The Left's History Of Violence

Ernesto "Che" Guevara.  Mass murderer and, as Cpt. H.I. Bell once said to a campus leftist in 1970, "If he was such a good guerilla fighter why is he dead?"  His is the iconic image of the left and clearly they miss him.  

As we listen to liberal pundits, the Left Stream Media and Democrat politicians bemoan what they term as "heated rhetoric" that "must be toned-down" while blaming the Conservative right for "inspiring" the murders in Tucson, it is good to take a moment to remember just who has a history of violence.  It certainly is not the Conservative right.

The linked article takes you on a short trip down memory lane.  The liberals still tout the murderers mentioned, some of them mass murderers far in excess of what happened in Tucson, in posters, t-shirts and slogans.

Follow the link for more.

Blaming the Right for the Giffords Attack Is Pure McCarthyism

George Will is always an excellent read and this one is spot on.

In the wake of the shooting the immediate move of the liberal left was not concern for the victims but positioning for political advantage.  The Democrat leadership and the left-wing blogosphere and the Left Stream Media, aided by the clearly addled Sheriff of Pima County, began an immediate attack on Sarah Palin, the TEA Party, talk radio (obviously conservative talk radio as liberal talk radio has been an abysmal failure) and Fox News.  They attacked Sarah Palin and the TEA Party because they fear her and them.  They attacked talk radio because it airs ideas that oppose their leftist meme.  They attack Fox News because it hasn't fallen in line with the slavish adoration of Barack Obama as best demonstrated by MSNBC.  (There are no more ardent or slavish sycophants of Barack Obama on the airwaves unless, of course, you want to count CNN as a whole.)

The script is now plain for all to see.  They will continue to point fingers at the political right in hopes of at least demonizing them and at best causing them to hesitate or pull punches in their political arguments out of a fantasy-land-fear that their debate has caused an individual to take violent action.  While doing this they will trot out the tried and worn-out arguments for gun control, restrictions on political speech and additional spending for security for the members of Congress.  (That will come in handy at future Town Hall meetings when they want to keep TEA Party members out and have only compliant crowds.)  Their end goal, of course, is domination rather than clear political discourse.

To be sure, the political discourse in America is loud and, at times, raucous.  It is supposed to be because when it is completely controlled by either side the result is not for the good of We the People.  I've often said that the 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing because it helps us to more easily identify who the idiots are and that has never been more true than today.  We have an aged Sheriff, clearly in his dotage, who instead of being the Law Enforcement Officer with 50 years of experience calming the community and assuring them that the evidence is being gathered properly and they are safe, launches into an unsupported, and unsupportable, diatribe against the political right thus shifting the blame from the defendant.

We have a New York Times that just over a year ago when a Muslim Army Officer shouted, "Allah akhbar!" as he began shooting and killing fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, counseled that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about his motivation but should wait for the facts, now immediately jumping to conclusions in the absence of any supporting facts.  (As did all those on the left, including our dear leader.  Pity they never bothered to say, "Oops, you were right.  He is a Muslim terrorist acting in concert with other terrorists.)

We have Democrat politicians who have yet to shake a medieval mind-set that imparts motive and action to inanimate objects again trotting out tried and failed gun-control policies thinking, I suppose, that We the People are so stupid as to not remember that they just didn't work the last time they were tried and won't work this time.  (Of course, they've always opposed the 2nd Amendment and aren't about to change just because of a little ole' Supreme Court decision.  Remember, these are the same Democrat politicians who urge collective guilt for an individual's crimes because it's society's fault that the individual was forced to kill somebody.)

We have Democrat and liberal-left strategists working feverishly and overtime to fulfill the dictum of Rahm Emanuel that one should "never let a crisis go to waste."

Fortunately, I don't believe the American people are as dumb or sheepish as the liberal-left believes.

Follow the link for an excellent read from George Will.

The Ugly Reality of Islam

Islam is violent.  Otherwise there would be no problem.  

Harry Potter Actress Beaten and Branded a Prostitute by Her Family After Dating a Non-Muslim

I am told time and again that Islam is peaceful and those who are using it to justify any violence other than self-defense are violating the Koran. Yet the linked story is all too common. The violence of "honor killings"--how can any murder be honorable?--is all too common as is the terrorism against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So how can a religion that continues to allow, and even give tacit approval to such actions, be termed "peaceful?" How can any religion that allows itself to justify slavery of non-adherents to that religion as is documented in Sudan be called just?

The answer is, of course: It can't. There are Muslims who are peaceful but they are clearly afraid to stand-up and shout in the face of the unthinking violence of their religious brethren. Which gives rise to another question: If, as we are told by the intelligentsia, those who are violent are only 10% of the 1 billion+ Muslims in the world, why are the overwhelming majority afraid to make that minority which espouses violence outcasts? That would surely happen in the Christian world so why not in the Muslim umma? The question is, on retrospect, almost rhetorical. While some, note only "some," of the alleged 90% are truly peaceful and willing to let others worship as they wish, the rest are secretly pleased that "their side" is advancing even if they don't necessarily agree with the violence. In other words, they don't directly approve of it, but they won't stop it.

A case in point is the recent case in Baltimore, Maryland, where an FBI sting operation resulted in the arrest of a young jihadi who wished to blow-up a military recruiting center. The jihadi tried to enlist the cooperation of 3 of his Muslim friends and only one of the friends tried to talk him out of it. When he approached the 4th friend that American went to the FBI and the budding terrorist was caught before he could fulfill his jihad. Think about it for a second. Only 1 of 4 American Muslims did what is expected of any American citizen.

The linked report is no less egregious. An internationally known actress who would appear to be from a upscale and modern thinking Muslim family in England (because, after all, they did let her appear in an internationally known and viewed movie about witches and wizards) is in fear for her life for the apparently unforgivable sin of dating a non-Muslim. There is an evil, it seems, in the hearts of her family and she is now in hiding because of a beating by her father and death threats that involve both the father and the brother. She is in hiding because her father is now demanding that she enter into a marriage he arranged with a Muslim. She is in hiding because our British cousins find themselves totally hobbled by political correctness run amuck and are unable to protect her should she appear to give evidence against her father and brother. It is then, an unfortunate case where both Islam and Christianity have failed the young lady. Islam because it allows such barbarity that could not exist without a nod and a wink from the religious hierarchy; and, Christianity because it has turned a blind eye out of a desire to be inclusive of all thus ignores the problem and does not take stern action--at least in England.

America, I'm afraid, is no less guilty as there have been honor killings here. Two young Muslim girls were allegedly murdered by their father in Texas for "being too westernized" as was a young girl in Arizona for the same inane reason. And another Muslim man in upstate New York allegedly killed and decapitated his wife over "honor" because she wanted a divorce.

Is it any wonder that Americans are uncomfortable with Islam? This is clearly represented by the efforts of some states to forbid the use of shari'ah law in their own courts and the strident opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque in lower Manhattan. The ball is in the umma's court. Islam can only be changed from within and that will only happen if the umma can subdue the barbarians who are in control.

Follow the link for more.

Developers of Mosque Near Ground Zero Seek Federal Funds for Post-9/11 Rebuilding

We will never forget...

Let me get this straight.  First, over the objections of a clear majority of Americans, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his crowd want to build what amounts to an Islamist victory monument to the Jihad 19 in the shadows of Ground Zero.  In the raucous discussion about that proposal the apologist defenders of the Ground Zero Mosque stated emphatically time and again that the "...mosque is not at Ground Zero!"

Now the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants the U.S. Government to give $5 million for the renovation from funds set aside to redevelop Lower Manhattan after 9/11.

This is further insult to injury.

Follow the link for more.

...and we aren't about to forgive.

Afghan Christian faces trial for alleged conversion from Islam

There are only two types of groups in the world that mandate death for those who want to leave: Criminal organizations like the Mafia and Islam.  It's no wonder that neither group has a problem with resorting to terror to achieve its ends.

Follow the link for more.

Virginia Man Arrested For Plotting DC Attacks

Please don't mention this to Joy or Whoopi.  They are adamant that Muslims are not the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 and are sure to blame this on the TEA Party.  

The whole story isn't in yet, but it appears that the FBI/JTTF did some good work on this one.  This is one to keep your eye on as there can't be just one player and the targets being selected were, as terrorists view them, lucrative.  This time we escaped being on the bullseye.  Keep your fingers crossed that we will be lucky next time as well.

The central question is, of course, do you feel safer now?  Think about that when you go to the polls next week.

Follow the link for the story.

A forgotten day of infamy: 10-year anniversary of the Cole bombing — and still no justice; Update: White House finally releases statement

Michelle Malkin is again on point.  Today is the 10th anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole, something the Obama Regime would sooner we forget.  But those brave souls won't be forgotten.  We shall remember their sacrifice.

Follow the link for more.

Christians Stabbed, Beaten With Plank Near Indonesia's Capital

This is the truth about Islam.  

This is how Islam functions.  This is the result of Islam becoming the dominant religion in any nation.

In the days leading up to the 9/11 Remembrance in this Year of our Lord, 2010, the Left Stream Media was filled with angst over the proposal of a small town minister in Florida to burn Korans on 9/11.  Ominous threats were received from Muslim radicals and amplified by the ever compliant news media.  Even our military commander in Iraq quaked with fear over the act putting our soldiers in increased danger!  What the politically correct ruling class either cannot or refuses to understand is that Muslims need no reason other than the fact that you are not Muslim and are not groveling at their feet to attack.  The attack reported in the linked article is all too common in Indonesia and the southern Philippines.  Christians are attacked for no other reason than they are Christians who wish to worship God in their own way.  The attacks have nothing to do with the burning of any Koran and certainly had nothing to do with the misguided minister in Florida.  They had everything to do with the religious intolerance that is taught and encouraged in Islam.

But they, the Muslims, are quick to demand that everyone else tolerate their religion and quick to take affront at any perceived slight.  They've even gone to the U.N. to ask that any speech that defames a religion be made an international crime.  (We all know that they don't mean that they will obey that law.  They just want a way to justify their own violence.)  And now the most peaceful Imam Feisal Rauf is uttering thinly veiled threats about how moving the Ground Zero mosque will be perceived as an insult to Islam and cause radical elements, i.e., Islamo-fascists, to attack Americans any where in the world.

Excuse me.  They've been doing that for a couple of decades now and common sense says that whether the mosque is built or not they will still attack Americans any where they think that they can get away with it.  That is the nature of the Islamo-fascists who wage war against the United States and the western world.  

Follow the link, read and learn.  Then take a moment and reflect at the obsequious attitude toward Islam, the Ground Zero Mosque and the Koran-burning Florida minister that has been displayed by our leadership and in the Left Stream Media.

World Trade Center Attacks

Tomorrow is 9/11. Despite the misguided, idiotic idea peddled by Obama that tomorrow should be a day of national service, it is a Day of Remembrance and we should never forget. When I joined DHS/FAMS after 9/11 I was told the mantra for the day was, "Never forget. Never again."

After I made my first trip to Ground Zero and looked at the scene, I added, "Never forgive."

Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Mosque Could Accommodate 1,000 Worshippers

What they plan in their own words.

Last Sunday in the New York Slime, Frank Rich issued the talking points for Neo-Lib Democrats on the Ground Zero Mosque when he stressed that it wasn't going to be a mosque but a "cultural center."  He should have begun the story, "Once upon a time..."

My 4-year old daughter will tell you, "Liberals are liars."  If a 4-year old is astute enough to know that then adults should also be able to handle the truth.  Fortunately, about 80% of Americans across the board have seen the truth and don't want the mosque placed near Ground Zero.  There is that 20% who have their minds stored in some dark, dank place that removes it from reality that support the building of the Ground Zero mosque.  They do so with chins held high as they chant "It's Constitutionally protected!"

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The right to worship, or not, is a protected right.  There is no right to build anywhere you want.  There is no right to erect an edifice to murder and mayhem within spitting distance of hallowed ground and that is what the Ground Zero mosque is intended to be.  The Imam says that he is a bridge builder.  If that were true, he would have dropped the plans to build the mosque weeks ago for his plan doesn't build any type of bridge.  It builds a wall.

In order to read the truth about what the developer plans you have to go to a foreign newspaper, of course, as the Left Stream Media in the United States is living in a fantasy world that is completely divorced from reality.  In this case The Weekly Standard provides the true story.

Follow the link for the truth.

Israel Attacked!! Lebanon Ambushes Israeli Positions: Media Butchers

Israel Attacked!! Lebanon Ambushes Israeli Positions: Media Butchers

Reuters and the Associated Press lie...again.

The reason that the über left wants to control the internet and the media is to ensure that We the People only get the information that is helpful to their cause. The destruction of Israel is a cause of the left. It must be or they wouldn't be revving up the engines of Obama's bus every time Bibi Netanyahu comes to town for a visit.

Wouldn't it be grand if the "media" organizations stopped trying to shape the world's opinion to be the image of their own opinion? Wouldn't it be grand if they just reported the truth and the facts? That can happen, can it not?

OK. I know it's a laughable idea. But still, it would be really, really nice.

Follow the link for the truth of the matter.

U.S. Controversial Mosque Near Ground Zero Would Include 9/11 Memorial, Backer Says

I am absolutely certain that Muslims will consider the entire mosque to be a memorial...to Mohammed Atta and the victory of the 19 Islamo-fascists who murdered almost 3,000 people on 9/11.  The mosque is funded by as yet unidentified sources outside the United States which means that the money probably has Saudi Arabia's Wahabi sect written all over it.  You remember them?  The sect that won't let women drive and inspired Bin Laden?  One thing for sure, it will certainly not be a memorial to the innocent people who died that day.

The mosque at Ground Zero is Islam's Iwo Jima Memorial to 9/11.

This is a shameful day for New York City but what can we expect with Neo-Lib leaders like Michael Bloomberg and a compliant, submitting Left Wing Media.  Remember the Muslim reaction to 9/11?

Follow the link for more.  And remember the goal of the Islamo-fascists:

White House Backed Release of Lockerbie Bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi

There are lies and then there are lies.  It is unfortunate that the current occupant of the White House has so amply demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to tell the We the People the truth.  This is just another of a long list of lies emanating from Barack Obama.

It is not surprising that we are finding this out not from our own Left Stream Media that touts itself as the best in the world but from foreign media that is not attempting to advance a Neo-Lib Democrat agenda.  This should be the lead story on every evening news broadcast for the next few weeks until all the relative information as to what the President knew and when he knew it is revealed.

My bet is that it will be buried by the liberal news cabal with barely a passing mention.

Follow the link for the story.

Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki puts 'Everybody Draw Mohammed' cartoonist Molly Norris on execution hitlist

"You better fear me or I'll fatwa your butt!"

Anwar al-Awlaki is, for the time being, a name to remember. Like the other psychotic despots who lie in the dustbin of history, he presumes to impact the world with his edicts, or in his parlance fatwas, made on behalf of peaceful Muslims everywhere. In reality he is demented in that he actually believes that his advocacy of murder is making him points in Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His visage is, of course, on a "Wanted: Dead or Alive" poster issued by the Obama Regime so in some ways his pique over pictures of Mohammed is understandable. He wants to get even. However, given that even within Islam there are two differing views on pictures of Mohammed–one group hates any image and the other reveres pictures of the warlord and I forget which is which because it doesn't matter–his faux-anger is totally misplaced. Instead of putting on fatigues and heading for Afghanistan, al-Awlaki targets a female artist for “offending” Islam.

It is like al-Awlaki and his ilk to pick on someone like Molly Norris. People like him are always careful in their choice of targets for religious revenge so his picking of Ms. Norris for the latest in a long line of fatwas singling out non-believers is no surprise. She is a woman and Muslims like al-Awlaki do like to visit violence on women. She is, I hear, from Seattle, a fairly liberal section of the United States more famous for it's coffee shop society and rain than for women who can and are willing to shoot back. (I'm sure there are a few up there but they are unlikely to be artists.) She is also an artist and that is a profession that does not necessarily pride itself on the adherence to, or development of, any specific kind of martial art. As a matter of fact, artists are generally perceived and intellectually brave but gentle people and that makes her a much easier target for the Islamo-fascist terrorist who decides to try and carry out the fatwa. After all, if she were dangerous and/or had a coterie of government supplied bodyguards then there wouldn't be anyone willing to carry out the fatwa. Islamo-fascist terrorist assassins usually don't want to take a lot of chances unless, of course, they are the brain-washed ones who drive bomb-laden vehicles in hopes of finally getting laid even if it is after death. (Someone needs to tell those guys that some personal hygiene, toothpaste and cologne might increase their odds with human females on any given Saturday night.)

The cowardice of men like al-Awlaki is less physical than it is intellectual. They are certainly willing to die so long as they can take some innocent civilians with them as they go to meet their 72 virgins. Intellectually, however, they purposely live in a world devoid of freedom, preferring instead one ruled by canons that they alone interpret to suit their own prejudices. They prefer a society that is ordered in such a manner as to ensure their own supremacy above a ready-made underclass made up not only of non-believers but also of those who, even though they profess the same faith, are less than equal. (Women fit very nicely into this latter class, thank you. The Islamic religion is the true haven of feminism’s male-chauvinist-pigs, except that pigs are considered unclean so I suppose in this case they would have to be male-chauvinist-billy-goats.) This is the world of al-Awlaki: an ordered society that is ruled on what he believes are laws, the sharia, given by Allah which he and his brethren Imams alone may interpret; and which governs all aspects of the daily lives of its followers. It is, in other words, a fascist theocracy and the one thing that such a theocracy cannot tolerate is dissent of any kind. In this, the Islamic fascist theocracy is much like the Mafia: You may get in but you may never leave; and violations of the rules are dealt with using draconian punishments meant not to correct but to instill fear. Fear is the currency that keeps people like al-Awlaki in power. It is what they need to maintain control. Fear is what their twisted intellect understands and that is why they issue fatwas: They want, no they need, to instill fear in both believers and the kaffir. Without fear they will lose control and are exposed for the pitiful excuses for human beings that they are.

The edict by President Obama–one of the things he has done of which I heartily approve–ensures that Anwar al-Awlaki’s days on this earth are numbered. There is certainly a missile-carrying UAV just waiting for him to make the inevitable mistake that reveals his location and then he will be sent to some nether region where there will not only be no virgins but no salvation either. He is an evil man that will die and his memory will then be consigned to history’s dustbin along with the other evil men who came before him.

Follow the link for more.

 "Baaaaa!"

Iran offers escort to next aid convoy challenging Gaza blockade

This is to be expected given the ineffective "surrender" attitude of Obama and the manner in which he has treated Israel.  Sensing a weakness in the resolve of the United States which they interpret as an overall weakness that they can take advantage of, the Iranians have upped the ante with a military move guaranteed to provoke.  Their goal is clear: To have an excuse to follow through with their threat as to the destruction of Israel and a 2nd Holocaust.  If they succeed, the blood belongs on Obama's hands as much as it does on the mad mullahs of Iran.

Follow the link for more.

Self-Inflicted Defeat

The enemy.  He is not confused about who he wants to defeat.

Self-Inflicted Defeat

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. - Sun Tzu

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu authored The Art of War centuries ago yet it is as applicable in the 21st century as it was in 300 BC. Unfortunately while professional soldiers spend their lives studying the precepts of Sun Tzu in many different forms, politicians generally fail to understand the lessons that were meant to be conveyed by the "wise" quotes that we are all used to seeing whenever authors want to appear wise when writing about war. Few politicians have read Sun Tzu and even fewer understand what was being conveyed in those writings. Obama has heard of Sun Tzu, I am sure, but I doubt that he read The Art of War and, if he did, he failed to understand it. Not that Obama is ignorant but his concept of battle comes more from the likes of Saul Alinsky than from classical strategic and tactical thought and this makes him less effective that even Lyndon Johnson who tried to run a very hot war from the White House. Democrats, with the exception of Harry Truman, have proven time and again that it just can't be done that way.

What we see with the Obama Regime, and with the Bush Administration before it, is the reticence to clearly define and identify the enemy. The failure of the Bush Administration was because after the shock of 9/11 wore off and the civil libertarians started their counter-campaigns to humanize the enemy, Republicans began acting like Democrats and paying homage to "political correctness" rather than giving the military a clear objective and allowing them to prosecute a war. With the Obama Regime, conducting war is something that has to be very tightly controlled so as to not cause any bad publicity or cause any blood to be splashed on their own shoes thus their reliance on Preditor strikes and covert action while publicly restricting the activities of troops committed openly to battle. As much as I like and admire Special Operators, folks, that is not the way to win a war. It is a way to ensure defeat, politically if not militarily. Just ask Lyndon Johnson.

You can be certain that the enemy, the Islamo-fascists who were historically allied with the National Socialists in WWII, are adhering to the teachings of Sun Tzu and von Clauswitz. You can be certain that their goal is absolute victory and they aren't worrying about looking bad in the Left Stream Media because they see the Left Stream Media, if it doesn't support them, as an enemy to be eventually eliminated as well. Their goal is total dominance. Under Obama, ours is to get along and be a "nice guy."

I wonder what Sun Tzu would say about that?

Follow the link for a very good commentary.

FNC Notes Gaza-Bound Flotilla’s Links to Terrorists, Mob Chanted ‘Death to Jews’ | NewsBusters.org

Not what they were delivering but what they plan to deliver if they can force Israel to abandon the blockade.

FNC Notes Gaza-Bound Flotilla’s Links to Terrorists, Mob Chanted ‘Death to Jews’ | NewsBusters.org

The "international waters" argument is again being trotted out as a reason that Israel was wrong. The naive will accept that as fact and the knowledgeable will shake their heads at the inanity of the argument. No nation is required to wait for the internationally recognized 12-mile limit in the enforcement of an announced blockade and to do so would be stupid. So let us discard the "international waters" red herring and move-on to the crux of the argument.

The motive behind the Gaza Flotilla was not to deliver needed humanitarian supplies but to create a political incident. That much is clear because if they were truly humanitarian in their goal they would have headed directly for Israel where they could have docked and had their cargo off-loaded and inspected after which it, all of it, would have been trucked to the Gaza Strip where it would be turned over to U.N. Agencies for distribution. That's a problem for those who wish to smuggle weapons and arms into Gaza. They absolutely need to be able to dock directly in Gaza so they can unload without outsiders looking over their shoulders for that is the only way they can arm militants to keep the Intfada going. Terrorists were on board the boats to achieve that aim and they attacked the soldiers who were boarding in hopes of provoking the traditional, and exploitable, "tragedy" for political purposes. Actually, the only tragedy in the entire incident is the killing of truth by the Western media which immediately condemned the wrong side. Instead of championing the militants who wish only to destroy Israel they should have blamed the terrorists who put the flotilla out to sea and planned to create an incident. The blood is on the hands of the Turks and Yemeni Islamic terrorists who tried to run the blockade.

And some of it should rightfully splatter on the shoes of Obama for having given the "go signal" for renewed attacks on Israel with his idiotic Middle East policy and boost to anti-Semitism.

Follow the link for more.

A Sneak Preview of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque

At least we know their true goal.

A Sneak Preview of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque

A most interesting read. There is no doubt that the feelings and sensibilities of Americans are not being considered in the planned opening of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan. We've come to expect such political correctness from Neo-Libs like Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Anything that offends mainstream America has to be "good" in the mind of a Neo-Lib. And any exploitation of Neo-Lib asininity to advance Islam has to be "good" in the minds of the mullahs in the Middle East.

Follow the link for more.

Mayor Bloomberg Submits, Sanctions 911 Mega Mosque

"I'll give him this hug but I'm banning these as soon as I can get away with it.  I am the über nanny!"

Mayor Bloomberg Submits, Sanctions 911 Mega Mosque

I would not object to the building of a mosque any where else in Manhattan; however over-looking ground zero is the height of bad judgement...unless, of course, the mosque is named and dedicated, in both English and Arabic, in such a manner as to make it clear that it is being built there as an apology for the events on 9/11/01, as a reminder of the terrorism of that day and as an apology for it having been done in the name of Islam . Anything short of that is an insult to those who were murdered by the Islamic terrorists on that fateful day as well as an insult to the families of the victims and the people of the United States.

Unfortunately, I am sure that won't be the case. Anyone want to bet that it won't be looked upon as an apologetic symbol by the Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia? Anyone want to bet that the building of a mosque adjacent to that hallowed ground will make Osama bin Laden smile? Anyone want to bet that instead of reducing the tensions between Christians, Jews and Muslims, that the building of that mosque will exacerbate those tensions? Anyone want to bet that increasing those tensions is exactly the goal of those who wish to build the mosque there?

I'm sure that the purpose of the mosque is neither an apology for what happened on 9/11 nor a statement by the Islamic community that they condemn what happened. The mosque will probably have an English name that is basically bland. It's Arabic name will be something else, of course. Something like the "Mosque of Victory Over the Infidels" or the "Mosque Commemorating the Martyrdom of the Heroic 19" or the "Mosque of the Da'wah." 

And it is clearly a bad idea but a bad idea that is being moved forward on the slickly greased rails of "political correctness." It's not something that is protected by the 1st Amendment for the government and the people of the United States have a vested interest in preserving the sanctity of that location and denial of building permits for that location would not violate the intent of the Founders when they established Freedom of Religion as a tenant of our Constitution. Muslims are free to worship everywhere. But to build an edifice to Islam overlooking the site where, in the name of Islam, over 3,000 innocent men, women and children were murdered is as improper and insulting as it would be if the Japanese opened a gift shop at Pearl Harbor where they sold commemorative "Tora, Tora, Tora" banners or the Germans opened a gift shop next to Auschwitz where they sold lampshades.  The idea is as stupid as the people who support it being built.

Follow the link for a clear picture of just how much of an idiot the mayor of New York is.

Illegals and the Election

Illegals and the Election

The linked article is an excellent analysis of the illegal alien situation and how Conservatives should go about fighting it in confrontations against Neo-Lib Democrats. It doesn't, however, go into the ultimate reason that the Neo-Lib Democrats not only tolerate illegal immigrants but welcome them with open arms.

Despite their current Madison Avenue polished image of being for minorities and minority rights, the Democrats have a history of supporting the enslavement of people. In the early years they enacted Jim Crow laws in the South and blocked passage of the Civil Rights Act under the Eisenhower Administration as well as attempting to block its passage again in 1964. We should never forget that it was Senator Harry Byrd (D-WV) who led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act. Yes, the same Harry Byrd who is looked upon fondly by the Democrats today and who, before it became totally unacceptable, was proud of his membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course the slavery that the Democrats supported was then based on race, something that is abhorrent to Conservatives and thinking people in the 21st Century thanks largely to the anti-slavery movement that started with the advent of the Republican Party in the mid-1800's. In the 20th Century as the Neo-Lib Democrats, then called "Progressives," took control of the party and began their drive to fundamentally change America from a Republic to a Socialist state, they knew that they would need a permanent underclass to support the Socialism they envisioned. As they looked around they settled again on race as an issue and began their make-over from a party that opposed integration to one that championed it because "if we don't, the blacks (you can actually insert any race here) won't be able to make it in America." It sounded so altruistic at the time that many, including myself, were actively supportive of the idea that in order to make things right for all, some must be given privileges and pathways that were necessarily denied to mainstream Americans because white people were the majority and therefore already had the opportunity.

As I look back I am saddened by how naive I was to believe that had to be done. True in the 1960's and 70's we looked on affirmative action as absolutely necessary to right the wrongs of decades of exclusion based on race. What we didn't foresee was the true aims of the liberal-progressive-socialist Democrats, now best described as Neo-Libs, who viewed the affirmative action programs not as temporary solutions to address the decades of continued racism after the end of the Civil War but as permanent programs. Programs that would emphasize, and continue to emphasize to minorities, that without the government and more specifically without the Neo-Lib Democrat Party, they would continue to fail because "the system" was inherently unfair and the unfair system could only be addressed by Democrats. Thus began the idea, the absolute belief, that their success in life depended on them voting as a solid block for whatever Democrat was running for office. It might be called a brilliant political move by some but only if the ultimate purpose was ignored. By making minorities dependent upon the Democrats and the government the Democrats were, in effect, creating a permanent underclass. Lip service was paid to their needs, class and race distinctions were exploited and welfare was increased all with the aim not of alleviating the plight of the minorities but of perpetuating the reliance of the minorities on the government and the party by making them comfortable in their poverty. Instead of encouraging blacks to integrate and advance themselves on their own individual capabilities they encouraged them to band together and support the black community. Instead of applauding assimilation they applauded separatism. As a result today we only have some integration rather than complete integration. We have courses in Black Studies that do not prepare students for assimilation as Americans but for separatism as Black-hyphen-Americans and instead of achieving Dr. King's dream of an age where people are judged on the content of their character we are still stuck on stupid and worrying about ethnicity.

Eventually, though, the Neo-Libs' worst fear was slowly but surely beginning to materialize and more and more unhyphenated Americans with black ancestry began to surface and be noticed. Despite an educational system in heavily minority areas that was substandard and sub-performing, children were being educated and were beginning to think for themselves. Even more frightening to the left is that these individuals, as they have grown and become successful, are serving as proof that black Americans do not need government help to succeed. They need only to rely on their natural ability and willingness to work. And while the numbers are small, the more unhyphenated Americans that escape from the system of government reliance and control, the more frantic the Neo-Libs are in their search for replacements for the government-dependent underclass that they must have in order for them to retain political power, expand government and move further towards pure socialism.

Illegal aliens, primarily from Mexico and Latin America are the perfect replacement. They are used to being part of an underclass and even though that's what they are trying to escape when they leave their homes to come north the fact that the underclass in America lives much better than they did down south encourages them to accept that position here. The Neo-Libs have, however, learned that they must maintain the status quo of the underclass while only giving them hope for the future for if they give too much, if they actually do something, the underclass depopulates as they become successful through the American Dream. This leads to promises of amnesty and eventual open borders. It leads to completely irrational and false rhetoric condemning Arizona's law in order to capture the support of the illegal aliens already in the United States. In other words, the Neo-Lib Democrat Party really has no intention of solving the illegal immigrant problem. Illegal immigrants maintain the needed underclass and all it takes to stir them up and support Democrats is the threat of an illegal immigration crackdown which the Neo-Libs will immediately oppose in solidarity. In reality what the Neo-Libs are doing is protecting the status quo of their economically enslaved underclass so that they may maintain their political base and political power.

Fortunately for America the issue is much more serious than mere illegal immigrants crossing the border and working in the United States. The issue that can and will be the downfall of the Neo-Lib Democrats strategy for a permanent underclass is terrorism. Have you notice how the Neo-Libs currently in control of the government absolutely avoid the use of the term “War on Terror?” Have you thought about why?

It is actually quite simple. If we are at war then our borders must be kept secure otherwise our enemies might come across them and do harm to America. Right? But if it isn’t a war, if it’s only a law enforcement issue, then open borders is still a possibility and illegal immigrants can be cast as a human rights problem rather than a threat to the security of the nation. Obviously the Neo-Libs would like nothing more than the Islamio-fascists to go away so they refuse to use the term, “Islamic terrorism” as if that will make it something that is not a problem. And they immediately portray every act of terrorism that happens in the US, from the murder at the Arkansas recruiting office, to Ft. Hood, to the Underwear Bomber to Times Square as the act of an individual. Then they hope that they’re right and they’ve been wrong each and every time.

It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? Why would they want to make people so comfortable in their poverty that they no longer possessed the initiative to take responsibility for themselves and work to succeed? If not to expand their political power then why? I'd be interested if someone has an answer to that question.

By the way, did you ever wonder why you have to show a picture ID to do everything but vote? And why Democrats always scream like stuck pigs when the issue of voter identification is brought up? Think about it.

Follow the link for more.