About Me

Name: 84rules
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

ABC News Exclusive: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Posted by 84rules on Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:47:55 PM


This is from ABC News, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought or support for the War On Terror. But, they report that American officials have found "smoking gun" evidence that Iran has been arming terror groups inside Iraq. From the article:

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

And ...

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

And the leaks for the Baker-Hamilton Commission are that we are supposed to sit down and make nice-nice with these people? Makes you wonder what the members of that Commission have been smoking recently.

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
Jonathan Karl & Martin Clancy
ABCNews.com
November 30, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michelle Malkin Has More On Old Media Lies And Ann Coulter Gets Results

Posted by 84rules on Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:39:29 AM


We should all be giving continuous thanks to God for the Internet. Without it, news outlets like Associated Press would still be getting away with publishing lies as truth, just like many news outlets did back in the 70's and 80's because there was no effective way to check the validity of news stories back then.

Michelle Malkin's latest column deals just with this particular issue. From her column:

One of the most sensational news items over the Thanksgiving holiday came from the Associated Press, which reported on six Sunni civilians burned alive as they left Friday mosque services. The shocking dispatch received global coverage. The front cover of the Philadelphia Daily News blasted:

"WORSHIPPERS BURNED ALIVE: Capping deadliest week of war, 6 Sunnis doused with kerosene, set afire as Iraqi soldiers reportedly stand idle." The Chicago Sun-Times blared: "Sunnis burned alive in revenge." The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia headlined: "Shi'ite militia burn Sunnis alive in revenge attacks." The Calcutta Telegraph in India echoed: "Shias burn Sunnis alive."

The Washington Post announced: "New savage twist to violence in Baghdad." The lead paragraph reported: "Revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers, drenched them with kerosene and burned them alive, and Iraqi soldiers did nothing to stop the attack, police and witnesses said."

The story continued: "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein said Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in the burnings of Sunnis carried out by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia, or in subsequent attacks that torched four Sunni mosques and killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same northwest Baghdad area."

Just a few small problems with the massively publicized story:

1) "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein" is an unreliable, unauthorized spokesperson whom the military has warned the Associated Press about before.

2) The incident cannot be verified.

Newspaper readers around the world who carried the story have not been informed of any of this by the Associated Press or any other mainstream media outlet. But those who follow the blogosphere have been unraveling the story over the past week at lightning pace. Curt at the Flopping Aces blog (http://floppingaces.net/) has led the way, first raising questions on Saturday morning about "police Capt. Jamil Hussein's" account. He noted an official Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) statement in response to the AP report that "neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story."

As I wrote above, if this story had been published back in the 70's or 80's, the general public would have accepted it as truthful and been outraged. But, since stories like this can now be independently checked, we now know that it is most likely not true and was fed to AP as an attempt at propaganda.

What is even worse is the arrogance with which AP is standing by a debunked story as if we were under some requirement to believe them without question.

Michelle goes on:

After Curt's inquiries, CENTCOM sent a request for retraction to the Associated Press. Public Affairs Officer Lt. Michael Dean of the MNC-I Joint Operations Center wrote:

We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team . . .

. . . Also, we definitely know, as we told you several weeks ago through the MNC-I Media Relations cell, that another AP-popular IP spokesman, Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq, supposedly of the city's Yarmouk police station, does not work at that police station and is also not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP. The MOI has supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning. . . . Unless you have a credible source to corroborate the story of the people being burned alive, we respectfully request that AP issue a retraction, or a correction at a minimum, acknowledging that the source named in the story is not who he claimed he was. MNC-I and MNF-I are always available and willing to verify events and provide as much information as possible when asked.

The Associated Press has yet to respond to queries from both Curt and me regarding its reporting on the incident. As of Tuesday afternoon, I could find no retraction, correction or reference to the shady spokesman angle in any Associated Press report. The silence from AP (and the rest of the media, for that matter) comes as no surprise. This is, after all, the same organization that sat on the news for five months that one of its Iraqi-based stringers, Bilal Hussein, had been and remains in detention after being captured by U.S. military forces with an alleged al Qaeda operative.

Yes, that is arrogance. AP should issue a retraction and denounce their "source" as what he really is, a terrorist propaganda tool.

Out of all the libs who were up in arms claiming that President Bush was a liar, why are these same libs so silent everytime Old Media is caught with their pants down? (e.g. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Reuters photographers, etc.)

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Rumor-Mongering Media
Michelle Malkin
JewishWorldReview.com
November 29, 2006

In a November 26, 2006 column, Ann Coulter wrote the following:

Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" - coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.

Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.

After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat-belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Also they were Muslims.

The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.

Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.

It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.

You can access this column on-line here:

What Can I Do To Make Your Flight More Uncomfortable?
Ann Coulter
WorldNetDaily.com
November 26, 2006

And then her latest column, dated November 29, 2006, contains the following:

The six imams removed from a US Airways flight last week have apparently adopted my suggestion that if they really want to protest the airline, instead of boycotting US Airways, they should start flying it frequently.

The spokesman for the imams – or as I believe it's phrased in their culture, "designated liar" – Omar Shahin, staged a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport on Monday, after which, according to the Associated Press, "he and other religious leaders boarded a US Airways flight to demonstrate their determination to continue praying and flying."

The original six imams removed from the flight last week first attracted attention when they said prayers to Allah on traditional Muslim prayer rugs in the boarding area. After boarding, they changed seats, spreading themselves throughout the plane. They were also overheard spouting anti-American rhetoric. Witnesses said the six men appeared to be either Islamic fanatics or U.S. Army chaplains on leave from Guantanamo.

The silliness of these imams would be a laughing matter were it not for the conduct of 19 other Muslims during the 9/11 attacks. In fact, one of the six imams ejected from the US Airways flight, Omar Shahin, a self-proclaimed "scholar" who denies any Muslim involvement in 9/11 at all despite the fact the Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks has been instrumental in coming up with fake crimes against American-Muslims. In short, he is a liar.

Ann continues:

Instead of aggressively distinguishing himself from his terrorist predecessor, judging by news reports, Shahin spent the five years after 9-11 denying that Muslims were behind the attacks and complaining of phony anti-Islamic "hate crimes" – as opposed to the pro-Islamic hate crimes he presumably endorses.

In 2003, for example, Shahin alleged that a woman in Arizona had thrown shoes at children at the mosque.

This is the most transparent hoax I've heard since, "If I did it, here's how I would have done it." This is like the joke about a speaker at an American communist rally opening with: "Workers and peasants of Brooklyn!" Shahin has so little insight into this country, he can't even invent a believable hate crime.

It's Arabs who have a thing about shoes being a sign of disrespect, not Americans. When Iraqis toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, the crowd immediately pelted it with shoes.

Shahin himself couldn't get away from this pan-Arabic shoe fetish, adding: "The incidents of Muslims being attacked kind of shocked me in my shoes." Note to imams trying to fabricate hate crimes against Muslims: Americans don't share your shoe neurosis.

These imams need to understand that one the reasons we Americans regard them with such suspicion is a prayer from the Hadith that Ann notes: "And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"

Too many unenlightened Muslims take this literally and too many enlightened Muslims are standing by in shameful silence on the matter.

You can access Ann's latest column on-line here:

Coulter Gets Results
Ann Coulter
WorldNetDaily.com
November 29, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jim Webb: Embarrassment To Virginia, Illegals Muder 4,380 Americans Per Year And Testing Baker-Hamilton

Posted by 84rules on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:19:03 AM


Okay, it didn't take Senator-Elect Jim Webb very long to embarrass himself and the Commonwealth of Virginia by doing something stupid in the public eye.

Mr. Webb had been invited to a private function at the White House to meet with President Bush. During the reception, Prersident Bush asked Mr. Webb, "How is your boy?" It was a personal question meant to show concern for the troops who were serving in harm's way. But Webb, rather than remaining civil and acting with standards of decorum, immediately took the opportunity to turn a private question into a political grandstanding event and replied, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." President Bush then said, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Then, with sneering arrogance in his voice, Webb said, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President!"

Now, Webb is a former Marine officer and should certainly know what the word "respect" means, especially when conversing with the Commander-In-Chief. Webb's attitude and complete disrespect for the Office of the President of the United States is conduct that is certainly most unbecoming of a Marine officer. Apparently, Webb has chosen to abandon his title in favor of political gain.

Webb also forgets that his son is serving with real Marines over in Iraq and that Webb's disrespectful conduct towards the Commander-In-Chief may reflect poorly on his son.

It would be nice if Mr. Webb thought more about other people and less about himself and pleasing his political masters at the DNC.

Some research groups, such as the Manhattan Institute, have been collecting data over the past several years and have produced estimates on the number of murders illegal aliens commit against Americans every year. They conclude that 12 Americans per day are murdered by illegal aliens. Now, 12 x 365 = 4,380 per year. That is more than the total number of American Service personnel who have given their lives over in Iraq since 2003. And yet, for some odd reason, the Dems want to pull out of Iraq but (along with half of the Senate Republicans) absolutely refuse to do anything about enforcing our immigration laws.

From and article published in the World Net Daily:

While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

So, it is a bad thing to continue trying to kill terrorists in Iraq, but it is perfectly okay for illegals to come into the U.S. and kill Americans?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Illegal Aliens Murder 12 Americans Daily
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com
November 28, 2006

And here is an interesting article by Newt Gingrich that details 11 key tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report. It is a long read but very informative. Here is one of the more distrubing excerpts:

What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture: "The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate--it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent 'collaborators,' with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq's neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

11 Key Tests For The Baker-Hamilton Report
Newt Gingrich
FrontPageMag.com
November 29, 2006

Remember: "The VC did not follow us back to the United States. But Al-Qaeda will follow us back."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dem Agenda Becoming Clearer, Fighting The Information War And The Effects Marijuana On The Brain

Posted by 84rules on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:29:17 AM


True to form, the Dems campaigned on certain populist issues that they are now backpeddling on and now that they are in power, are trying to force an agenda which they kept hidden from the public during the campaign.

Back during the 2004 Presidential Elections, the Dems used the issue of a military conscription (i.e. "draft") as a scare tactic to try and beat back President Bush. It backfired on them when the House of Representatives voted on a military conscription bill and it was soundly defeated with only two voting for it and both of them Dems. But now, the Dems want to bring the draft back according to Charlie Rangel. From Ed Morrisey at Captian's Quarters blog:

Rangel actually gave a number of reasons in the past for reinstituting the draft, but bolstering the war effort in Iraq wasn't among them. Even yesterday, he told an interviewer that the main reason was to discourage the deployment of troops anywhere. He again made the claim ... that the poor and powerless are overrepresented in the military.

This is, on its face, ludicrous. We have an all-volunteer army, which means that no group gets forced into overrepresentation. Rangel wants to make the typical liberal case that adults are incapable of free choice, and that government exists to protect them from the consequences of those choices. The volunteer military produces more motivated recruits and a more disciplined military corps than America has ever fielded in the past, because the men and women who comprise it chose to be there.

So, Rangel wants to "even things out," eh? Well, Ed looks at how using a military draft for such purposes is just plain stupid.

If anything, the draft created the kind of disparities that Rangel deplores, through college deferments for people with enough money to go to college. Rangel's new plan removes that loophole by stripping the choice for service from every man and woman in America. He plans on turning the military from the most effective fighting force in world history to the government's biggest social engineering program.

From my own experience as a U.S. Marine, I can tell you that the all volunteer military is the way to go. Short of mobilizing for total war, a draft would be costly and useless.

You can access this blog entry on-line here:

Forced To Govern, Part 1
Ed Morrisey
CaptainsQuarters.com
November 20, 2006

And what of the other parts of the Dem agenda? I've noted a few of them here on this blog. Morrisey echoes my own concern about the minumum wage:

Besides, [Sen. Schumer's] agenda of top-down government control of economics hardly qualifies as bipartisan, no matter who makes the claim. For one, he wants to raise the minimum wage by over 40% over the next three years. Minimum wage raises are inflationary by nature, as they raise the costs of production without increasing either production or productivity. It forces employers to either raise prices or cut other expenses, and the effect of those choices becomes cumulative along the entire production-delivery line. The net effect of such mandates usually is a combination of higher prices and higher unemployment, especially among younger workers.

And here is some more about prescription drug prices and energy costs:

After that, he intends on having the federal government use its Medicare leverage to drive down the retail price of prescription medication. While this will indeed create lower prices for the Medicare prescription program, it will create a severe market distortion that will have one of two effects in response to the massive loss of profit for pharmaceuticals. Either they will have to raise prices to non-government distributors to make up for the losses, or they will have to put less money into research and development. Pharmaceuticals are all publicly-held corporations, and millions of people have invested retirement funds into them, in part. They want to see that investment continue to grow, and they will not get that when profits decline. The loss will either have to be made up, or the investments will decrease; it's one or the other.

Schumer also wants to "tackle energy prices", but somehow it's difficult to believe that he intends on using increased domestic supply to do so. Instead, he wants to mandate flexible-fuel technology in vehicles. That's not a bad idea, but government mandates for ethanol will not lower energy prices, not even at the pump. Ethanol does not travel well and it provides less power, gallon for gallon, than gasoline. Schumer also wants to give big federal grants to local mass-transit projects which have never been shown to lower energy prices. Not surprisingly, Schumer wants to direct most of those funds for New York.

It is clear why the Dems didn't want anyone to know this before Election Day. Had they told the people their true intentions, they probably would not have won.

Forced To Govern, Part 2
Ed Morrisey
CaptainsQuaters.com
November 20, 2006

Also in an earlier blog entry, I noted that Old Media has not been turthful in their reporting on Iraq and the War On Terror. But in some sense, the military may have a responsibility in this. Blogger Patterico discovered that the L.A. Times misreported an incident that happened in Iraq. Apparently, the Times made a report of an airstrike when none had occurred and this completely skewed the true story of what really happened. When Patterico contacted CENTCOM for more information, he recieved this reply:

Sir –

Thank you for your support for the troops; we appreciate your attempts to set the record straight on your blog; which by the way is very impressive and does have quite a following. However, this forum is reserved for credentialed media outlets. If we stop to answer every blogger in world who has a question we will be inundated. Our first priority is getting the credentialed media the correct information as quickly as possible so that they can present a balanced story. That in itself is quite a challenge, as you can imagine, in the fog of war and with intricacies of this mission. I hope that you will not take offense and understand, but please refrain from contacting the Press Desk unless you can provide media credentials.

Now, understand this. It was credentialed media that misreported (and still does misreport) the war in Iraq and the bloogers who are trying to set the record straight, and CENTCOM would rather deal with the credentialed media that deliberately misreports the news? I'm sorry, but that does not make sense.

Patterico makes some very valid points here:

It has nothing to do with me, or this press officer.

It has everything to do with the fact that we are fighting a war, and part of the war that the enemy is fighting is a propaganda war. In the context of the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, we’ve already seen evidence that Muslim terrorists are willing to manufacture fake stories of civilian casualties. And the press is often too eager to accept them.

The military has to recognize that our enemies are not simply trying to kill our soldiers with bullets and IEDs. They are also trying to kill our will with false facts.

Bloggers want to get the truth out. They want to correct misleading press reports. But if they are going to do that effectively, the military needs to work with them.

On the bright side, this appears to be an isolated incident. Other bloggers have put me in touch with press officers who have been excellent in providing context and additional information. The military needs more of that.

You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:

Fighting The Information War
Patterico's Pontifications
November 20, 2006

And finally the New Scientist has a story giving more data and information on how marijuana affects the brain and memory processes. From the article:

Smoking marijuana often causes temporary problems with memory and learning. Now researchers think they know why.

The active ingredient in the drug, tetrahydrocannabinoid (THC), disrupts the way nerves fire in the brain’s memory centre, a new study shows.

David Robbe at Rutgers University in New Jersey, US, and colleagues gave rats an injected dose of THC, proportional to the amount inhaled by a person smoking an average-sized marijuana joint.

The team monitored the drug’s effect using wire probes placed in a memory centre in the animals’ brains – the hippocampus. The probes monitored the nerve impulses as they fired.

Normally, cells in hippocampus fire in sync, creating a current with a total voltage of around 1 millivolt. But THC reduced the synchrony of the firing. The drug did not change the total number of firings produced, just their tendency to occur at the same time – and this reduced the combined output voltage of the nerve signals by about 50%.

Abnormal firing occurs because THC binds to a receptor on the surface of the nerve cell, and so indirectly blocks the flow of current, Robbe believes.

Back in the 70's and 80's, we used to refer to people who smoked weed as "burnouts" because they seemed to have burned out their memory. Now we may know why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Marijuana Wreaks Havoc On Brain's Memory Cells
Roxanne Khamsi
NewScientist.com
November 20, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al-Qaeda Justifies Killing Christians, Terrorists Plot To Nuke Britain And Orson Scott Card On Old Media

Posted by 84rules on Friday, November 17, 2006 9:20:32 AM


There have been countless stories, blog entries and editorials about Islam and the sham moniker "Religion Of Peace." So why am I creating another blog entry with that same theme? Because too many people are still buying into that Religion of Peace crap.

An Al-Qaeda training manual was posted on a pro-terrorist on-line forum on October 31st. The title of the manual is: A Guide for the Undecided on the Legitimacy of Killing Christians. From the title alone, you can see that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. It is a religion of hate and rigidness, with no allowance whatsoever for free thought or free expression.

And for those of you who still believe that Jihadis can be reasoned with, here is an excerpt from an analysis of the manual:

The recommended methods include stabbing, feeding overdoses of cocaine or heroin, injecting air via needles, assassination with guns, burning down homes, putting poisonous snakes in cars, tampering with car brakes, planting explosives in vehicles, running over people, and luring people and then killing them.

The book also highly recommends poisoning targets and includes various methods of preparing and obtaining lethal toxins, including botulism. The book also gives instructions on making improvised explosives.

Other translated excerpts can be found on-line here:

Summaries of Materials Distributed to SITE Institute Intel Subscribers
The Search for International Terrorists Entities (SITE)

It is clear that the terrorists have not lost their will to continue committing acts of violence against innocent people. So the question now becomes: Do we Americans still have the will to stop the terrorists? Judging from the results of last weeks elections, it looks like the answer is "no."

That's a shame. It will probably take another 9/11 style attack to finally show the world just how right President Bush was to take the fight to the terrorists, and how wrong the liberals were to constantly try and undermine the President at every turn.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Al-Qaeda: Kill The Christians
Patrick Poole
FrontPageMag.com
November 17, 2006

And the Guardian Unlimited over in the United Kingdom is reporting that if terrorists ever get their hands on a nuclear device, they will use it to attack Great Britain. According to the Guardian:

British intelligence officials believe that al-Qaida is determined to attack the UK with a nuclear weapon, it emerged yesterday. The announcement, from an officially organised Foreign Office counter-terrorism briefing for the media, was the latest in a series of bleak assessments by senior officials and ministers about the terrorist threat facing Britain.

UK officials have detected "an awful lot of chatter" on jihadi websites expressing the desire to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.

Asked whether there was any doubt that al-Qaida was trying to gain the technology to attack the west, including the UK, with a nuclear weapon, a senior Foreign Office counter-terrorism official said: "No doubt at all."

The official explained: "We know the aspiration is there, we know the attempt to get material is there, we know the attempt to get technology is there."

The warning comes after a speech last week by the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, on the terrorist threat facing the UK, and a rare public outing for Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, who warned that there were at least 30 active plots to attack Britain.

So, exactly when will the Islamics become peaceful? When they have finished killing or converting all non-Islamics.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Al-Qaida Plotting Nuclear Attack On UK, Officials Warn
Vikram Dodd
The Guardian
November 14, 2006

And finally we have some observations from Orson Scott Card, best-selling author of the Sci-Fi novel Ender's Game. He has a few things to say about Old Media. Here are some excerpts:

This election proves only that the monolithically leftwing mainstream media can make the public believe we are losing a war that we are winning. As long as we're getting a two-party Congress, how about getting a two-party press?

If they're really serious about becoming the majority party, what rich Republicans need to do is stop paying for thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinners and start buying up newspapers and networks. The Democrats already own almost all of them, and we have seen in this election how a prosperous economy can be concealed and a successful war can be turned into a "disaster" when you own the public's primary sources of information.

My hope is that the Democratic Party does not really mean the stupid, self-destructive things it has been advocating for our policy in Iraq and that they don't cut our soldiers off at the knees by underfunding the continuation of the War on Terror – including the campaign in Iraq.

We can only hope. Given the leftist leadership the Dems are setting up in congress right now, the terrorists are cheering because they know they will have a much easier time plotting to kill Americans now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

America Just Lost. What Now?
Orson Scott Card
RhinoTimes.com
November 9, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dirty Harry Finally Being Investigated, Dems Try To Beat Up On General Abizaid And Ann Coulter's Latest

Posted by 84rules on Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:27:11 AM


Most of us who have kept ourselves informed about the goings on inside the Washington D.C. Beltway have known that the "Culture of Corruption" the Dems have been touting was not only limited to Republicans. Yes, we all know that Dems only call it corruption if a Republican engages in it and then will quickly look the other way when a Dem engages in it.

But convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is putting an end to that. As Harry Reid (D-NV) becomes the Senate Majority Leader, investigators are now looking at his financial and other dealings. It's about time too. Dirty Harry has only gotten dirtier over the past few years. From ABC News:

As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.

A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.

"We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue," Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News.

A source close to the investigation says Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff's clients "were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid."

Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.

The Associated Press reported earlier this year that Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to the tribes that had contributed money to his campaign.

Reid has denied there was any connection between the letters and the contributions and has said he is a longtime opponent of certain kinds of Indian reservation gambling.

The AP reported that Reid acknowledged "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening to block rival tribal casinos.

Well, well, well. Why isn't Nancy Pelosi trying to drain that swamp too? Oh, yeah. Because it is a Dem enjoying the Culture of Corruption and therefore is to be forgiven no matter what the circumstance.

Here is a little more detail from World View Network:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the new majority leader in the Senate[2], has a relationship with the corrupt and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff that needs investigating.

After one of Sen. Reid's employees went to work for Abramoff, Reid’s campaign began receiving $66,000 in Abramoff donations, such as the $5,000 Abramoff contribution that came in the day after Reid blocked a new Indian casino that would have competed with an Abramoff client’s casino.[3]

Also, Sen. Reid tripled his investment in a “questionable” land deal after his partner (who was recently named in a bribery scandal) got local officials to re-zone it for a shopping center. Senators are required to report those type of transactions. Reid didn’t.[4]

Just before the election, Sen. Reid admitted he used campaign funds to pay $3,000 in Christmas bonuses to the employees at his Ritz-Carlton condo in Washington. After the news broke, Mr. Reid wrote a personal check to cover those costs.[5]

So, why wasn't this information made available before the election? Again, it is because it is a Dem engaging in the Culture of Corruption. Remember that Old Media was all over Republican scandals.

You can access the ABC News story on-line here:

Abramoff Reports to Prison; Officials Focus On Reid, Others
Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz
The Blotter at ABCNews.com
November 15, 2006

And you can access the World View Network article on-line here:

The New Democratic Majority Can Address Corruption And Scandals In Their Own Party
J. Michael Sharman
Christian Worldview Network
November 14, 2006

Yesterday, General John Abizaid was taken to task, mostly by Senators who have no military experience, over Iraq and how the Dems are going to implement their "cut-and-run" strategy. The one Senator who did have military experience, John McCain, actually criticized the General for not putting more troops into Iraq. From Newsday:

Abizaid, the Harvard-trained four-star general who commands U.S. forces in the Mideast, stood his ground at a congressional hearing as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) pressed for a withdrawal timetable, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), 180 degrees to the right, criticized him for not significantly ramping up deployments.

The exchanges highlighted the two front-runners' deeply divergent approaches for dealing with Iraq, an issue that's likely to influence the 2008 race.

"We don't have a military force that is creating a secure environment," said Clinton, peering through her reading glasses at Abizaid. "Hope is not a strategy," she added.

Abizaid counterattacked, saying the military has never "misled" about Iraq.

"With regard to hope not being a method, Senator, I agree with you, and I would also say that despair is not a method," he said. "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."

It is clear that the Dems want us to lose in Iraq, so they are already making ready for the surrender in Washington D.C. Many Dems of the 110th Congress are sending out their "despair" messages.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Gen. Abizaid Stands Ground Against Clinton, McCain
Glenn Thrush
NewsDay.com
November 16, 2006

And finally, we have the latest from Ann Coulter. In her column this time are some observations about Old Media's response to Nancy Pelosi becoming the first woman Speaker of the House. From her column:

In the past week, there are 476 documents on Nexis heralding the magnificent achievement of Nancy Pelosi becoming the FIRST WOMAN speaker of the House.

I thought we had moved beyond such multicultural milestones.

The media yawned when Condoleezza Rice [appointed by President Bush] became the first black woman secretary of state (and when Lincoln Chaffee became the first developmentally disabled senator).

...

Rice was not the first black secretary of state because Bush had already made Colin Powell the first black secretary of state. That was back during Bush's first term, when Rice was the first female national security adviser.

Bush also named Alberto Gonzales the first Hispanic attorney general. He made an Arab-American, Spencer Abraham, secretary of energy; a Cuban-American, Carlos Gutierrez, secretary of commerce; an Asian-American, Elaine Chao, secretary of labor; and a retarded-American, Norman Mineta, secretary of transportation. It was as if Mariah Carey and Tiger Woods had children and they all joined the Bush Cabinet.

The whole place has been lousy with women since the first Bush term, including Gale Ann Norton, secretary of the interior, Ann Veneman, secretary of agriculture, and Margaret Spellings, secretary of education. For a while there, it looked as if Bush might become the first president whose entire Cabinet's menstrual cycles were synchronized.

In a rare article taking note of Bush's "Benetton-ad presidency," Time magazine's Joe Klein said of Bush's second-term appointments: "It took Bush a month before he named a standard-issue white male."

So, exactly what is the big news about Pelosi becoming Speaker? Thanks to the barriers that President Bush demolished with his appointments, Pelosi's rise is old hat.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Desperate Congresswomen Of Hysteria Lane
Ann Coulter
HumanEventsOnline.com
November 15, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Dem Plans Are Taking Shape And They Are Still Not Pretty

Posted by 84rules on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:32:14 AM


Despite the fact that scientists have uncovered more and more evidence that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, fanatics just won't accept the data and would rather cling to a story that is turning out to be a lie. What data and information are the enviro-whackos ignoring? Data and information like this:

Sun's Output Increasing In Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
Robert Roy Britt
Space.com
March 20, 2003

Global Climate Change And Solar Variability
Mike Flaugher
Stanford University
October 10, 1997

Kyoto Is Pointless, Say 60 Leading Scientists
Philip Sherwell
UK News Telegraph
April 9, 2006

Don't Believe The Hype
Richard S. Lindzen
The Opinion Journal
Junly 2, 2006

And this big one:

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief In Global Warming – Caps Year Of Vindication For Skeptics
U.S. Senate Committee On Environment And Public Works
Ocotber 17, 2006

So, as part of the Dem take-over of Congress, Sen. Barbara Boxer is going to hold hearings on global warming. For whatever reason, she is still bent on radical environmental policies that will not impact global warming but will destroy our economy. From the McLatchy Washington Bureau:

Boxer said Tuesday that starting in January, her priority will be to begin "a very long process of extensive hearings" on global warming.

"I think there ought to be a global-warming bill that looks at all the contributors to carbon-dioxide emissions," she said. She cited California's legislation requiring automakers to reduce emissions as "an excellent role model."

And this:

"If you're going to make these assumptions about what is causing global warming, the whole world needs to participate together," [Hank] Cox said. "The Chinese are opening a new coal-fired power plant every week, and within a few years they will pass us in terms of carbon-dioxide emissions. For the U.S. to impose severe, expensive economic restraints on our own economy, while the Chinese ignore it, would not have any appreciable impact on total global emissions."

Don't you just love a lawmaker who wants to put the screws to Americans but ignores the greater reality of the world?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Boxer Plans Senate Hearings On Global Warming
Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
November 14, 2006

And if you thought that President Bush and Senator John McCain were bad on border security, than you really have to take a look at this from United Press International:

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority.

He said that the high technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBI Net -- essentially a set of monitors, cameras and other integrated surveillance systems to monitor the border -- was a viable alternative.

"We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net," he said, "A virtual fence rather than a real one."

Whereas the Republicans were in a debate about whether enforcement should come before or after amnesty, the Dems are for leaving the border wide open. A virtual fence will not stop people walking across the border. A real fence will. I know, some of you are going to say "But they can dig a tunnel!" True, but a six foot wide tunnel is easier to close off than a 500 hundred mile stretch of open country.

Some leading Republicans were pretty bad on border security, but the Dems are going to be ten times worse. It may take another 9/11 a la massive explosives smuggled across the border and detonated in South West American cities before these people wake up to the threat.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Dem Congress May Scrap Border Fence
Shaun Waterman
United Press International
November 13, 2006

And of course, what Dem agenda would ever be without the coveted leftist tax increase? Look at the following excerpt from the Opinion Journal:

That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.

"You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues," declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy." The economics and politics here are worth parsing.

We suppose it's reassuring that Mr. Rubin now thinks the economy is strong enough to withstand a tax increase. That's a switch from his opposition to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which he predicted would bust the budget and do little for growth. The U.S. economy proceeded to grow by an average of nearly 4% a year for three years following mid-2003, until the recent slowdown due largely to the housing slump.

Everyone makes mistakes, but raising taxes amid a housing decline doesn't sound like brilliant policy to us. Depending on inflation signals in the coming weeks, the Federal Reserve may not be done raising interest rates. The best hope for avoiding a recession next year and into 2008 is that strong corporate profits and the tight job market will lift business investment and consumer spending enough to offset the impact of tighter monetary policy. The last thing the economy needs now is a tax increase, too.

...

Mr. Rubin's "fiscal problems" riff is really a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, using future entitlement problems to justify a tax increase today. He knows all too well that not a dime of new revenue raised today would be "saved" or otherwise devoted to paying for future Social Security or Medicare benefits. They would be spent on other things by the current Congress, just as today's surplus payroll tax revenues are spent, and just as they were spent when Mr. Rubin was at Treasury in the 1990s.

If Mr. Rubin wants to help reduce the future entitlement benefits he frets so much about, he could always support reforming those programs. Yet when President Bush invited him to participate in a bipartisan entitlement commission last year, Mr. Rubin refused.

Which is why we suspect that Mr. Rubin's real game here is politics. The Citigroup Inc. executive is part of Hillary Rodham Clinton's braintrust, and he and she would like nothing better than to coax Mr. Bush into raising taxes in the next two years. That would take the tax issue off the table in 2008, while splintering Republicans the way President George H.W. Bush's tax-hike deal with George Mitchell did going into 1992.

But remember it was Mr. Rubin who presided over the dot-com bust in the late 90's and the recession we were experiencing in 2000.

This is one issue that all of us should take care to remember the past about.

You can read the complete editorial on-line here:

Rubin's Tax Gambit
OpinionJournal.com
November 14, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dem Plans For America Are Taking Shape And It Is Not Pretty

Posted by 84rules on Monday, November 13, 2006 10:50:03 AM
 


Despite Nancy Pelosi's call for "partnership" rather than "partisanship" the Dems coming into power in the new Congress have already shown that they are going to be very soft on terror, but very hard on the Bush Administration. This shouldn't surprise anyone. We Core Conservatives were yelling warnings about this for months, but it appears as though no one listened. As a result, we are about to reap what we have sown.

As a first example, United Press International is reporting that Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is going after the Military Commissions Act which seeks to hold terrorists on the basis of the idea that they are ... well ... terrorists. Leahy wants to undo that. From the UPI article:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

A spokeswoman for Leahy told the newspaper the bill would be intended to repeal portions of the law that prevent some detainees from pursuing federal court challenges to the government's authority to hold them indefinitely.

Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the newspaper the goal is to "try and do something to reverse the damage."

Unfortunately, this is a parsing of words. The damage was already reversed by holding these murderers. Releasing them would allow the damage to continue unabated with the full approval of the Dems. This is one reason why the terrorists gave a great cheer when the Dems won power in Congress.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Leahy Aims At Restoring Habeas Corpus
United Press International
November 11, 2006

But we've known for a long time that leftists like Leahy have been on the side of our enemies and against the U.S. defending its citizens from terrorists. Here is a prime example of how this is so. From Reuters:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

...

"Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

...

Khamenei said military maneuvers in the Gulf this week in which Iranian forces tested new missile systems showed Iran was ready to face any threat.

But, he said: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."

And now that the Dems control the purse strings in Congress, the terrorists are becoming bolder and more confident knowing that the Dems will not take seriously any threat aimed against the United States until it is too late.

Isn't it nice to know that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is on the same page as a radical Muslim cleric who supports Islamic terrorism?

You can access this complete article on-line here:

Khamenei Calls Elections A Victory For Iran
Jon Hemming
Reuters
November 10, 2006

How much bolder and more confident are the Islamic terrorists now that the Dems are in control? Check out this from The Austrailian:

AL-QAEDA'S Iraq chief threatened overnight in an audio message posted on the Internet that the terror network will "blow up the White House".

"We announce today the end of a phase of the jihad (holy war) and the start of a new one... to usher in the project of an Islamic caliphate and restore Islam's glory," Abu Hamza al-Muhajer said.

"We swear we will not rest from our jihad... before blowing up the filthiest house, dubbed the White House," in the course of establishing the caliphate which began with the proclamation of an Islamic state in Iraq, he said.

The authenticity of the message could not be independently confirmed.

"The location chosen by your mujahedeen brethren to set up their state... is but a stepping stone for the leap," Muhajer said, referring to the "Islamic state of Iraq" proclaimed last month.

An alliance of Sunni insurgents headed by the Iraq branch of Al-Qaeda announced the creation of an independent Islamic emirate in Iraq in a video posted on the Internet on October 15, after parliament in Baghdad approved a federal constitution for the war-ravaged country.

And then there was this little nugget:

Muhajer slammed US President George W. Bush, gloated over his Republican party's defeat in mid-term elections widely attributed to US involvement in Iraq, and said US forces occupying the country were preparing to cut and run.

"The enemy is now teetering under the blows of the mujahedeen... and preparing to pack up and flee," he said.

"I thank the most stupid and worst president America - the country of slaves and drugs - has ever had for giving us this great historic opportunity," said the voice.

"The American people have taken the first step on the right path in order to get out of their impasse and have started to realise the treachery of their president and his subordination to Israel, voting for a measure of reason in the latest elections," Muhajer said.

The terrorists are now putting forth the image that they have won and that the Dems are going to offer a surrender of sorts when Pelosi and Reid call for a pull-out. This will look like weakness to the Islamics and in Islamic culture, weakness is not a signal to bring and end to the fight, but a clarion call to step up the intensity. As such, we will be less safe now with the Dems current strategy (or rather lack thereof) then we ever were while we were killing terrorists in Iraq.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Iraq Al-Qaeda Threatens White House
Habib Trabelsi
The Austrailian
November 11, 2006

And yet despite all of this, the Dems are going to push for investigations of the Bush Administration and completely let America's guard down against the terrorists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Bush's First Big Mistake With The New Congress And Michael Steele To Chair The RNC?

Posted by 84rules on Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:31:34 AM


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana.

That will be true throughout all eternity. So, why did I start out with such a deep philosophical quote? Because it seems that our President does not remember the past and we already know that the Dems have never learned from it to begin with.

According to Reuters, President Bush is prepared to compromise with the Dems on certain issues, one of which is a Minimum Wage hike. Now, I will get into the economic ramifications of such a hike in a moment, but first I would like to guide everyone down memory lane, back to the first Bush Administration.

Back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush made a deal with Congressional Democrats. the deal was that Bush I would approve an increase in the Capital Gains Tax and in return, Congressional Democrats would support tax breaks in the near future. Well, the Dems got what they wanted and in return, they thumbed their noses at the President and immediately weaseled out of their end of the bargain. The Dems have not changed since then.

Presdient Bush II is about to make the same mistake his own father made. He is about to make a deal with an untrustworthy group and actually expect them to folow through with their commitments.

According to Reuters:

President George W. Bush on Wednesday said increasing the national minimum wage is likely an issue on which he could cooperate with Democratic leaders in Congress.

"I believe in a lot of issues we can find common ground and there's a significant difference between common ground and abandoning principles," the president said in a news conference a day after mid-term elections in which Democrats gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

But this is not the time to be rolling over like a submissive puppy. The President should be standing firm and telling the Dems they will have to fight very hard and very publically to get their radical agenda turned into law. It should be a very public fight so that all Americans will know exactly where the Dems stand. After all, many Dems ran on platforms to paint themselves as Conservatives to get themselves elected. Those Dems should be called out to test whether they were being truthful during their campaigns or not.

Why should the President stand firm on the issue of Minimum Wage? Because every time a Minimum Wage hike has been enacted, the unemployment rate for the lower class and teenagers has gone up. Every single time. Ask any reputable economist. Why would that be? Let's look at an example with specific numbers.

Suppose an employer has a budget that allows $30.00/hr for hired help and the Minimum Wage stands at $6.00/hr. That means the employer can pay five people at $6.00/hr. (5 x 6 = 30) Now, suppose the Minimum Wage suddenly jumps to $7.00/hr. That means the employer will now have to pay $35.00/hr for the services of five people. (5 x 7 = 35) But, since the employer can only afford $30.00/hr to pay workers, one of those workers is going to have to be released or have their hours severly reduced in order for the employer to make ends meet.

That is why underclass and teen unemployment goes up after Minimum Wage hikes.

If the Dems really cared about getting more jobs and work experience to the lower class and teenagers, they will not pursue this counter-productive policy. But then, when have the Dems really cared about the lower class as anything other than votes to be bought?

Feel free to bookmark this blog entry. If the Minimum Wage hike does become law, I believe we will see an upturn in umemployment among the lower class and teens. It will be interesting to see whether or not I am correct although I am absolutely certain that I am.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Min Wage Hike Area Of Common Ground
Reuters
November 8, 2006

As the calls for Ken Melhman to step down increase, we can take a look at the possibilities for his replacement. One of those possibilities is soon-to-be Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele.

According to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post:

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who came up just short yesterday in his Senate race against Rep. Ben Cardin (D), is mulling a bid for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, according to an informed GOP source.

...

Mehlman has made outreach to the African American community a priority during his time as head of the party, and Steele would be seen as a logical successor to that effort.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Michael Steele For Republican National Chairman?
Chris Cillizza
WashingtonPost.com's Politics Blog
November 8, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time To Dump Ken Mehlman And Other GOP "Leaders" ...

Posted by 84rules on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:24:15 AM

... and put some real Conservatives into leadership positions.

Okay, we all agree that yesterday was a disaster. Many were predicting it, right into the ears of the Republican leadership. I was hoping the predictions were wrong. So, why was it allowed to happen?

Simple. The GOP leadership (i.e. Ken Mehlman, Speaker of the House Hastert, former Senate Majority Leader Frist) lost sight of the Conservative roots that swept them into power back in 1994.

Even the RINOs like John McCain can see this now. His quote of: "We came to change the government, but government changed us" will go down as one of the biggest "Well, duh!" comments in history. But why did it have to take yesterday's debacle for their eyes to be opened?

The truth is, it shouldn't have taken such an event. They should have listened to the Conservative base and kept their eyes on the goals. Why did they so quickly abandon Social Security Reform? Why are they so opposed to Tax Reform? Why did Senators like McCain and John Warner so avidly support an amnesty for illegals? Why did the RNSC support a candidate like Lincoln Chafee and abandon Katherine Harris?

We need new leadership at all levels. Denny Hastert should not become the Minority leader. We need a good solid Conservative for that slot. Since Newt Gingrich is no longer available, Tom Tancredo would be our best selection. Should George Allen win the recount in Virginia, Allen should be the choice for the Senate leadership position. If not, then we need to look very closely at someone who will be the standard bearer for Conservatives in the Senate, someone who actually has a backbone and will not just simply roll over like a submissive puppy anytime the Dems try to manufacture a scandal.

Also, we need to dig down to find true Conservatives to run for President in '08.

Do I sound bitter? Yes. Even moreso because we have been saying this to the GOP Leadership for how many years now?

The first step is for Ken Mehlman to go. In his place, I would like to see Newt Gingrich or someone cut from that cloth to take his place. It is time for some serious housecleaning.

But this fight will be even harder now since amongst all of this, we will have to fight the liberals for control of social and national agendas. Already the Dems are talking about raising taxes, making our National Security weaker and pushing through leftist agendas in education, social programs and the like.

All I can say to the GOP leadership that brought here is: "Thank you. Now don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!"

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive