of their Kufr and Shirk. And Allah has prepared torment and punishment for them in the Hereafter. [Ibn Kathir]
  • 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.“[Hilali & Khan]
    • (When your Lord inspired the angels) it is also said that this means: when your Lord commanded the angels, ((saying:) I am with you) I will help you. (So make those who believe stand firm) in war; it is also said that this means: give those who believe the good news of victory. (I will throw) cast (fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve) the fear of Muhammad (pbuh) and his Companions. (Then smite the necks) their heads (and smite of them each finger) each shaped finger. [Ibn Abbas]
    • (I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.) means, `you — angels — support the believers, strengthen their (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to you. I will cast fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and denied My Messenger,[…] (so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet.[Ibn Kathir]
  • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.[Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
    • […]In every fight, physical, moral, or spiritual, arm yourself with the best weapons and the best arms against your enemy, so as to instil wholesome respect into him for you and the Cause you stand for.[…]
    • […]whereby you frighten Allah’s enemy[…][Mufti Muhammad Taqi Utrhmani]
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. 27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things. [Hilali & Khan]
    • (And He brought those of the People of the Scripture) they are Banu Qurayzah and Banu’l-Nadir: Ka’b Ibn Ashraf and Huyayy Ibn Akhtab and their hosts (who supported them) who supported the disbelievers of Mecca (down from their strongholds) from their mansions and towers, (and cast panic into their hearts) from Muhammad (pbuh) and his Companions, whereas before that they did not fear them and fought against them. (Some you slew) He says: you kill some of them, you sentence them to death, (and you made captive some) their children and women.[Ibn Abbas]
    • […](and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious[…][Ibn Kathir]
  • 59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.[Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
    • Allah then said to the believers: (Ye are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah) He says: the fear of the Jews and hypocrites of the swords of Muhammad (pbuh) and his Companions is greater than their fear of Allah. (That) fear (is because they are a folk who understand not) the command of Allah or Allah’s divine Oneness.[Ibn Abbas]
    • […](Verily, you are more fearful in their breasts than Allah.) meaning, the hypocrites fear you more than they fear Allah, as He says;[…][Ibn Kathir]
  • […]Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. […][Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331]
  • […]I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)[…][Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220]

Is Islam an eleemosynary institution? How does it accrue wealth & income? Who benefits from its charity?

Was Vickie DeSormier pontificating from the pillar of ignorance, or was she intentionally deceiving her readers? In either case, your ignorance has been replaced by knowledge. There is more to learn; click the links to Surah Al-Anfal and Bukhari’s Book of Jihad and read, continuing with Al-Taubah & Bukhari’s Book of Khumus. Find out what spending in Allah’s cause refers to.


January 09, 2008The previously cited article in the Seminole Chronicle stirred up some anger, referred to in a subsequent editorial, titled Chronicle protests racism from callers . Some quotes follow.

We figured they would be upset that people in Seminole County would be ignorant enough to protest a youth camp based on strictly religious reasons.

The Editor expected complaints, but failed to anticipate the source & target. The Editor attaches a label to the United American Committee: “ignorant“, ignoring the fact that some of our members are ex-Muslims and that others, like me, have read Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition. .

While the people who called and complained were obviously well-intentioned, the fact remains that the Muslim religion is still the victim of stereotypical assumptions.

Islam is a victim of “stereotypical assumptions” . It is assumed that we are decent people who, out of ignorance, assume that Islam is violent; a source of terrorism. The Editor operates under a different assumption, as you’ll see in the next quote.

First, Islam is not a violent religion. While the Muslim religion allows its followers to defend themselves – something the Bible also allows – a couple of passages are typically misconstrued.

The Editor asserts, without evidence, that Islam is non- violent, citing ayat out of context; ignoring others.

Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.” (Quran 2:190)

“If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things.” (Quran 8:61)

While this passage is obviously antiquated, so are the passages used in the Quran that are pulled out of context.

Antiquity is irrelevant to the issue. The Qur’an is timeless; Allah’s operating manual for all people in all times and places. It contains commands, in clear verses, which are to be believed and carried out

  • 3:7. […]In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.) […]And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. [Hilali & Khan]
  • […](He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture) who sent you Gabriel with the Scripture (wherein are clear revelations) expositing the lawful and unlawful which are not abrogated and which are acted upon. (They are the substance of the Book) they are the foundation of the Book as they are the leading theme in each book. They are all acted upon.[…][Ibn Abbas]
  • […]The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.[…][Ibn Kathir]

Examine the context of 2:190, cited by the Editor.

  • 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)].2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

    2:192. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) [Hilali & Khan]

2:190 was revealed in relation to defense; for the purpose of retaliating against attack from the pagans at Mecca.

  • […](And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)Abu Al-`Aliyah said, “This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah’s Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara’ah (chapter 9 in the Qur’an) was revealed.” `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah:[…][Ibn Kathir]
  • (Fight in the way of Allah) in obedience of Allah whether in the Sacred Precinct or in other places (against those who fight against you) against those who initiate fight against you, (but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors) He does not love those who initiate fighting whether in the Sacred Precinct or in other locations.[Ibn Abbas]

Contrast those tafsir with the translators notes appended to the Hilali & Khan translation(click the link & scroll down). Compare it to the comment of Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

This statement by Ibn Kathir should give you a clue. “This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah”. When Muhammad was weak, having only a few folowers and no army at Mecca, he preached forebarance and tolerance. After the Hejira, he preached defense & retaliation, as in 2:190. As his army grew, he preached aggression, as in Al-Anfal & Al-Taubah. Since these two Surahs were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate the earlier, more passive and tolerant ayat. Refer to the science of Naskh for the details.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. [Hilali & Khan]

  • […](And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will all be for Allah alone.)[…](until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. […](and the religion will all be for Allah alone) “So that La ilaha illa-llah is proclaimed.” Muhammad bin Ishaq also commented on this Ayah, “So that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity towards Allah, without Shirk, all the while shunning all rivals who (are being worshipped) besides Him.”[…][Ibn Kathir]
  • (And fight them) i.e. the disbelievers of Mecca (until persecution) disbelief, idolatry, idol worship and fighting against Muhammad (pbuh) in the Sacred Precinct (is no more, and religion) in the Sacred Precinct as well as worship (is all for Allah) such that none remains except the Religion of Islam.[…][Ibn Abbas]

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[Hilali & Khan]

  • […](Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination […][Ibn Kathir]
  • Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.[Ibn Abbas]
  • […]“I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” [ Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387]
  • […]I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them.[…][Abu Dawud 14.2635]

But that’s anachronistic, only applying to the seventh century, ain’t it? No, it is a standing order which never expires and can’t be revoked.

  • […]”The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”[Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177]
  • […]jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist).[…][Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526]

Oh my! Ressurection day can’t happen until Muslims hunt down and kill the last Jew and Jihad will be continuous until Armageddon. The editor assures us that Islam is not a violent religion, and it is not. It is not a religion, it is a war machine! Salat, Zakat, prostrations, etc. are window dressing; camouflage to make it appear to be a religion. The commandments are control mechanisms; to motivate men to murder for Muhammad’s enrichment.

Surely I must be exaggerating, as well as taking things out of context. Yeah, right. What is the relationship between Alla and Muslims?

  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success . [Hilali & Khan]

The Muslims have been purchased, as slaves, to fight; kill and be killed in return they receive admission to the celestial bordello. What must a Muslim do to be saved; preserved from Hellfire?

  • 61:10-13. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn ­ Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success. And also (He will give you) another (blessing) which you love, help from Allâh (against your enemies) and a near victory. And give glad tidings (O Muhammad) to the believers. [Hilali & Khan] The Trade that saves One from the Painful Torment.

Who believed that stuff? Who would do it? Well, how did Yemen, Syria, North Africa, Greece, Albania, Spain and India become Islamic? And, what does Islamic law say about this matter?

  • The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 – By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
    BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad


    O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
    The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),
    the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,”
    this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

Al Shafi’i & Al-Ghazali tell us how frequently the Caliph or Imam must send out an expedition against the Kuffar.

The Editor had more to say.

The UAC is a joke. It’s a thinly-veiled group that disagrees with everything about Islam, never seeing the benefits of the religion.

We don’t agree that Musllims have a divine right and duty to kill us, rape our widows and sell our orphans into slavery. Evidently that makes us evil in the mind of the Editor.

The misinformation about the religion isn’t helping the problem, it’s making it worse. If you want to criticize the religion, make sure you’re criticizing the extremists that make up a miniscule part of the population.

The misinformation: “Islam is not violent“. Extremists? Muhammad set the standard of Islam by his recitation and his actions. I quoted the relevant recitations. Islam is all about procuring income, wealth and women for Muhammad. Why don’t you read the Qur’an Hadith as I did and find out for yourself?

Anything else is borderline racism. Or, in the case of UAC, flat out racism.

The Editor accuses us of racism. Is Islam a race? Islam began with Arabs from the Quraish tribe. It conquered and forcibly converted other Arab tribes first, then Africans, Asians, Turks and Europeans. And the Editor attaches the lable “ignorant racist” to us, an act of arrogant effrontery.

Ben 01/11/08

January 11, 2008 Posted by | Editorials, Politics, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Independence Day Message From JB Williams


Time for All Good Men

To come to the aid of their Country!

Written by JB Williams

©2007 USA

(Reprinted by permission) (I have added some emphasis to a particular entry)

So, you’ve had Enough War… Have you discussed this with the Jihadists?

Although presidential candidate John Edwards (D) recently declared the War on Terror “nothing more than a Republican campaign bumper sticker”, it appears that Jihadists around the globe have a different take on the matter.

For a change, I can agree with most Democrats in Washington DC on something. I’d like very much for this war to be over, our soldiers to be home safe and sound, for the world to be the peaceful place that we all hope it can some day be and for all the talk of terrorism and war to soon be in our past.

But then my TV screen was once again plastered with familiar images of reality from our dear friends across the pond in the UK. Within hours, our own national security teams were busy ramping up their continued efforts to secure America against similar events. Jihad continues in many parts of the world and America is indeed fortunate to have avoided new attacks since 9/11/01.

My point is this…

No matter how much we would like to call an end to this and every other war, we will not be able to do so until such time as our enemy, those engaged in Jihad all over the free world, is equally interested in peace. So far, they remain uninterested.

Based upon current terror attacks in the UK and well beyond, today does not appear to be a day for peace. Make no mistake, the goal is peace. But how we get there from here is not nearly so obvious for many so sorely inexperienced in such matters.

The question becomes what to do, as we clearly must continue forward in our international allied effort to rid the world of those who wish to advance their political or religious aims via the ongoing killing of innocent civilians? If quitting isn’t an option, that leaves only winning or losing on the table for consideration.

So long as Jihadists remain committed to war with the free world, no matter their motives, we must remain even more committed to derailing that agenda. Are there any doubts about that?

This means that quitting is off the table. I submit to you that losing such a battle for humanity is even worse than quitting. The victor is further emboldened by true victory and the long term cost of losing is easily imagined to be wholly unacceptable, no matter your political leanings.

If we can’t quit because they won’t let us and we can’t lose because the cost of losing is just too high, that leaves only one real option on the table and that option is winning.

In this regard, like it or not, the central front in this war is in Iraq today. So we must begin there. Winning in Iraq is a must. Accepting any form of defeat in Iraq is unacceptable and the reasons are too numerous to list in a column. So how do we win in Iraq?

Only about 2% of our entire population has any military experience at all. Less than that have combat experience and far less than that have war planning experience. I must start by suggestion that those with no experience in the matter learn to keep their opinions to themselves. You have a right to your opinion no matter how ill informed it might be. But ill informed opinions are of no real value to anyone, especially those who must find a way to win in battle.

Empty rhetoric, pro or con, is just that, empty rhetoric. It serves only our enemies, not our agenda for eventual peace or those who must achieve that goal.

Washington politicians, while they need very much for us to believe that they know everything, have proven repeatedly that they do not know everything. Most of them also have no military, combat or war planning experience. Many old warriors have since lost their stomach for war anyway.

Their job irreversibly changed the moment they failed to solve the problem short of military force. Once they agreed to send the military in to clean up the mess, they must allow the military experts to do just that. They too must look outside of themselves for the most informed and well experienced advice on the matter.

This leaves the only people who should ever lead a military mission – military experts and the commanders responsible for the success of the mission. This is no time for second guessing and endless negotiations. That time has passed. One must assume that congress exhausted all other options before voting to send American troops into harms way. God help them if they didn’t. Now it’s up to the military to accomplish the nation’s goal, which is military victory, for those keeping up.

The job of the Commander-in-Chief is not to micromanage military decisions on the battlefield. His job, once troops are deployed, is to do what’s necessary to provide those troops with all necessary support to complete the mission they were given, including the moral support of the people back home. Bush has failed in this regard, with a lot of help from Democrats and the press.

The time for Congress to debate military action was before they voted to authorize military action and indeed, those debates took place. Once they authorize troops into theater, their job is to provide any and all necessary support for the success of that mission and stop rehashing lost debating points that only undermine and demoralize the troops while emboldening the enemy.

Americans have become accustomed to sharing their opinions on everything, without much regard for the potentially counter-productive nature of some of those opinions. This practice must end. We must consider the consequences of our words.

As a general rule, Americans should refrain from public opinions that are anything less than supportive of our troops and their mission. The right time for second guessing will come when second guessing no longer has a direct negative effect on troops in harms way. There’s plenty of time for history to judge the quality of decisions already made.

I must share two personal stories with you in this regard.

I recently had the pleasure and honor of sitting for a few hours with several Marines returning from Iraq. The stories they told only deepened a sense of love, respect and honor that I have carried for these brave young souls all of my life. Act of pure heroism after act were recounted, always about a comrade, not themselves, all of them, nothing short of amazing.

But the most important story told, drawing an amen from each of them and a sigh of disbelief and discontent from me, was their experiences with the mountain of paperwork and questioning that followed every discharge of their firearm.

Each of them told of the countless hours spent filling out paperwork needed to explain, in fact justify, the discharge of every round. The Pentagon needs a paper trail for every round fired in combat, so that it can attempt to defend itself from misguided attacks and charges of soldier misjudgment or misconduct. This is no way to win a war my friends…

In two cases, the Marines were returning from their second tour in Iraq and had seen both horrific and heroic things. But nothing was as disturbing to them as the need to justify staying alive in the theater of combat. Both had been offered enormous cash bonuses to re-up and both declined. Neither wanted to leave Iraq and both want to return. But neither will return to a war they are not allowed to win…

The second story is told by a dear friend who had a very different experience that same week while waiting for a connecting flight in the Denver airport. She was so disturbed by the experience that she took action and then called me from her cell phone while still shaking.

A very young soldier in desert fatigues also returning from Iraq emerged alone from an incoming flight ramp in Denver, where my friend was awaiting her connection. Several others waiting for their connections noticed the young soldier as well and began their cat calls, “baby killer – murderer – scum” – they shouted at the soldier as they circled him in such an effort to intimidate, that armed airport security came to walk him through the gauntlet.

The soldier said nothing, not a word. He kept walking, eyes locked forward. My friend joined the airport guard and walked him past the crowd, took him to the airport tavern and bought him a cold drink, thanking him for his service and apologizing for the gross ignorance he had just experienced.

Once nerves settled, she asked about his experience in Iraq. It was like every report I have ever gotten directly from Iraq, amazing, heartfelt and incredibly moving. It was his first tour and there would be others. He was proud of the job he and his fellow soldiers were doing in Iraq, how attached they had become to so many of the Iraqi people, the children in particular.

And then he said, – “we know why we are there, what we are doing and what must be done and we will do it. But none of us look forward to returning home right now Miss…. We are more welcome in Iraq than in America…”

Maybe I should have cut this column down to that story alone, because what more needs to be said really?

My friend was still crying when she climbed off the plane back home. She asked me, “What has happened to my country?”

I wish I knew….

July 2, 2007 Posted by | Editorials, GWOT, Jihadists | 1 Comment

Reality Check For Some On The Iraq War


Hat Tip to AubreyJ at The Victory Caucus:

Pete Hegseth has a great read today at the WashingtonPost.com website. It starts off like this… As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, ” Lincoln’s Example for Iraq,” all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

Taking Exception (WaPo): the “errors” of the Leftinistra;

As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, ” Lincoln’s Example for Iraq,” all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq’s government with a warning tantamount to saying: “You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos.” He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council — built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation — did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

· We can bring the war to a “responsible end” but still conduct counterterrorism operations. The problem with this argument is what a “responsible end” would mean. What is “responsible” about the large-scale bloodshed that would surely occur if we left the Iraqis behind with insufficient security forces? What is “responsible” about proving al-Qaeda’s thesis that America can be defeated anywhere with enough suicide bombings?

The senator also seems to believe that America will have success fighting terrorists in Iraq with a minimal troop presence, despite the fact that 150,000 troops have their hands full right now doing precisely that.

· We are “supporting the troops” by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that “our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” He explains his vote to fund and “support” the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war’s end. But what kind of “support” and “unequivocal message” do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders “incompetent” or declare the war “lost”?

Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.

Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

We face an important choice in the coming months: provide Gen. David Petraeus the time and troops he needs to execute his counterinsurgency campaign, or declare defeat and withdraw from Iraq. It seems that Democrats in Congress have already made their decision.

In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

The writer, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard, is executive director ofVets for Freedom. He served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September 2005 to July 2006.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Editorials, GWOT | 2 Comments

Please…Not Another DS Proponent


Barack Obama. Although I have no intentions of voting for the man, I did have some inkling of respect for him going up against The Rodham (Czarina) and for his “projected candor”. We all know that the politicians no longer represent “We The People”. The status quo in DC is unacceptable.

Shortly, I will have videos up in the VOD:POD of his “sound goods”.

On the same day that Barack Obama outlined his plan for tougher restrictions on lobbyists, the campaign manager to a rival Democratic presidential candidate questioned his commitment to practicing a new kind of politics.

His yapping to the Vocal Minority left fringe moonbats is laughable. It stems from the misconception that a “few radicals has hijacked a peaceful religion”. That statement right there and anyone agreeing with it, is not worthy to clean toilets at a zoo, let alone be POTUS.

Case in point. The below video, albeit the speaker has good intentions and the “sound good” sound bytes appear to be sincere, places on public display the ignorance of the inexperienced. When will politicians listen to those that know?

There are other videos in my VOD:POD listed under “favorites” of Barack. I haven’t “caught” him in any lies yet but I am sure they will follow. Of the three DNC front-runners, he appears to be the most honest. We all know that Hillary is a flat-out liar and criminal. Edwards has stated that he isn’t quite sure what a rich person is.

Naturally, no one being offered up by the DNC has a snowball’s chance in hell to match tit for tat with the likes of Fred Thompson.

Until We The People get someone that will adhere to the tenets of Reagan Conservatism, tis country will continue to suffer.

UPDATE!! 

This is what I am talking about.  The creature is out of touch and is doing EXACTLY what he has been whining about others doing.  Double Standards.  Moron.

CBS News: (go figure)

Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before a national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” he said.

June 22, 2007 Posted by | Democrats, Editorials, Edwards, Elections 2008, Hillary, Obama, Terrorists | 2 Comments

Shibboleth: ‘Public Air Waves’


Radio communications are transmitted by means of electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is considerably longer than that of light. We can neither see nor hear that radiation; we use electronic equipment to make it audible.

No air is necessary for the radio communication process, between the microphone and the loudspeaker. The electromagnetic radiation is not public; it is generated, modulated, amplified and transmitted privately. Specific frequencies are allocated by the FCC to prevent signals from jamming each other. There is no special magic involved. If broadcasters agreed on frequency allocation and power levels, no government intervention would be required.

Newspapers are printed privately, transported on public streets and highways, delivered to and read by consumers. Those consumers use sunlight to read their newspapers. Who owns the sunlight? Is it public?

Now explain some rational basis why government coercion should be used to determine the content of broadcast speech; why broadcasters should be told that they can’t air Rush Limbaugh’s show, or how many hours of it they can air or what he can or can not talk about.

Now explain why the government should not also control the news and opinions printed in the New York Times & USA Today. After all, they are transported on the public roads.

If they can regulate Rush, they can also regulate what you say and hear on your cell phone. Then they can also control the content which passes through your wireless computer network.

Do not be deceived: the ‘fairness doctrine’ is an attempt to violate the first amendment; to censor politically sensitive speech. Tell its proponents to go to Hell and burn forever!

BCP

June 22, 2007 Posted by | Censorship, Editorials, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 4 Comments

When Morons At The NY Slimes Talk Out Of Their Ass


This is trash the NY Slimes day today. It is my Father’s Day gift to me. My Screamin’ Eagle called and wished me a fine day. The other boys did their deal. My wife and youngest made me my favorite Pecan Pound Cake. Now, after the festivities are mostly over, I am trashing the NY Slimes. You know. That fine establishment that thinks divulging military secrets is good for America. That same organization that likes to embolden our enemies has one of their mentally challenged morons write an editorial piece about how we conservatives are racists about not wanting ILLEGAL immigrants getting blanket amnesty via a bill that means nothing and the “laws” therein are unenforceable.

This same organization supports Harry-Kiri-Reid. After all the Democratic and NY Slimes plan for victory in Iraq is all so complex. The equally complex as well as retarded “immigration bill” is second to none in regards to nonsense and self-defeating rhetoric. That seems to be appropriate for the NY Slimes and their string pullers of the DNC. Not listening to the majority of Americans has turned out to be a problem for some members of CONgress and the NY Slimes has followed suit in whining about those right-wing whackos.

From the ass-idiot Lawrence Downes:

 

People who want to reform immigration by putting America in lockdown have not been shy about using fear and revulsion to get their point across. Illegal immigrants, they say, are invading the country to reconquer it, to erode our Anglo-Saxon culture and to make us all sick.

In this article, IT rambles on about leprosy and the woes of the ILLEGAL aliens. 99% of the article relates to leprosy and completely glosses over the Invasionistas and our concerns about our American culture. Downes is an ass-idiot.

 

Here’s Representative Tom Tancredo, complaining in the Republican presidential debate about pressing 1 for English.

Moron. Here’s Lawrence Downes being the typical NY Slimes sock puppet.

Perhaps ass-idiot Downes can learn something from JB Williams, and Lew Waters. We can only conclude that the corrupted “immigration poll” of the NY Slimes is gospel to a Leftinistra moron like Downes.

And the we have this piece from the NY Slimes written by some whiny-ass sad sack, bleeding heart liberal moron dweeb feeling sorry for immigrant fathers separated from their families because they BROKE THE DAMN LAW. I am way passed sick and tired of this crap!

John Wayne says it best.

On Immigration....
The Duke Says it Best!

 

June 17, 2007 Posted by | Editorials, Illegal Immigration, Lame Stream Media, Morons | Leave a comment

GoE Wallpaper…GET IT NOW!!


GoE Wallpaper…GET IT NOW!!

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:35 PM

Gathering of Eagles Wallpaper

May 7th, 2007

Well, we’re still working on getting the page up that has all the graphics stuff for you, but why not have a wallpaper while you’re waiting?

Just right-click the link with your screen resolution under the image, and select “Save Target As”. After downloading the image, just find the image in the folder you put it in and right-click it and select “Set as Background”.

[1024×768] [1280×1024]

June 8, 2007 Posted by | Editorials, GWOT | Leave a comment

Random Thoughts…Specifically


Random Thoughts…Specifically

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:43 AM

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

                                                                                          4/22/07

                        This part of Fox News Sunday is an interview with Lt Governor of Virginia Bill Bolling and George Washington University President Stephen Trachtenberg.

            This discussion was about the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, where 32 students were murdered by a lone assailant which later killed himself, the shooter being named as Cho Seung-Hui.  The discussion began with Chris Wallace expressing his disbelief that the shooter had not been removed from the college campus prior to this tragic event.  He was, after all, referred to psychiatric counseling by several officials of the campus.

            Lt Gov Bolling replied, “Well, Chris, I think that is a very legitimate question that we have to ask and answer in the wake of this tragedy, especially given what we now know about the problems that the one who committed these crimes had experienced in the past…and looking at these mental health laws and how the interaction took place between the university and judicial system, and the judicial system and Mr. Cho, is going to be right at the center of the work that that commission does.”  (He was referring to the “diverse commission” being formed by the Gov of Virginia).

            Mr Trachtenberg was then asked about a student which was removed from his campus by campus officials for mental instability and the university was sued.  The college had to pay a settlement.  He was asked, “Are school Administrators now hamstrung when they want to try and protect the student body?”  He answered in so many words, an emphatic yes.  He admonished the FERPA laws and the Buckley amendment which state that colleges cannot disclose grades and student behavior to the student’s parents.  He also said that something has to be done in this regard because “I don’t think we ought to do this episodically.”

            The interview went back and forth about concealed hand gun licenses and several what-if scenarios which basically have no true definitive right or wrong answers.  They bantered about gun control and this evolved into constitutional issues and that stricter gun control laws have proven to be ineffective in the past.  The law-abiding citizens are not the problem.

            My own take of this is skewed in many areas. First of all, the criminal elements are going to get the weapons whether they are banned or not.  Stricter gun control laws punish the wrong elements and law abiding citizens.  Banning private ownership of guns, severely hinders law abiding citizens from defending themselves against the criminal elements.  Gun control begins with education into the proper handing and use of firearms.  Also, guns do not kill people.  People kill people.  If the criminal elements don’t have guns, they will use knives, sticks, clubs, screwdrivers, hammers, vehicles, bottles, laptop computers, rocks, baseball bats and a plethora of other implements in which to inflict serious bodily injury and/or death.  What do we do?  Ban everything or do we enforce laws already on the books and toss the multiculturalistic nonsense to the four winds and punish as harshly as possible those that would do others harm?

            This event was an act of evil and not the tragedy it is purported to be.  It is a matter of semantics, I guess.  Had the multiculturalistic “privacy” loons been silenced long ago and Cho’s alleged psychiatric problems been addressed and contained, in my opinion, 32 of his fellow students would be alive today and Cho would be alive and well in a home for the criminally insane.  This discussion would also have not taken place.

June 2, 2007 Posted by | Editorials | 2 Comments

Sunday Talkshow Review


Sunday Talkshow Review

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:49 PM

From time to time,  I write reviews for one reason or another.  I keep them short and sweet.  This is from last Sunday.

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

4/15/07

 

                        This part of Fox News Sunday is an interview with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

 

            This discussion was about the continuing congressional battle over Iraq with the two most prominent voices of that battle, Senators Levin and Graham.  The discussion began over the alleged meeting this coming week where ”congressional leaders sit down with the president to discuss the war funding bill while House and Senate conferees try to work out what they’ll actually send to the president.”  The discussion also included the upcoming promised veto of that spending bill.

 

            Senator Levin was asked what the Democrats will send the president either before or after the veto.  He stated, “Well, we are going to send him, first of all, hopefully, a very strong bill which would say that we’re going to begin to reduce troops in four months as a way of telling the Iraqi leadership that the open-ended commitment is over, not just rhetorically but, in fact, to try to force them to take responsibility for their own country.”  He then said in so many words that they will ride out the veto and then present something that would be signed.  He mentioned that they would recommend items from the Iraqi Study Group should the veto not be overridden.  (Note: I have read and studied the ISG and it said several times that a timed withdrawal of troops “is not recommended.)

 

            Sen. Graham was then asked what he thought of Senator Levin’s statements in regards to time-tabled withdrawals and benchmarked compromises.  In his own words, “Well, number one, the president will veto the legislation in its current form, and he should.  If you really want to support the troops, don’t cut their legs out from under them.  We sent Petraeus off 81-0.  He got unanimously approved by those voting in the Senate.  He had specific game plan in mind.  Timetables, timelines for withdrawing troops, benchmarks that give your enemy a road map of how to drive us out of Iraq are bad ideas.  These are congressional micromanagement of the war that will have short and long-term effects.  The president will veto this bill.  He should veto it.”

 

            The interview went back and forth with the he said they said we said rhetoric and it about made me ill.  The postulating by the Senator from Michigan was sickening.  The seemingly “trying to play nice” from the Senator from South Carolina was equally sickening.  The first half of this interview was pretty much all I could handle.

 

            My own take of this is skewed in many areas. First of all, I remember the speeches by the president and I also remember the “opposition” agreeing.  I remember the unity this country had just a scant 5 years ago.  It seems that the closer we get to an election, the more distant the two parties become, dividing the nation.  I remember hearing the president telling the country – the world – Iraq – before the surge, that this was NOT an open-ended event.  The “opposition” “forgot” to hear that one.

 

            Secondly, I am a combat veteran.  I have served under every President since Carter, including Carter and I distinctly remember that the Democratic Presidents and Congress were NEVER friendly towards the military and very weak on National Security.  I will not trust them or adhere to their inflamed emotionality and useless rhetoric.  Either support the troops or don’t.  Just be honest about it.

May 31, 2007 Posted by | Editorials | Leave a comment

A Waste of Time


A Waste of Time

Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:09 PM

I write reviews once in a while when asked and this is my latest one:

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (FOX) 4/01/07  

                        This segment was with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Joe Biden (D-DL).  This interview was in regards to the “partisan divide” over the war in
Iraq and comments from Matthew Dowd, an individual recently parting ways with President Bush.
 

            Matthew Dowd at one time was the first member of the President’

Inner Circle

and has publicly come forward with criticisms of President Bush.  The apparent issue is the President’s failure at uniting the country.  

            When asked as to why Matthew Dowd’s comments and press release has become an issue, Senator McConnell stated that the war was indeed a tough, difficult and emotional issue for everyone.  Senator Biden was asked the same question and he stated that the President has “squandered real opportunities to unite the country”.  Neither one has really answered the question.  

            Senator Biden agrees with Mr. Dowd and went on to explain, in his demeanor, that the President basically told the country to do it his way no matter the consequence.  Senator McConnell was not given the opportunity to refute the statements by Senator Biden which struck me as par.  

Senator Biden was asked about the Iraq War funding bill in recent days passed by the House and the Senate but not given to the President before the Spring Break by Congress and if Congress should cut their break short and return to Congress and complete their task.  Senator Biden said that they would present a spending bill to the president as soon as they return.  I took that as a “no” from Senator Biden.  Again, Senator McConnell was not afforded the opportunity to add his position on returning from the Congressional Spring Break to finish the job  

            The interview went on and on about what the bill stood for and they argued back and forth about if the President would veto the bill if it had restrictions on the timetables and instructions to the military as to how to fight the war on terror.  McConnell said that the President would veto the bill and Biden said that the President will not veto the bill.  They also argued over who knew the financial needs of the
United States military better…the Congressional Research Service or the United States Military.
 

            From my point of view, this interview was pretty much a waste of my time.  I already know what the issues are and I also know that the politicos will continue with the political posturing for political gain no matter the consequences to the American populace well-being.  I also know that the Congress has failed the American people for years in that they no longer represent “We The People” and that they only represent “We The Politicians”.  

            This American is sick and tired of hearing about the “feelings of the vast number of Americans” from politicians because none of them know what “We The People” want any more.  We are a nation at war with people that have openly expressed that the end goal is the destruction of
America.  It would be nice if our politicians paid more attention to that than their ill-fated desires to be the ones in power.  Being in power at the wrong end of the sword is rather futile at this point.

May 29, 2007 Posted by | Editorials | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: