Sleeper Cells In The United States And Canada
The following article appeared on americanthinker.com. It was written by Dave Gaubatz.
There is every reason to suspect that we will endure suicide missions by Islamist sleeper cells. They are already in place. They are waiting for the right time. I know this from experience.
I have worked over 15 years as a U.S. Federal Agent, a U.S. State Department Arabic linguist, and the first civilian Federal Agent deployed into Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Since returning from Iraq I have been involved in terrorism analysis, specifically the mindset of terrorists. During my extensive research on sleeper cells I have talked with hundreds of people from the Middle East from all walks of life, and have talked with Iraqi Government officials, Iraqi military, and Iraqi police officers. In addition I have interviewed numerous counter-terrorism specialists in the U.S. and abroad. In the last year alone I have trained over 4000 U.S. Law Enforcement officers in Basic Investigative Arabic and counter-terrorism. The conclusion of my research is the title of this article.
Before I departed for the Middle East in 2003 I had been assigned to Kirtland AFB, NM. Kirtland has some of the best scientists in the world working on U.S. Government projects. I had been working closely with these scientists who specialized in nuclear energy, directed energy, laser technology, bio-weapons and more. I fully understand the impact if suicide bombers begin progressing from conventional explosives to unconventional methods.
The Middle East
In Jan 2003, I was assigned to Arar Air Base Saudi Arabia. Arar is located near the border of Iraq. My mission was to interact with Saudi military officials in order to determine the support we could expect from the Saudi government, to determine if Iraqis were monitoring the activities of the U.S. forces at Arar, and to infiltrate the encampments of the Bedouin community (Saudis and Iraqis living in the desert of Arar). This involved leaving the relatively safe confines of Arar Air Base and driving to the Bedouin camps.
It was most important the Saudis did not know we were leaving the compound because they had forbidden us to do so. Four U.S. special Agents would use our ATV’s and/or four wheel drive vehicles to conduct these missions. The Saudi Government had active spies collecting information pertaining to our troop strength, our weapons, and any other intelligence they could obtain. The Saudis were providing the intelligence to the Saudi Government, and we were very confident it was also being passed to Iraqi intelligence.
During January 2003 and Feb 2003, Saudi Intelligence officers would boast that the American military was overreacting about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Their bravery changed as we approached the invasion of Iraq in Mar 2003. The high-ranking Saudi officers were scrambling to obtain gas masks and other protective equipment. They knew their equipment was substandard and they wanted U.S.-made protective equipment. We gave them some of ours. The Saudi Intelligence officers were visibly frightened about a potential chemical, biological, or nuclear attack and expressed their fears. This was my first confirmation Saddam Hussein still had WMD material and the capability to use them.
The Saudis knew Saddam had WMD and would use them if he had the opportunity.
When I arrived in Nasiriyah, Iraq (after the start of war) my team and I immediately began interviewing (in the field) Iraqis from all walks of life to determine where the WMD sites were located. At the beginning of the war Iraqis were very helpful and provided us exact locations and proof WMD was at certain locations (primarily southern Iraq because Saddam knew the UN Weapons Inspectors had seldom inspected any locations in this area). They had always focused in northern Iraq.
Four primary suspected WMD sites were located. We tried from April until July 2003 to have the Iraq Survey Group come and excavate these sites. They advised us they did not have the manpower nor the heavy equipment needed to excavate the sites, which were underground bunkers (beneath waterways). We were frustrated. I have received information from various sources that the WMD I had attempted to have excavated was subsequently looted (after the war) and transferred to Syria.
While in Iraq we determined the following:
1. Russian activity in Iraq had been rampant several months prior to the war and up until the day before the invasion.
2. Iranians were infiltrating southern Iraq by the thousands and were preparing to assist insurgents in removing U.S. forces from Iraq.
3. We found numerous pieces of evidence indicating WMD were in Iraq before the war began and some were still in Iraq.
4. I and other agents were informed by Iraqis that a civil war would erupt and violence against U.S. forces would increase due to the Iranian and Russian influence.
All of this information was provided through intelligence channels, but was ignored. Today we are seeing the results of our intelligence being ignored in 2003.
Vulnerability at homeUpon returning from Iraq I left Federal Service to pursue a career educating U.S. law enforcement in the U.S. I wrote a book titled “Arabic for law enforcement and military”. During my lectures to local, county, and state law enforcement officers it was revealed the true first line defenders in the U.S. are not trained nor prepared to combat terrorism in the U.S. (through no fault of their own). The local law enforcement agencies were not receiving adequate funds or assistance from the Federal Government to fight terrorism. The majority advised they were supposed to be the first line defenders, but in actuality they did not even know what Al-Qaeda meant, and/or could not point out Iraq or Iran on a map. They had no Arabic language training.
I began conducting research and talking with experts from various fields and determined three significant facts that I corroborated by further research:
1. The terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda each had different leaders and to some degree operated in different ways, but they each had the same two goals (destroy Israel and destroy America and any country that supported either).
2. Our nuclear research centers were very vulnerable to an attack and the potential for a suicide bomber using a dirty radiological bomb from these facilities was and is a high probability. Note: Vic Walter and Brian Ross of ABC News did an excellent report on the lack of security at these facilities. I received an enormous amount of information from individuals associated with Russian nuclear programs that there is nuclear material being sold on the black market and nuclear material is in the hands of Islamic Extremists.
3. Terrorist sleeper cells are located primarily in North Carolina, Michigan, and Canada. The “sleepers” are prepared to conduct terrorist attacks within the U.S., and nuclear material is available to them. “Prepared” in this instance indicates they have the necessary tools to carry our their attacks and are prepared to die.
About nine months ago a lady from Morehead City, NC contacted me and asked for assistance because she had been ignored by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the FBI, and local law enforcement. Her allegation: A group of people who were citizens of Lebanon was operating from NC and was involved in financially supporting Hezbollah. The members were also befriending United States Marine Corps personnel (to include the Marine Corps Base Commander at Cherry Point USMC Base). The Lebanese citizens had free access to the Marine Corps base and had frequent parties with USMC members. She had ledgers; photographs of U.S. Marines with the Lebanese members, numerous passports (some falsified), duplicate drivers licenses, social security cards, and financial transactions log books both in Arabic and English. I obtained the information from her and conducted research. I turned my information over to the NCSBI office.
Less than a week ago I met several citizens from the Middle East who are familiar with terrorist groups, their methodology, and more importantly the mindset of terrorists (specifically Al-Qaeda). They believe violence in Iraq will increase and the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is not a factor. The largest percentage of U.S. troops in Iraq are support troops and not combat troops. From the beginning of 2003 until now the number of troops who actually engage insurgents is actually less than 5% of all assigned troops in the region. Al-Qaeda now has a strong hold in Iraq and they will not let go. Terrorist operations are active in the U.S. and are being operated/financed in Michigan. U.S. citizens need to understand there are people trained and prepared to carry our suicide missions in the U.S. and nothing is off limits. Churches, malls, and even the schools our children attend are not off limits to suicide bombers. It is only a relatively short time before the U.S. will begin seeing suicide terrorist missions.
I will continue to research terrorism related issues in the U.S. and Canada and will bring forward the results. My next project is to follow Dr. Paul William’s investigation into McMaster University located in Canada. My initial research indicates terrorists are being educated here with the approval of some university administrators. I have contacted the university and informed them of this project and will give them an opportunity to respond to each piece developed during my research on terrorism at McMaster. McMaster is not alone when it comes to nuclear reactors located on major university sites. Nuclear reactors are located on a large number of major university campuses in the U.S. There locations are not classified and are described on the internet.
Children are the ones who suffer in wartime and I want to prevent any child from ever having to experience a terrorist attack.
To assist me in my endeavors to uncover the truths behind terrorist cells in Canada and the U.S. contact me at pdgaubatz@yahoo.com or visit my website.
Global Warming Consensus is a Myth
Man made global warming is a scam being perpetrated on the American people. Our children are being indoctrinated in school from an early age. They will grow up believing this lie is truth.
Global warming is just an attempt at bigger government,and more regulation. It is a big money buisness, and the lies must be kept up to keep the cash flowing.
The following appeared on collegiatetimes.com
By Tim Edson
From so-called documentaries like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and shameless cheerleading of journalists and celebrities to children’s books designed to scare and indoctrinate America’s future generations, global warming hysteria is gripping the world. The truth is, little or no scientific data supports the notion of man-made global warming apart from natural warming, and there is certainly no scientific consensus on the issue of global warming as alarmists and the media would have us believe.
First, let’s take a look at the actual science here, and I don’t mean computer models, which the global warming alarmists refer to on the rare occasions when they actually attempt to defend their views as opposed to the usual dismissal consisting of, “Oh, don’t listen to our critics, they still subscribe to geocentrism too.”
Global warming alarmists seize upon two things, principally, in advancing their theories. One is the aforementioned computer models, and the other is the hockey stick temperature chart created by climatologist Michael Mann. This chart demonstrates global temperatures remaining relatively stable for the last 1,000 years or so and then spiking dramatically since 1900.
Administered by the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a major backer of man-made global warming theory and the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas admissions, will release a much publicized report soon which will likely invoke the hockey stick temperature chart as evidence of global warming. Al Gore advanced the same theory in his so-called documentary.
Not surprisingly, this temperature chart has been called into serious question. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report titled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years.” This press release accompanying the report noted that “the reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or ‘Little Ice Age,’ from roughly 1500 to 1850 (AD),” and as a result, “even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team’s conclusions.”The statistical underpinnings of the theory have also been shown to be inaccurate.
Given the fluctuations in temperature before green house gases were supposedly a factor, it is hard make such drastic conclusions about present global temperatures.Note that from 1500 to 1850, the climate was abnormally cool. As US Senator James Inhofe put it, “Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.”
Of course this won’t stop Al Gore and the IPCC from brandishing the hockey stick chart as evidence of catastrophic global warming.
The other major evidence cited by climate change radicals are computer models, of which few, if any, have come close thus far to accurately predicting fluctuations in global temperature. For example, using computer models, NASA scientist James E. Hansen predicted a 0.34 degrees Celsius rise in average global temperature in the subsequent decade (the 1990s) to the delight of environmentalists.
As noted by University of Virginia climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, the prediction was way off, with temperatures rising “a mere 0.11 degrees Celsius during the decade, while temperatures of the lower atmosphere measured by satellites and weather balloons actually declined by 0.24 degrees Celsius and 0.36 degrees Celsius, respectively.” The fact is, actual observed temperatures have never come close to increases predicted by computer models.
As far as sea level goes, it has been rising for at least 1,000 years, despite variations in global temperature. Contrary to the claims of alarmists, many polar areas are actually getting colder. A few melting ice sheets, normally rising sea levels and seemingly chaotic weather all merit discussion but to conclude that man-made global warming is responsible erroneously asserts a cause and effect relationship.
In addition to the evidence presented above concerning dramatic climate variations over the last 1,000 years, data shows that the first half of the twentieth century, prior to the proliferation of greenhouse gas producing technologies, to have warmed more than the second half of the twentieth century.
Interestingly, during some periods of natural history, carbon dioxide levels have increased while global temperatures have decreased. Also, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and essential for life on Earth.
Conveniently overlooked by global warming alarmists, the sun may very well be the most significant factor in changes in our planet’s climate. Sami Solanki, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany states, “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.” Increases and decreases in solar activity also seem to correspond with warming and cooling periods throughout the last 1,000 years.
Putting this debate in perspective, the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and has constantly undergone numerous fluctuations from ice ages to warming periods. Are we to believe the climate is static and humans are responsible for damaging the world beyond repair in a century’s time?
There is no consensus on global warming. Over 60 respected scientists signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister this past April contending that “Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.'” Between 1999 and 2001, thousands of scientists and researchers signed the Oregon Petition, stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Further, making the point about the myth of consensus, the Collegiate Times ran a story last week quoting a student, who had attended Al Gore’s Climate Training Project, as saying of her experience, “It puts into perspective both sides of the argument, but there’s no argument in the global scientific community.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. William Gray of the Atmospheric Science Department at Colorado State University argues the notion of consensus is “one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”
A very strong case can be made concerning the sun’s role in climate change, and numerous questions exist about the very foundations of man-made global warming theory. Why is it that proponents of global warming alarmism simply dismiss their critics? After all, if their theory were strong, wouldn’t having it challenged only make it stronger?Then again, this debate clearly encompasses far more than just science. The politicization of this debate merits serious discussion, and will be examined in this column next week.
Hillary’s Joke
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
As Hillary Clinton Runs Campaigns For President, The Joke’s On Us
By JONAH GOLDBERG
A WEIRD THING happened in Iowa this week. Hillary Clinton was campaigning for President — no, that’s not the weird thing — and she paraphrased a question from the audience about what in her experience prepared her to deal with “evil and bad men.” Before she could answer, the audience burst into laughter, and Clinton joined in.
It was such an awkward moment, much of the commentariat hasn’t figured out exactly what to say about it, starting with Clinton herself. At first she tried to explain that she was thinking of Osama bin Laden and Bush’s inability to capture him. Later, she claimed she was making a joke — just not about her husband.
From my own viewing of the video — you can find it on YouTube and elsewhere — Hillary wasn’t making any joke at all. She was merely the butt of one and laughed along with the crowd — without getting the joke — in an excruciating “I meant to do that” sort of way.
When asked whether the joke was about Bill, she said, “Oh, come on. Well, I don’t think anybody in there thought that.” But of course everyone thought that. Liberal pundits, spinners and the audience members who talked to the press afterward all said that the unspoken punch line was Bill Clinton. The Wall Street Journal’s Jackie Calmes writes: “Several Democrats afterward said they interpreted her delivery as a charmingly funny allusion to her husband’s past marital misbehavior.”
If Hillary doesn’t see that, she’s a very bad politician indeed. And, truth be told, I think she is a bad politician in the sense that she is incapable of connecting with audiences the way, for example, her husband can. The most powerful emotional impression she makes on most people isn’t compassion or warmth or sympathy — the hallmarks of a politician who’s good in a room — but discipline. She comes across as stiffer than Trent Lott’s hair and more tightly wound than a rubber-band ball.
Even sympathetic reporters write about her as if her id were a tiny little general in an immense war room plotting every move on maps sprawled out in front of her. Clinton’s inadvertent joke wasn’t part of her plan, even though the audience in her town halls and Internet chat sessions is pre-selected. And when forced to explain something off-script, she wobbles like a tightrope walker who missed a step.
The amazing thing is that she gets away with this. Although everyone understands that Clinton takes positions on issues based on political calculation, it somehow doesn’t count against her. A recent episode of “Saturday Night Live” captured the essence of Clinton nicely. “I think most Democrats know me,” the fake Clinton told a fake Chris Matthews. “They understand that my support for the war was always insincere. Of course, knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected President, I would never have pretended to support it.”
Hillary’s is a very old act, and sometimes she doesn’t even care that people know it’s an act. She baked cookies as an ironic joke about her remark that she “could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” instead of having a career.
In 1996, she floated the idea of adopting a child, presumably to soften her image. When her husband’s campaign was over, the urge to adopt miraculously subsided. In 2000, she deftly boxed her Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, into seeming like a bully against the poor lady politician.
This victim pose remains incredibly useful for Sen. Clinton and her fans. In 2003, when Clinton’s memoir came out, “reporters” like Barbara Walters virtually produced infomercials in her honor. Clinton insisted that she wanted to put her husband’s infidelities behind her and that she was dedicated to the issues. It was a masterful charade in which the Great Woman of Substance was forced, reluctantly, to talk about her humiliation at the hands of that charming rogue Bill as well as by those sexist cads of the Republican Right.
But when the Washington Post tried to interview her about the substantive portions of her autobiography, she, according to the Post, “declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book.” Catch that? She didn’t decline to be interviewed. She merely declined to be interviewed about anything other than her role as “victim.”
Clinton’s “joke” will be forgotten in a few days, and rightly so. But in the bigger picture, the joke’s on us.
George Bush And Global Warming
The following article appeared on americanthinker.com:
Resisting Global Warming Panic
By J.R. Dunn
It may well turn out that George W. Bush’s greatest service to the country won’t involve terrorism or Iraq at all, but his steadfast refusal to be buffaloed into joining the panicky consensus on global warming.
Rumor had it that Bush intended to embrace the warming thesis at last in his State of the Union address. Instead Greens nationwide went into depressed tailspins as he called for an attack on the problem by means of technical advances, a curve ball very much in the old Bush mode, of a type that we’ve seen too little of recently. Bush is acting in defiance of much of the civilized world, led by a former vice-president and including the media, the entertainment community, the Democrats, most of the policy elite, that peculiar and never-before-encountered group known as “mainstream scientists”, and now even corporations, eager to clamber aboard the Kyoto wagon while there’s still room.
As James Lewis recently put it on these pages, global warming is most likely a crock. Some of us are old enough to remember similar hysterics over air pollution, overpopulation, and universal famine, none of which ever came to pass. The science behind warming is so full of lacunae, speculation, and outright fraud (e.g., the famed “hockey stick chart” purporting to show temperature levels over the past millennium while conveniently dropping both the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age) to be in any way convincing.
One curious element involves certain facts that, on first consideration, would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate. I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers – the annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there’s no common English word for it. Variations of this size – up to three orders of magnitude – suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge. The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this. (It’s doubtful we’ll see the question addressed in this week’s IPCC report either.)
So it’s something of a relief to turn to history. Despite the insistence of Al Gore and friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period. In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO), a period stretching roughly from the 10th to the 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today. Several years ago, I covered the LCO in an article detailing the climatic history of the last millennium. But it’s worthwhile to cover the highlights once more, to help put the contemporary panic into perspective.
* How warm was it during the LCO? Areas in the Midlands and Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed. England was known for its wine exports.
* The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000 was close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition. The small stature of the British lower classes (and the Irish) later in the millennium is an artifact of lower temperatures. People of the 20th century were the first Europeans in centuries to grow to their “true” stature – and most had to grow up in the USA to do it.
* In fact, famine – and its partner, plague — appears to have taken a hike for several centuries. We have records of only a handful of famines during the LCO, and few mass outbreaks of disease. The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia.
* The LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration. When not slaughtering their neighbors, the Vikings were charting new lands across the North Atlantic, one of the stormiest seas on earth (only the Southern Ocean – the Roaring 40s – is worse). If you tried the same thing today, traveling their routes in open boats of the size they used, you would drown. They discovered Iceland, and Greenland, and a new world even beyond, where they found grape vines, the same as in England.
* The Agricultural Revolution is not widely known except among historians. Mild temperatures eased land clearing and lengthened growing seasons. More certain harvests encouraged experimentation among farmers involving field rotation, novel implements, and new crops such as legumes. While the thought of peas and beans may not thrill the foodies among us, they expanded an almost unbelievably bland ancient diet as well as providing new sources of nutrition. The result was a near-tripling of European population from 27 million at the end of the 7th century to 70 million in 1300.
* The First Industrial Revolution is not widely known even among historians. Opening the northern German plains allowed access to easily mined iron deposits in the Ruhr and the Saarland. As a result smithies and mills became common sights throughout Europe. Then came the basic inventions without which nothing more complex can be made – the compound crank, the connecting rod, the flywheel, followed by the turbine, the compass, the mechanical clock, and eyeglasses. Our entire technical civilization, all the way down to Al Gore’s hydrogenmobile, has its roots in the LCO.
But in the late 13th century, it all came to an end.
The climate closed down. Rains ruined crops and washed away entire seacoast towns. Far to the north, the great colonies of Iceland and Greenland faltered and began to fade away. Famine returned to Europe, and with it the plague, in one of the greatest mass deaths ever witnessed by humanity. The bright centuries were replaced by the dance of death and a dank and morbid religiosity. The focus of culture shifted to the warm Mediterranean. It remained cold, within certain broad limits, for six hundred years. The chill only lifted in the 1850s, when our current warming actually began.
We look back to a world that was a far more pleasant place at the turn of the last millennium, with a milder climate, plentiful food, a healthy populace. A picture, needless to say, at some variance with the Greens’ prediction of coming universal disaster. It also undermines one of one of the basic environmentalist tenets – that nature is in delicate balance that can destroyed by a hard look from any given capitalist, and that any such change leads inevitably to catastrophe.
The LCO suggests that a warmer world may well be more desirable than the one we have now. To go a step further, my research implied that the planet is in fact meant to be somewhat warmer than it is today, that the life-forms we see around us are in fact adapted to a warmer climate. The earth is, after all, stuck within a three-million-year glacial epoch whose origin and cause remain a mystery. (We’re now in a brief “interglacial” – a warming period! – that began only 12,000 years ago and could end tomorrow.)
I brought this up with a friend, a noted NASA scientist — who, due to the tenor of the times, shall remain nameless – and he responded, ‘Of course – there’s more life at the equator than at the poles.” (This, by the way, is a perfect example of how a capable scientific mind operates, an immediate, undistracted focusing on the most critical elements. It doesn’t seem to work that way with the Greens’ “mainstream scientists”.)
If warming were currently the case, we’d more than likely be seeing an LCO situation unfolding – meliorating weather, fewer storms, and moderating temperatures. But instead we’re enduring massive blizzards across the Midwest, single-degree temperatures in Central Park, cold currents embracing Australia (bringing with them a plague of great white sharks), and killer storms across Europe. Not at all what we’d expect from either the medieval or the environmental scenario. Whatever is happening to the climate, it appears that the scientists, mainstream and otherwise, have not yet put their finger on it.
Which is why we need to keep our options open, harboring our resources rather than blowing them on some wild-eyed Gore plan that may end up doing the exact opposite of what is required. And why GWB deserves a lot more credit than he’s ever likely to get.
Joe Biden Is A Racist
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who’s articulate and bright and clean, and a nice looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook man. I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
The above quote is from Joe Biden. He is talking about Obama during a speech he made while announcing his candidacy for president. At first glance you may think he is taking a shot at former presidential candidates Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But if you look at what he says he is saying Obama is the first “clean” “articulate” African-America”. He is calling most black people unclean, inarticulate, and ugly. This man is a racist, he is showing his true colors( pardon the pun).
I know you are thinking “he can’t be a racist, he’s a liberal”. Liberals consider themselves smarter than everyone else, more caring and concerned. They know better than you what is good for you. But if you are conservative and have a different view than them they will shout you down. They are not interested in your point of view. Not concerned about what you think, so to speek.
Anyway, back to Biden. This is not the first time he has made racially insensitive remarks. It wasn’t too long ago he was bragging about Delaware being a slave state. And then there was the photo op he took in a 7 Eleven when he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking. ”
If this man was a conservative, the mainstream media would have already destroyed him. But he’s a good liberal, and they will sweep it under the rug. Don’t forget what happened to George Allen and the mukaka comment. It was a leading news story for weeks. This gets no play in the media.
So again I say Joe Biden is a racist, but a liberal, so we won’t hear about this again in the mainstream media. Hell, the Democrat party has a former Grand Wizard of the KKK in the senate (Robert Byrd), maybe good ole boy Joey Biden has been hanging out with him too long.
Good News In Iraq
U.S., Iraqi forces kill 300 militants in Najaf
Why is it That we don’t hear this in the mainsteam media? Because the media, like the Democrats want us to lose. Hopefully this is a sign that we are going to step up the fighting in Iraq and be more aggressive.
The following appeared on washingtonpost.com:
U.S., Iraqi forces kill 300 militants in Najaf
Reuters
Monday, January 29, 2007; 1:32 AM
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) – U.S. and Iraqi forces killed some 300 gunmen from an apocalyptic Muslim cult in a day-long battle involving U.S. tanks and aircraft near the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf, Iraqi police, army and political sources said.
The U.S. military said on Monday it was an ongoing operation so it could not provide any details.
An Iraqi army source said U.S. forces took control of the operation on Sunday and had continued bombing the area until well after dawn on Monday.
Two Americans were killed, the U.S. military said on Sunday, when an attack helicopter went down during the battle that was one of the strangest incidents of the 4-year conflict. Iraqi officials said the helicopter seemed to be shot down.
Police Colonel Ali Nomas said 300 to 350 gunmen had been killed in the operation and dozens more arrested. Three Iraqi soldiers were killed and six more missing, and five policemen were killed. Another 40 Iraqi police and soldiers were wounded.
According to one Iraqi political source, hundreds of fighters, drawn from both Sunni and Shi’ite communities, fought throughout Sunday and late into the night, on the eve of the highpoint of the Shi’ite religious calendar.
A Reuters reporter at the scene, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, saw U.S. tanks and heard blasts after dark and an Iraqi officer said F-16 jets were bombing the area.
Details of the day’s fighting were sketchy and the origins of the fighters unclear. An Iraqi army source said some of the dead wore headbands declaring themselves a “Soldier of Heaven.”
The political source said up to 1,000 fighters had been involved. An Iraqi army source said they wore camouflage and appeared well organized.
The governor of Najaf province said the group had gathered in orchards near the city and had been planning to attack the main Shi’ite clerical leadership on Monday. It is the climax of the annual Shi’ite rite of Ashura, marking a 7th century battle which entrenched the schism between Shi’ite and Sunni Islam.
A million or more pilgrims gathered in the holy city of Kerbala, between Najaf and Baghdad, for Monday’s ceremonies.
The U.S. military officially handed over responsibility for Najaf province to Iraqi security forces last month, withdrawing most U.S. troops, to be recalled only to help in emergencies.
(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami, Ross Colvin, Mariam Karouny, Claudia Parsons and Alastair Macdonald in Baghdad)
United States stands resolute
The Following appeared on calsun.canoe.ca:
By Paul Jackson
President George W. Bush is going to persevere and prevail in beating world terrorism and bringing stable democracies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
There will be no wavering and no withdrawal.
These were the heartening words given me by U.S. Ambassador to Canada, David H. Wilkins.
So the mischief-makers, the defeatists, the fellow travellers and the Liberal-Left cabal better get out their handkerchiefs and start sobbing.
Their ignoble cause will fail.
The course of decency and democracy will win.
Now Wilkins, who visited the Sun for an editorial board meeting this past week, is a very astute and articulate fellow.
He spent 25 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 11 of them as Speaker of the House.
During those 25 years he was on the cutting edge of most major reform initiatives from welfare reform to property tax relief, and from educational accountability to truth-in-sentencing laws.
Wilkins is an affable, engaging man, but also one with a steel-trap mind.
In that, he’s very much like his boss back in the White House.
As noted by Sun columnist Salim Mansur — the best commentator by far in Canada on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism — Michael Novak, the noted Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher, recently described Bush as “the bravest president” for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians despite the venom of his peers.
The U.S ambassador echoed those sentiments, pointing out Bush will determinedly do what is right rather that what the polls may say is unpopular.
America’s salvation matters more than what the temporarily up-and-down swings in the polls say.
The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon when Bush had been in the White House little more than one year changed the entire direction of the presidency.
Some 3,000 Americans died in those attacks — more than in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, itself described by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as a “day of infamy.”
Yet, despite repeated threats by Osama bin Laden and his associated adherents throughout the world, there have been no further Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
I note that in the 1930s, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and his associated henchmen in other dictatorships believed the western democracies too weak to fight back.
He was wrong. We did.
We won.
After the end of the Second World War, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and the Communist henchmen who followed him had the same attitude as the 1930s bunch of dictators towards the western democracies.
But they, too, were wrong, and we won the Cold War.
Is the radical Islamic terrorist movement as mistaken in its view of the western democracies being weak as were Hitler, Stalin as their fellow compatriots, I asked Wilkins.
He replied it would be a mistake for the world terrorist movement to underestimate the resolve of the U.S. and its allies.
Instead of the Taliban running Afghanistan, we now have a democratic government there.
And instead of Saddam Hussein running Iraq, and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, we have a democratic government there, too.
True, these as yet may be fragile governments, and not exactly the kind of democracies with which we are familiar, but they are on their way to succeeding.
Wilkins noted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when asked about stability in the Middle East, declared the only way to achieve stability in the region is through democracy.
My friends, we are going to win this fight for civilization, and freedom for millions of men, women and children who never had it before, and George W. Bush will eventually be acclaimed as a great historic leader.
When Will The Democrats Defund The War?
Will the Democrats vote to defund the war if it looks like victory is at hand? We know that the Democrats want us to lose in Iraq so they can use it for political gain, and win the White House in 2008. We also know that a US victory in Iraq will damage their political goal.
Other than Sen. Feingold and a couple of others, none of the Democrats have the balls to defund the war for fear of political fallout. But if it looks like we will win the war before the 2008 elections, will the Democrats defund the war to prevent victory? I know it may sound hard to believe but these people will do just about anything to get back into power.
The Democrats govern solely by the polls. When America was united after 9/11 they called for a second war vote so the could show the country they were solidly behind national defense. It wasn’t until Howard Dean started to gain in the primary polls that Democrats started to turn against the war. When John F’n Kerry started falling behind Dean he came out and said he was the true anti-war candidate. Since then it has been a non stop barrage of anti -war, anti-American sentiment spewed from the vile mouths of these traitors.
Of course the media has been all to willing to carry the water for these people. When was the last time you saw a story about the heroics of any of our soldiers. Or about the schools and hospitals we have been building over there. That’s what I thought, you haven’t.
So I say it again, Democrats would rather lose the war and win the White house than visa versa and I find it discusting. I do believe they will defund the war if it looks as though we may win it. Do they really believe that we are in no danger from terrorists, or do they just not care. For years we were attacked overseas and even in this country and nothing was done. Now we are trying to end this once and for all, and the Democrats are to weak-willed to do anything about it.They are to weak-willed to fight terror,and they are to weak-will to defund and stop us. Unless it helps them win the White House.
New York Post Article
Ugly Choices
Tough Bets In The Middle East
The following appeared on nypost.com:
By Ralph Peters
January 29, 2007 — LIKE plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East isn’t done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better.
Thanks to abysmal policy errors (many pre-dating the current administration), we’ve caught ourselves between two irreconcilable sides – Sunni and Shia Muslims – whose enmity dates back 13 centuries. And we’re now taking fire from every direction.
Dreaming that all Iraqis could get along, we alienated potential friends and empowered deadly enemies. Short of Mongol-quality savagery, the traditional way to win in the Middle East has been to select an ally and stick with him – while avoiding the folly of trying to play honest broker.
The administration has begun to realize that it has to make some hard choices. Yet our leaders still believe they can have it both ways. The result may be bad hard choices.
At the strategic level, Washington is lining up regional allies – Sunni Arab states – to face off with Iran. But in Iraq, the administration continues to tilt toward Shia parties – hoping that Iran can be excluded from a decisive role in Baghdad. (Note that we’ve been fighting hard on Baghdad’s Sunni-populated Haifa Street, but we’re still avoiding a showdown in Sadr City.)
For their part, our Sunni Arab “allies” support the Sunni insurgents and dread the prospect of a Shia-dominated democratic government or a partition of Iraq.
And now, in the worst American tradition, we’re in danger of grabbing at short-term gains at an exorbitant strategic price: Defaulting to our old habit of backing hard-line regimes, we’ve dropped all pressure on the Saudis and Egyptians to reform their political systems.
Want to recruit more terrorists for another 9/11? Give Sunni Arab regimes a renewed blank check to shut down all opposition.
Quick Hits
My congresswoman( Carol Shea-Porter,D-NH) served tea to war protestors. Doesn’t she understand this is showing utter disrespect for our troops risking their lives for this country.
Hanoi Jane is at it again. ‘Nuff said.
John Kerry was for running for president in ’08 before he was against it.
Now Hillary is against the war after she was for it. Didn’t her husband say the same things about Saddam in the ’90’s that George Bush did before the war? Maybe Hillary needs the cigar trick.
How does Jim Webb know the majority of the military don’t support the war? He made it up, that’s how.
