Saturday, January 14, 2006

Iraq's Sunni Arabs Ditch Terrorism to Fight Terrorists - Democrats Sad

It's time again for more fun with juxtaposition! We begin our journey into the current state of affairs in the country of Iraq which Democrats have been claiming we lost to the "freedom fighters" of al Qaeda since we set foot in the country. It seems that the determination of President George W. Bush to ignore the ignorant defeatist proclamations of Democrats and create a constitutional democracy where once was a brutal, terrorist-supporting dictator who had almost waited out a failing sanctions regime in order to procure his hearts content in weapons of mass destruction has given even his hardest-hearted loyalists a choice between self determination and self destruction, and go figure - they're choosing self determination:

Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq's Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions.
While American and Iraqi officials have talked of a split for months, detailed accounts of clashes were provided by men claiming to be local insurgents ...
According to an American and an Iraqi intelligence official, as well as Iraqi insurgents, clashes between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iraqi insurgent groups like the Islamic Army and Muhammad's Army have broken out in Ramadi, Husayba, Yusifiya, Dhuluiya and Karmah. In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them. [I]n most Sunni cities, Iraqis defied Al Qaeda's threats and turned out to vote in large numbers on Dec. 15. "The tribes are fed up with Al Qaeda and they will not tolerate any more," said a senior Iraqi intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The intelligence official confirmed reports that a Sunni tribe in Samarra had tried and executed Qaeda members for their role in assassinating a local sheik. "It was a beautiful mistake," the intelligence official said of the sheik's assassination by Al Qaeda. "Now the tribes will kill Al Qaeda. Now they have the courage." "It is against my beliefs to put my hand with the Americans," said an Iraqi member of the Islamic Army who uses the nom de guerre Abu Omar. Still, he said in an interview in a house in Baghdad, he allowed himself a small celebration whenever a member of Al Qaeda fell to an American bullet. "I feel happy when the Americans kill them," he said.

The story told by the two Iraqi guerrillas cut to the heart of the war that Iraqi and American officials now believe is raging inside the Iraqi insurgency. In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad. Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades. “Al Qaeda killed two people from our group,” said an Islamic Army fighter who uses the nom de guerre Abu Lil and who claimed that he attended the meeting. “They repeatedly kill our people.” The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town. The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle. American and Iraqi officials believe that the conflicts present them with one of the biggest opportunities since the insurgency burst upon Iraq nearly three years ago. They have begun talking with local insurgents, hoping to enlist them to cooperate against Al Qaeda, said Western diplomats, Iraqi officials and an insurgent leader.

RAMADI, Iraq — Qassan Ashar Ali, 24, and his brother Omar made their way past three checkpoints, two bomb-sniffing dogs and an X-ray truck and became the first recruits to enter the glass factory in Ramadi after last week's bombing. A few months ago, Ali saw masked gunmen shoot his cousin — a former police officer — four times in the head. Despite the assault, Ali wanted to follow in his footsteps. "I want to try to secure my city," he said. Behind them were at least 225 young Sunni men, many carrying sport bags with clean clothes, toiletries and pictures of loved ones for their trip to the police academy in Baghdad. "We've been scared for a long time," Ali said. "We've had enough." U.S. commanders hope the turnout of people such as Ali signifies a watershed moment in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Al Anbar, which is among the most brittle of cities in Iraq. "The Iraqi army is important, but it's the police that will be responsible for the rule of law," said Maj. Robert Rice of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, who oversees the Iraqi police program in Al Anbar. "They're the foundation to be able to fight a counterinsurgency." Commanders here say they garnered support for the recruitment drive through weeks of meetings with clerics and sheiks, some of them with ties to local rebels. Americans hope to drive a wedge between local rebels and radical Islamist elements of the insurgency — in part by recruiting locals to police the city. The focus on the Iraqi police is part of a countrywide priority shift for the Americans, who have long worked on building the Iraqi army. Political and military leaders have dubbed 2006 the Year of the Police. At the same time, the U.S. military has launched a strategy to combat bombings. Last week, Operation Green Trident was launched 25 miles south of Fallouja, involving hundreds of coalition and Iraqi soldiers. The sweep netted about 11 tons of munitions from 72 sites, mostly shallow holes along the banks of the Euphrates. The military also is using bomb-sniffing dogs, high-altitude spy drones and citizen tips to curtail bombings. Coalition forces anticipate more attacks like those at the factory gates as progress is made toward establishing a permanent Iraqi government. "Increased attacks across Iraq this past week clearly indicate Al Qaeda and other terrorists still have the capability to surge," coalition spokesman Brig. Gen. Don Alston told reporters Thursday in Baghdad. "As democracy advances in the form of elections … and government formation and military pressure continues, we expect more violence across Iraq." The Bush administration has said it wants to have working Iraqi security forces before considering a drawdown of American troops. And that, commanders say, is the incentive they offered local leaders. "We basically have a common vision: We certainly don't want coalition forces in their city forever," said Army Col. John L. Gronski, commander of the 28th Infantry's Second Brigade Combat Team, based in Ramadi. "They want their city to return to normal. They understand the more they fight the coalition forces, the longer we're going to stay." Withdrawal moved to the top of the agenda shortly after Brig. Gen. James L. Williams, assistant commander of the 2nd Marine Division, and Al Anbar Gov. Mamoun Sami Alwani persuaded key leaders to enter into a dialogue, said Col. Miles Burdine, commander of the governance support team. "It gave us an opportunity to say, 'If you can convince the sons of Al Anbar to join Iraqi police and the Iraqi army … we will leave,' " Burdine said. The first meeting to discuss withdrawal conditions, which drew 200 Sunnis from Ramadi, sparked the formation of Al Anbar Security Council, which has since met weekly with U.S. commanders. As Sunnis have shown more willingness to engage and participate in elections, U.S. commanders have shown more readiness to meet with rebels or those connected to the local insurgency, commanders said. "We have more of an open mind than we may have had in the past," said Gronski, who assumed control of the area in July. "Right now it seems promising, and we're ready to trust the local leaders." But, he added, "we're still out there engaging the [radicals] with bombs and with bullets."

And while good men and women put their lives on the line and sacrafice in order to create a free Iraq and partner in our fight against terrorism, sad sacks like John Murtha (who seems to be the only leadership voice in the Democrat party regarding the war in Iraq) has this to say:

I think the political people who give advice will say to him (Bush), ‘You don’t want a Democratic Congress. You want to keep a Republican majority, and the only way you’re going to keep it is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,’” Murtha said.

You'll excuse us for laughing in the face of such advice, Mr. Mogadishu. It's nothing more than wishful thinking on his part. One could almost forgive him for his misplaced confidence if he based it on the results of polling like this:

First, only 81% of respondents were even eligible to vote, and there's no indication of how many of them actually went to the polls in 2004..
1. Party Leanings - The poll is slanted 52-40% towards Democrats, even though the voters in the 2004 election were split evenly at 37% between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Religion - Next, a whopping 19% of respondents had "no" religion, while in 2004 only 10% of voters had "no" religion, and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (+36%).
3. Age of Respondents In this poll 31% of the respondents were between 18-34, even though the 18-29 year olds (a slightly smaller demo) only made up 17% of the electorate in the 2004 election. I think it's pretty safe to say that by including 30-34 year olds that number would still not have come close to the IPSOS sample.
4. Income Level of Respondents - This one is amazing. In this poll 15% of respondents made under $15,000 per year. In 2004, only 8% of voters were in this income bracket, and voted 63-36% for Kerry.
5. Marital Status - In this poll, only 56% of respondents are married. In 2004, 63% of voters were married, and voted 57-42% for Bush.
6. Geography - In this poll, only 17% of respondents were from "rural" areas. In 2004, 25% of voters were from rural areas, and voted 57-42% for Bush.
7. Race - In this poll, there were 71% white respondents and 12% Hispanic respondents. In 2004, 77% of voters were white, and only 8% Hispanic. Bush won the white vote 58-41% and Kerry the Hispanic vote 53-44%.

Here's a poll Mr. Murtha may or may not be aware of and one that should give him pause as it is an example of what can be accomplished in a country where brutal oppression existed where a legitimate government should have been.

A new opinion poll in Afghanistan is very revealing:
83% of Afghans say their country is moving in the right direction.
81% of Afghans view the US favorably, with 83% approving of US troop presence in-country.
Meanwhile 88% have an unfavorable view of the Taliban,
82% think overthrowing them was a good thing,
and (drum roll) 90% view Osama bin Laden unfavorably,
with 75% of that total being "very unfavorable."

In Iraq we are on the verge of attaining the cooperation of the last hold-outs of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. They are coming to the realization that we are there to improve the lives of all Iraqis. Iraqis as a whole are now working toward a future that they will determine just as their neighbors in Afghanistan have been doing. The Afghanis have had a head-start as they were liberated from the Taliban before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq just became a constiutional democracy while Afghanistan has had a constitution and democratically elected President for over a year. There are about the same number of people in each country. Each is composed of Shia and Sunni muslims. Afghanistan does not have the natural resources that Iraq does, which means that as Iraq's economy comes fully online, it will boom. Polling in Iraq 1 year from now should be similar OR BETTER than what we are seeing in Afghanistan right now. The Democrats know this. That's why they are solely focused on "withdrawal". Can't have "the appearance of victory". That is why they are sad.

Alito had ties, Kennedy had ties...

...lots of talk about ties to racist or prejudiced organizations in Judge Alito's past, and in Senator Kennedy's as well.

What I want to know is: why the argument where Kennedy is concerned?

Ted Kennedy was elected, as a Democrat, to the United States Senate in 1962.

Two years later, Senate Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There's no need to poke around Senator Kennedy's past to find some clandestine affiliation with a racist organization. He was a Democrat in 1964.

Case closed.

Putting it simply

Cold Fury sums it up.

I’ve never really been able to grasp how it is that most Dems and other Lefties can make such grandiose claims to patriotism and love of country when they not only despise over half the people who live in it, but oppose almost every principle and institution that makes it what it is.

With every debasing and debauched act that the Left commits in their persuit of political power, I'm one step closer to simply declaring that the Democrats are Anti-Americanism formed into a political party.

Friday, January 13, 2006

In Summation...

Michael Ramirez Editorial Cartoons

I wish this was satire

So, there I was, reading Michele Malkin, and I read this little tidbit:

Chuck Schumer walked out before the judges started to speak. Teddy Kennedy showed up late, stayed for 10 minutes, then left. Pat Leahy put on a dour face for a short time, and also bailed. Dianne Feinstein, to her credit, remained for the duration and asked respectful questions.

What is she referring to? When six judges sat down to speak about the qualifications of Justice Alito, the worthless, spineless, yellow-bellied, hypocritical, slimy, worthless shitsack Democrats (redundancy alert) who had beem smearing Justice Alito for several days with their lies and hysterics DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO LISTEN TO THEM!

Powerline says it better than I can, mainly because I can't see my screen very well due to the red haze of rage that has settled over my eyes.

This is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary that Judge Alito's colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats' smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn't be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito's judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn't going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn't even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito's colleagues is disgusting.

Just when you think that the Dhimmocrats couldn't get any worse, they sink to a new level. And to top it all off, I also saw this:

Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

The very same worthless fucking drunken shitwad who drove off a bridge in his car and allowed a woman to drown to death in his passenger seat has a Portuguese water dog named "SPLASH"!!!!!

Well gosh Ted, maybe if Splash had been in the car with you back then, Mary Joe wouldn't be in her grave right now, where she is undoubtedly rolling at high velocity! HAVE ANOTHER FUCKING DRINK, YOU WORTHLESS SODDEN ASSCANNON!

You know what I think? Ted Kennedy has been braindead for years, but no one really noticed because there's so much alcohol in his system that his body is perfectly preserved. And since he's been an incoherent brainless fucktard for decades, there hasn't been a change in the crap that comes out of his mouth.

In short, he's a perfect example of a Democrat.

Who is finanacing Senator Kennedy?

Check out #9 on the list.

Edward M. Kennedy: Campaign Finance/Money - Contributions - Senate 2006

No more film at Nikon

How about this, Dave?

Nikon has been seeing some success in the ultra-competitive digital camera market, and now that those sales account for more than 95% of their business, they're ready to go all the way (almost) and are ditching their existing film cameras and lenses -- except for their flagship F6 line and its relevant glass.
I had been looking at good Nikon digital gear, but it's way expensive, in my opinion.

I'd give just about anything for a top notch digital camera and a corresponding top notch macro lense, but not $1500, alas.

Plus, conventional wisdom sez Canon is better. And I have Nikon lenses.

Nikon kills (almost all) analog cameras in 2006 - Engadget

Good Spy, Bad Spy

When The New York Times, in addressing domestic spying, publishes something like this:

...all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards." just know you're in the Wayback Machine.

The American Thinker: Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"

Seen on Instapundit

Thursday, January 12, 2006

A 4RWW Exclusive !!!

Emergency Stress Management

I know what you're thinking. You are all wound up about Alito's Senate hearings. You wonder how anyone could survive hypoxia, much less think straight, with Pat & Ted sucking all the oxygen out of the room. You may even harbor violent and illegal fantasies about the matter. You need a break. Please follow these directions carefully.

Fill a short cocktail glass with cracked ice. This is an important part of the therapy--no cubes. I use a rolling pin and dish towel to get nice sharp crystals. Pour Drambuie over the ice to cover. Go ahead and let the bottle glug a bit, it's still mostly ice. Toss in a twist of lemon peel and settle down to view my movie.

This is a short epic of Epimetheus eclipsing Titan in apparent retrograde motion around Saturn. I made it from a series of 30 Cassini images. It has a calming effect that I feel obliged to share in these troubled times. As you watch it loop, focus on this perspective: After Senators Leahy and Kennedy have achieved room temperature, the planets will still wander the skies. And Samuel Alito will still be a Supreme Court Justice.

So Anyways....

Just in case anyone was wondering where I went and what I was doing, here's the answer: I was in Panama, performing one of the most important functions that a soldier can do outside of combat.

I was part of a funeral detail for another soldier.

Maybe this is why goat-fucking pissants like Murtha and Moran piss me off so much. They denigrate the service of men like the one I just helped bury. Men who believe so much in what they're doing in Iraq that they re-enlist, or retain their commission, even after being in Iraq or Afghanistan, after seeing combat. These men have been knee-deep in shit and knew that they were fighting for something good, something worthwhile. And to have cowardly fucksticks like Murtha and Moran shit all over the military while good men and women fight and die for what they know to be right makes me see red. Craven pusswads like Moran and Murtha don't deserve to lick the dust off of a soldier's boots. And yet they sit there, spewing the worst kind of crap out of their mouths, and it makes me want to kick both of them in the nuts so hard that their voices are a permenant squeak.

The man I carried to his grave should not have his life violated by the likes of Murtha and Moran. They can choke and fucking die for all I care. I buried a better man than they could ever hope to be.

I might write more on this later, I don't know. Mebby when I feel up to more than bashing in the skulls of Murtha and Moran with a baseball bat.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

I'm back, and I have a question

Are the Dhimmocrats just a bunch of moronic fuckwits who are so full of shit that it spills out every time they open their pieholes, or are they a group of corrupt power-hungry jackals who need to be taken out and shot for the good of the country?

I think it's a bit of both, but that's just me.

Yep, I'm back, and I'll let you all know what I was doing sometime tomorrow. But while I was away on Army duties, I managed to watch a bit of news, and quite frankly, it made me want to vomit.

The hearings on Judge Alito have turned into the three-ring circus I thought it was going to be. Seriously, nothing can frame the Dhimmocrats better than the sight of Joe Biden going on a rambling, 13 minute diatribe against President Bush. Quite frankly, he reminded me of some of the homeless people I saw living in Pioneer Square in Seattle.

"You're evilevilevil because I SAID SO AND I just need a few cents because I haven't eaten for days and you're gonna overturn Roe v. Wade and I need MY VICODEN FOR my broken arm and if you put your finger right here OH OUCH IT HURTS and that's why I need vicoden and a couple of cents just like two quarters or one quarter if you have 'em so that I CAN GET SOMETHING to eat and you hate feminists don't you and then maybe you can comeback and play tiddlywinks with me BECAUSE I REALLY like to play games like that where nobody gets hurt and we can all be fluffy bunnies after you destroy the constitution and I TAKE THE LITTLE blue pills and hey can you spare a few cents BusHiterChimpyMcHalliburton?"

Seriously, I think that a chimpanzee on a three-week crack bender could have been more coherent. What the hell was that, a question? A statement? A demonstration of how unhinged the Dhimmocrats have become? Let's put 'ol Joe Biden on the boob tube just a little more and let him ramble on like some whacked out druggie. "Yeah, Joe, go ahead! It's open mike night! Let 'er rip!" That'll do GREAT things for the Dhimmocrats! Yep! I mean, I suppose if you're a brainless fuckstick with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, a rambling diatribe against President Bush might somehow be construed as a question for Justice Alito, but since most of the country is not currently smoking eightballs while they watch the proceedings, I don't think that angle is going to work too well for the Dhimmocrats. Still, I think the Donks need to press on! Put that fat fucking murdering drunk back on the TV! Ted Kennedy, come on down! Yeah, what a great idea, let the very same guy who allowed a sixteen twenty-eight (see below) year old girl to drown in his car to lecture people on morals! Hey Ted, I guess the song "Splish Splash" was never a big favorite of yours, eh? It really says something of the Donks that they have a shambling, incoherent, alcohol soaked blob as their lead spokesman.

Keep going down that road, Dhimmocrats. Please.

And the last thing that set me off, (and TVE posted the link to Michele Malkin below) is John Murtha becoming even more of a surrender monkey. Seriously, just how fucking pathetic has that fat cheesedick become? Do you know what his military service means to other vets right now? Exactly jack diddly squat. Murtha peddled his military credentials away, and turned himself into a cowardly, yellow-bellied, pathetic fucking sack of partisan bullshit. And after he shits all over the military, demeans their actions and their sacrifices, calls for immediate surrender withdrawal surrender (I had it right the first time), he doesn't even have the balls to speak with a veteran of the Afghanistan campaign! Both Murtha and Moran, two gutless fucking shitstains on the rumpled bedsheets of humanity, couldn't face one of the soldiers that they had been denigrating for months. Those two syphilis sores don't have enough backbone between the two of them to equal one servicemember, and that needs to be shown on a daily basis. Do you want the party of surrender, the party of running and hiding, the party of allowing American citizens to be blown up by terrorists while they whimper and cringe under the bed, to be in control of ANY PART of this country's government in 2006?

God, I hope not.

In any case, I'll put up a post tomorrow on where I've been. See ya then.

UPDATE: I goofed. Mary Joe was twenty-eight, not sixteen. Mea Culpa. However, if I remember correctly there was another Kennedy caught with a sixteen year old. Hell, there's been a Kennedy caught doing some crime or another until the entire family covered the whole spectrum of criminology.

I'd love to see the entire family removed from American politics.

122nd ANG deployed

This is interesting:
The Indian[a] ANG 122nd wing will be deployed in upcoming days to Southwest Asia, officials announced. Col. Jeffery A. Soldner, 122nd commander, did not give specific numbers, but said it is the largest single deployment for the wing since it was called to Chambley, France, in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis.
Where soldiers in the unit will be sent for the Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment won't be released until they have arrived, said Lt. Lauri Turpin, community manager with the 122nd.
(Emphasis mine.) Very interesting, particularly as it comes on the heels of this:
Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility Tuesday, pledging only to conduct research, but the international nuclear watchdog said Tehran also planned small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tehran had breached IAEA resolutions. "There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful," Straw said.
French President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday warned Iran it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community.
Now why do you suppose such a large deployment of Air National Guard, including pilots as well as support, is headed for the Middle-East? And why now? Just ask IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei.

(Excuse me while I rant for a minute.) Let me explain something - even if Iran was not producing nukes, it would still be the next logical target in the War on Terrorism. Iran is the mother of all terrorist groups. And I don't think we would need to occupy Iran like we are Iraq. With Iraq and Afghanistan as strategic allies, and a largely pro-western younger population in Iran, all that would be necessary would be removal of the head. The USAF could take out the mullahs and their nukes in one massive airstrike. Just declare all of Iran one big "no-fly zone" until Iran's terrorist President gives himself up or is dead. That'd be a good start. If Iran were to join the rest of the civilized world and allow its people to govern themselves and the freedom to associate with the rest of the world, I wouldn't even mind them having nukes. We'd be so much safer than we are now. It is nukes in the hands of a terrorist regime, which has consistently referred to my country as "the Great Satan" for more than a quarter century now, and has spawned groups that blow people up all over the world, that is intolerable. Taking a defensive posture will not win this fight, and we cannot allow the world's leading sponsor of terrorism perpetual "deniability." Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism, and therefore should be held responsible for terrorist acts.

Furthermore, Iran is the honor killing, rape, sharia, decapitation capital of the world. If a woman is raped in Iran, she gets stoned... do I need to explain how that works? Little boys take turns throwing rocks at a half-burried girl one at a time, aiming for the face of course, until her face falls off. When she stops screaming (which can take quite a while) a "doctor" checks her pulse at the neck to see if she's dead. If she's not then the big boys get to throw rocks. Wonderful place, Iran. You think I'm kidding? Ask any Iranian. Or Saudi for that matter. You think we should go after Saudi Arabia instead? Fine, but the thing is, their government and police are actually cooperating with us. They actually have real battles with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, while in Iran they hide al Qaeda members and give money and explosives to suicide bombers in Basra as well as Ramallah and Beirut.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges.

You are carrying a Glock 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

! ! Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation!?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this
happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends
for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:
Southern Republican's Answer:
(sounds of reloading...)

Via What If?

This day in history

On January 10, 1878, U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) first introduced the Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage. The Demonrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before the election of Republican majorities in both House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. The 19th Amendment was ratified by the States in 1920.

Besides trying to deny all human rights to blacks, the Democrats tried to deny women the right to vote. The portrayal of the Democratic party as being the party of human rights is a lie.

Iraq's Sunni Arabs Reject Violence - Democrats Screwed

Any Democrats out there praying that the constitutional democracy that George W. Bush insisted on planting in Iraq would collapse into a civil war should lose what little hope for a U.S. failure in Iraq that they had left after this:

[T]he latest audio tape of Zaqrqawi in which he urged the Iraqi Sunni parties especially the Islamic Party to abandon the political process and go back to the “right path”.

The Islamic Party didn’t need much time to voice their rejection for Zarqawi’s message and his ideology that recognizes only violence as a way to reach goals.
The 2nd man in the Islamic Party Ayad al-Samarra’i stressed that the Party has no intention to abandon the political process.
Salih al-Mutlaq is another Sunni politician who apparently feels that Zarqawi was addressing him as well. Al-Mutlaq has also condemned violence again today and stressed that “ending violence is the key to stability in Iraq”.

What matters most about such immediate firm reactions to Zarqawi’s call is that they show that the gap between foreign terrorists like Zarqawi and Sunni Arabs in Iraq is growing wider by the day

Which should put the following in it's proper context:

In response to a decision by U.S. commanders in Iraq to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq due to the increasing capability of Iraqi security forces:

Al Qaeda's Number 2, (or is he number one now?) Ayman al Zawahri said:

“You remember I told you more than a year ago that the American withdrawal from Iraq is only a matter of time, and here they are now … negotiating with the mujahedeen,” al-Zawahri said.

And Democrat leader John Murtha said:
"I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

To sum up:
U.S. Military Commanders - "If Iraqi Security is ready, some of our troops can come home."
Terrorists - "Don't try to work things out! Shed blood!"
Iraqis - "NO!"
Democrats - "Get us out of there, we don't want it to look like victory!"
Terrorists - "They are leaving! We are victorious!"

We create an inclusive political atmosphere that fosters cooperation between previously uncooperative Iraqis while rebuilding a country and inspiring it's people to take charge of their own security which allows us to draw down the number of soldiers we have there and in response terrorists try to cause disunity and falsely claim victory in an attempt to save face and Democrats in this country want to yank them all out ahead of schedule because "it might look like victory". Bad news for you, Demorcrats (and terrorists), it doesn't just look like victory, it IS victory! Despite your greatest hopes, most dire predictions, and best efforts we are winning in Iraq.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Belafonte on a tear!!!

Here he is, to Hugo Chavez:

"Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people … support your revolution."
No word on how Belafonte or the millions feel about the "Christ Killers" running the world.