Thursday, September 28, 2006

WoolseyWatch -- Voting Against Terrorist Tribunals & Terrorist Surveillance Act

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6166 which set rules for the detention and trial of al-Queda terrorists. Of the 168 opposed, 160 Democrats who voted against this bill .

This evening, H.R. 5825, which gives legal status to the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program also passed, 232 to 191.

Lynn Woolsey, the disgrace of the North Bay, voted against both bills.

So-called Human Rights groups and Democrats, according to a Reuters story, advocated for the terrorists held in captivity, saying the approved bill gives President Bush "too much latitude to allow harsh interrogations and to deprive detainees of legal rights." On the NSA bill, Democrats, according to an AP story, say "the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights."

Oh the poor babies! These terrorists get better treatment than some of our soldiers who’ve been accused by Jackoff Murtha of murdering Iraqi civilians “in cold blood.”

Who are the detainees that Woolsey and her Democratic colleagues want more "legal rights" and better treatment for? One of them is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM). This scum was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and was also the executioner of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in January 2002.

Pearl was beheaded by KSM and his body was later recovered in ten pieces, according to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

I didn’t hear Lynn Woolsey’s voice crying out for the humane treatment of Danny Pearl. Neither did she cry out for people like Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong, Pfc Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, all kidnapped and butchered by Muslim terrorists.

As noted here earlier, Woolsey was one of 70 other House members who filed a brief against the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program.

Did Lynn Woolsey and the rest of her Democrat colleagues in the House forget who they were sworn to protect? It's supposed to the American people, not the terrorist scum who want to inflict more terrorism and more death to America.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert eloquently stated the position of the Democrat party, "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

And they wonder why so many of us question their patriotism!

And a note to Nancy Bella-Pelosi. Please spare me your ridiculous lectures about "The Golden Rule."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

James Webb's Use of the 'N'-Word--Courtesy of Barnes &

A good man in Virginia, Senator George Allen, is being smeared by liberals who wish not only to unseat him but also destroy any Presidential aspirations he may have.

They're using the oldest trick in their thin playbook, calling him a "racist."

Personally, I think these allegations against Sen. Allen are a bunch of macaca. However, that is the strategy of liberals who cannot intellectually defeat conservatives. If you cannot defeat a conservative on issues, it's time for the politics of the smear, the lie and the race card to be used.

His opponent, James Webb said yesterday, "“I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life,” Webb told reporters.

Webb referred to his novel, “Fields of Fire,” which aides said includes occurrences of the n-word as part of character dialogue. But he added: “I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur.”

"If you want to learn more about James Webb, read more of James Webb." said C.W. Dean, a volunteer for Webb. If that's the case, is what James Webb writes a window into his mind?

Let's do that shall we? Courtesy of Barnes & is the following excerpts from Webb's novel "Fields of Fire." The character is a man named Snake (WARNING-graphic language follows).

"...Finally I go in and clean the toilets and the sinks, and I’m starting to mop the floor when this nigger dude stumbles in. Got a Jones on, I can tell the minute he walks into the room. He’s just shot up, too."

"....She was still smiling. She leaned forward in anticipation. “So you punched his lights out.”"He laughed a little. “Well, I thought about it. You know John Wayne woulda dropped him with a poke between the eyes. But I figured the motherfucker would break my hand. Nigger heads are like that, you know?"

"...I says, ‘Mister Baum, you know I never started a fight in my whole life, but I just can’t let people push me round, no matter where I work. What kind of a man lets people push him round?’ And he says, ‘Snake, I think you done
a good job for us but I gotta can you.’ And he fires me and gives me full pay for the week. Plus I got the nigger’s twenty bucks. Not bad, huh?”"

She nodded approvingly: not bad. “What happened to the nigger?”"

Snake stacked the coffee cup in the sink. “Who cares?” His face showed a moment of sparkle. “If he’s got a hair on his ass he’ll sue Mister Baum.”

Will the MSM, who are so intent in defeating George Allen, also look further into Mr. Webb's use of the 'N' word? While they're at it, will they also look into the alleged use of that word by the first black President, Bill Clinton? According to Dolly Kyle Browning, who had an affair with Clinton, he referred to Little Rock Civil Rights activist "Say" McIntosh as "that Goddamn nigger."

I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

B.J. (Clinton) Explodes When Asked Why He Didn't Get Bin Laden

...Also says he "never criticized" President Bush. Proof below shows he's lying plus details his missed opportunities to get OBL.

Clinton Administration Terror Strategy: Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil

Chris Wallace has an interview with impeached former President B. J. Clinton that is, for lack of better words, explosive.

See video of B.J. losing it on

There's a legacy for Clinton to protect that is as flimsy as a house of cards. Here's a partial transcript of Clinton's lies and spin from The Corner at National Review Online.

...ABC just had a right wing conservative on the 'Path to 9/11' falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons (NOTE: Billy boy blames da Joooos by using that term) claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people….

…At least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. {ellipses in the Thinkprogress transcript]. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke…[ellipses in Thinkprogress transcript] So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me….

I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. (M.I.M note-That is a bold faced lie) But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever

How hard did Bill Clinton try to get Bin Laden? When you look at the facts, not very hard.

A USA Today story (hardly the Vast Right Wing Conspriacy) from September 14, 2001 tells how Clinton rejected a strike against bin Laden in late 2000.

A deal in which bin Laden could have been turned over to U.S. officials was nixed by Clinton in 1996. The man who negotiated the deal, Mansoor Ijaz wrote about it in this Los Angeles Times article from December 5, 2001.

There is audio tape of Clinton admitting he did not take up this opportunity to capture the al Queda leader (see NewsMax). Here's a transcript from that speech Clinton gave in February 2002.

"...Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

In 2000 Osama bin Laden was photographed by an unarmed drone (video here from If B.J. was so focused on getting OBL, why was this drone armed with only a camera?

This New York Sun article details four times Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Burglar nixed plans to kill Bin Laden.

Earlier this year, B.J. gave away his whole approach to terror when he received the Fulbright Award, named after his mentor (segregationist) Senator William Fulbright. It differs from his "I was obsessed with Bin Laden" spin.

"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow (emphasis mine)?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."
Remember also that in November 2001, a mere two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Bill Clinton said that America was responsible in part for the terror unleashed that day.

"Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless," he said in a speech given at Georgetown University. "In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."

And as for B.J. saying he's never criticized President Bush, here's proof of at least 10 news stories which prove he is lying.

"Bill Clinton Rips Bush Port Security",
"Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts 'Immoral',"
"Bill Clinton: Bush May Have Broken Spy Law 'Unethical'," all from
"Clinton tells dioplomats Bush "flat wrong" on greenhouse gases,"The Seattle Times
"Clinton Links GOP Policies to More Storms,"
"Bill burns Bush; Sez no London link to Iraq"New York Daily News
"Bill Clinton warns against wide torture approval," My Way News
"Clinton Launches Withering Attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, Budget,"
"Clinton says Iraq invasion was a big mistake," Jerusalem Post
"The Salon Interview: Bill Clinton--The former president blasts the Bush-Cheney rush to war, explains why Gore lost in 2000 and tells how Kerry can win in 2004,"

Bill "B.J." Clinton. Once a liar, always a liar.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Send A Message to Hugo Chavez: Boycott CITGO

Come to our country and insult our President? Well, we don't need your stinking oil!

Send a message to Hugo Chavez and boycott his oil from CITGO Petroleum. Click the link below to find a station near you to boycott. The nearest station to Marin County is in Cotati, CA.

List of Citgo locations.

To Charlie Rangel and Nancy Bella-Pelosi, your lame "apology" is a day late and a dollar short. If you were really outraged at Chavez, Mr. Rangel, you'd have told that pot-bellied dictator "we don't want your gift of heating oil."

You, your party and the Leftist elite have brought this day on America. Chavez and Amadenajad, the modern-day Adolf Hitler, only make their comments after witnessing your hate speech day after day. Need I remind you, Mr. Rangel, how you called President Bush "our Bull Connor," compared the Iraq War to the Holocaust. What about your race baiting? You said in the mid-1990s about the new Republican majority, "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'"

You're no better, Ms. Bella-Pelosi. I'm sure Chavez was inspired to say Bush needed psychiatric help after hearing you call him mentally unbalanced. The same goes for Hollywood idiots like Sean Penn from Ross, CA; Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and the incredibly putrid Martin Spleen (Sheen).

And you wonder why so many Americans consider you unpatriotic!

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

IJ Watch--Liberatore's One Sided Story on Pope Controversy

A week after he wrote about 9/11 conspiracy theories (for the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack) Paul Liberatore brings his Leftist point of view to Tuesday's IJ news story about Muslim outrage at Pope Benedict XVI.

Libertore's subject for his story was Imam Mehdi Khorasani, who runs the Islamic Society of California in Fairfax. The interview with the Imam read more like a list of demands to the Pope than a news story.

"Let him do what the Dalai Lama did, traveling 15,000 miles to come to San Francisco to give a talk about supporting all religions, all faiths. That is what the pope must do," Khorasani said.
Later in the story Khorasani said with consternation:
"I didn't expect him to take a quotation from an ignorant emperor during the darkest time in Europe. I assumed this pope would have read the Koran. But if he had, he would not have said Islam is violent and spread by the sword."

Why didn't Liberatore ask the Imam about the following passages from the Koran?

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them...take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..." (Koran 9:5)

" Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (Koran 8:12-13,17)

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust." (Koran 5:54)

Likewise, why was the Imam not asked about the following quotes from Muslim leaders.

Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of CAIR was quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

In the July 16, 2002 Marin IJ, Ebrahim Nana, affiliated with the Islamic Center of Mill Valley said, "Maybe he, (John Walker Lindh) being idealistic didn't realize some of the problems with the Taliban, but it is every Muslim's goal is to help establish a Muslim state, (emphasis mine) morally, physically or financially."

For all of Imam Korasani's talk of being a peaceful man, he did not condemn the violence sparked by the Pope’s talk, including the killing of a nun in Somalia. Likewise, he did not condemn an English Imam who stated the Pope should be executed. Instead, his blame is focused on the United States.

"...I want America to be as it was a century ago, sending food for people, aid for people, help for people, not ships full of soldiers and airplanes full of bombs."

Does the Imam forget how Muslims attacked this nation on September 11, 2001?

Imam Korasani, why don’t you get off your moral high horse and do some “soul searching” about the state of your religion? Why is it that, of all major conflicts around the globe it is Muslims who do not get along with their neighbors (India, Israel, Philippines). Why is it that religious freedom and tolerance is unheard of in Muslim nations?

Talk is cheap. If you’re truly a man of peace, prove it. I don’t want to hear you condemning our nation for taking military action after Muslims attacked us. Why don't Islamic leaders condemn Muslim terrorists specifically? I’m not talking about the “we condemn all acts of terror” blanket statement crap. You and your community need to do your part and tell us, the American people, “We condemn Muslims who commit acts of terror in the name of Allah. If we see or hear of our facilities being used to promote terrorism or the overthrow of America, we will contact the proper authorities.”

If you and other Muslim leaders did what was mentioned above, maybe 3,000 Americans might still be alive, a war could have been avoided and many Americans wouldn’t be as suspicious of Islam as we are.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Have Our Roman Senators Forgotten Who They Are Sworn To Protect?

Obviously, it's not we the people.

For some background regarding this outrage of giving the terrorists held in captivity more rights, see the following articles.

"A Deadly Kindness" by Richard Miniter, from the New York Post.

"Gitmo Guards Often Attacked By Detainees" AP, July 31, 2006. This article details information from in an FOIA request by Landmark Legal Foundation (led by "The Great One" Mark Levin) detailing the attacks by Muslim detainees at Club Gitmo on the members of our military who are guarding them.

"Americans Should Not Die for Article 3, Geneva Conventions" from The Strata-Sphere blog.

Finally, I highly recommend this excellent column by Melanie Morgan from WorldNetDaily, "The Path To American Defeat." This is what the result may be due to the hamstringing of our war effort not just by liberals, but also the RINO's in Washington.

The only thing that outraged me more than Lynn Woolsey's snub to the memory of 9/11 was the sabatoge of defining interrogation methods to be used on detainees. Obviously, the Senate Armed Services Committee (similar to what I said on 9/10/06) is more interested in protecting the rights terrorist prisoners than they are in protecting our military and us as a nation.

I can expect this kind of treason from the Democrats in the Senate. However, it is the pantywaist wing of the Republican party (John McLame, his lapdog Lindsey Graham-Cracker & John Warner) plus backstabbers like Colin Powell who are leading our nation down the road to losing the War on Terror. These girliemen put their self-interet ahead of their oath to protect American citizens.

"What will the rest of the world think of us?" is their limp-wristed refrain. I don't give a damn what the rest of the world think of us. I want them to fear us. Instead of "rights for al-Qaeda", what about our survival rights, McLame, Graham-Cracker, Warner?

God forbid if another terrorist attack occurs because of the actions of these Roman Senators. They will have blood on their hands for taking away the tools needed to foil the terrorists.

"Apologize For What" Says David Warren to those outraged at The Pope

I recommend this piece by David Warren which I found online in regards to the Muslim anger at Pope Benedict XVI, "Apologize For What" .

Here's some excerpts:
The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Urdu, and Malay, word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam, during an address in Bavaria.

He had not, of course. Pope Benedict XVI had instead quoted, carefully and without approval, remarks by the learned 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Palaeologus, in debate with a 14th-century learned Persian. He was trying to provide a little historical depth to present controversies about the meaning of "jihad", and his very point was that on their own respective theological terms, Muslims and Christians were bound to talk past each other today, in the same ways as they did seven centuries ago. But in the most conscientious media reports I have seen, even the Byzantine emperor is quoted out of context.

Here is the point Pope Benedict was making, also in the words of that learned Byzantine emperor, speaking on the eve of one of the many sieges of Constantinople:

"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death."

It is a point the Greek-educated and Christian emperor takes as self-evident, but which is not self-evident to a theology that holds God entirely beyond human reason, and says He may command whatever He commands, including conversion by force should He so will. As the Pope said, it is a conflict that stabs us once again today: Does God act with "logos"? (This is the Greek word for "reason" as well as "word") How do we defend this very Catholic (and Orthodox) idea outside the Church, where our own theological assumptions are not shared?

This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.

...It is cowardly to apologize for imaginary transgressions. Let those who demand the apologies stick it.

Well said, Mr. Warren!

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

WoolseyWatch--Saying “No” to Remembering 9/11

Lynn Woolsey has done it again.

She was one of 22 members of the Party of Treason to vote against House Resolution 994, which expressed "the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001."

The resolution:

(1) continues to recognize September 11 as a day to remember and mourn those who lost their lives that fateful day;
(2) encourages Americans to make September 11 a day of national service;
(3) extends its deepest sympathies to the spouses, children, mothers, fathers, and other loved ones of the victims of September 11, 2001;
(4) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and bravely risked their own lives and health following the September 11, 2001 attacks;
(5) extends its deepest gratitude to military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel serving both at home and
abroad in the global war on terrorism and for the sacrifices of their families and loved ones;
(6) expresses its gratitude to all foreign nations and their citizens who have assisted and continue to assist the United States in the global war on terrorism;
(7) vows that it will remain vigilant in efforts to provide the Federal Government with all the tools necessary to fight and win the global war on terrorism; and
(8) reaffirms that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists.

With her “No” vote, Lynn Woolsey spat in the face of those who lost loved ones on that day, in addition to military who are fighting the enemy. She doesn't respect the sacrifices of those who have fought to keep another 9/11 from happening. In short, she voted "No" to winning the War on Terror.

I'm certain, as she did last year, Woolsey will blame Republicans for her no vote as she did in a form e-mail after a similar resolution last year.

"Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives used the fourth anniversary of these attacks for political gain. H. Res. 427, the resolution commemorating the anniversary of these attacks, falsely linked the global war on terrorism and the events of September 11th to the war in Iraq. The resolution also endorsed the taking of "whatever actions necessary" to address the threat of terrorism in the U.S. and around the world. The inclusion of this dangerous clause could possibly lead the way toward more domestic spying practices such as those codified by the USA PATRIOT Act, or even another pre-emptive war. This is a particularly disappointing politicization of the September 11th tragedy, and that is why I voted against H. Res. 427 when it came to the House floor.[...] Please know that I will honor the 9-11 victims and their families and condemn terrorism on all fronts.

No, Ms. Woolsey, it is you and your treasonous party who have polarized this nation for the last five years with your blame-America first rhetoric and mean spirited attacks on our President and our military. You are the one being partisan. I have noted here before how you expressed support for the bombing of Iraq in 1998. You also voted for the H.R. 4655, The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. All this was when Bill Clinton, a member of your party was in office.

Instead of honoring the firefighters and police who gave their lives on 9/11, you write a letter of reference for a the rapist of a 17 year-old girl. You are not ashamed to lend support to an organization called Code Pinko that has given aid to the terrorists in Iraq. You're good friends with a psychotic Cindy Sheehan, who wrote in her book how she wishes she could go back in time to kill the infant George W. Bush to prevent the Iraq War. You have aided in a lawsuit to stop the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

Why are you so partisan when it comes to defending this nation? This is a life or death issue for Americans of all political persuasions.

Shame on you, Lynn! But then again, you don’t have any shame. Obviously, you and your party have more in common with a former constituent of yours, the traitor John Walker Lindh, than you do with the rest of America.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

IJ Watch--9/11 Conspiracy Theories on 9/11/06 Front Page

How did the Marin Independent Journal remember the five year anniversary of 9/11?

The paper ran a front page story by Entertainment Writer Paul Liberatore, Some Still Can't or Won't Believe in their September 11, 2006 edition.

Liberatore writes:

"On the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks, do we really know?

Some are convinced we haven't been told anything even remotely close to the true

Was your television at home or in the IJ newsroom not working, Paul. You must have missed this story from Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths.

Liberatore, like the IJ's other resident Leftist, Beth "Why Be So Nasty?" Ashley, is a biased Leftist who tries to write news stories that fit his point of view. He wrote a story in March where he spouted the Leftist lie that people join the military due to lack of employment opportunities. In his entertainment reviews, Liberatore wets his pants when he gets the chance to insert a Bush bash or slam on the war from some entertainer he's reviewed.

To illustrate who believes these "theories" Liberatore interviewed Wendy Tanowitz of Ross, a "progressive political activist" (red flags go up).

Tanowitz is essentially an anti-American activist. A Google Seach shows she is active with the Social(ist) Justice Center of Marin and the terrorist apologists at the Marin Appeasment & Injustice Coalition. She is also invovled in United for Peace & Justice, a supposed "anti-war" group led by a pro-Castro Socialist named Leslie Cagan.

Speaking of Beth Ashley, her story about International Day of Peace events, which will be held on September 21, appeared in the 9/11 edition.

Of all days to run these stories, why did the IJ editors pick 9/11? It is more evidence of their bias against the war and the President which the've had on display for the past five years? Can't they quit their Bush bashing for one day?

These people need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and watch this video at the bottom of this page on Michelle Malkin's blog (or got here to the LGF) and see what happened to the poor souls who jumped from the burning towers.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

9/11 Five Years Later--America Divided Courtesy Of The Left

The dawn of a beautiful Tuesday morning was obscured by gray clouds of horror as West Coast residents turned on the television or headed for work in the Highway 101 commute.

It was September 11, 2001 The Word Trade Center towers collapsed after hijacked airplanes were flown into them. There was smoke at the Pentagon. A bomb (which didn't turn out to be true) went off at the State Department. Hijacked planes were still unaccounted for. One was a flight headed to San Francisco, later found out to have crashed in Pennsylvania.

It seemed like the world was going to end that day.

That afternoon, in a bipartisan gathering on the steps of the Capitol Building, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told the nation, "We--Republicans & Democrats, House and Senate--stand strongly behind the President and will work together to insure that the full resources of the Government are brought to bear in these efforts (bringing terrorists "to justice"). What Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, called "the sleeping giant" awoke and was roused with a fierce resolve once again.

Sadly, five years later, the giant is sleeping again.

It began as the mainstream media thought the footage of 9/11 was "too disturbing" and took it off the air. Now, crazy conspiracy theories about the origins of 9/11 are too numerous (and ridiculous to mention).

As the flags which flew on our cars began to tatter and the stickers began to fade, so did the “unity” among our leaders. They must have thought the War on Terror was supposed to last as long as a season of Survivor.

President Bush and his administration have remained true to their pledge to pursue the threat of terrorism and keep America's citizens safe. It doesn't mean he's done a perfect job, but he is aware of the grave threat facing our nation and willing to take the lead, regardless of polls.

The same cannot be said for the current leadership of the Democratic Party, their grassroots activists and Leftist allies. Instead of keeping true to their promise of unity in fighting terrorism, these recycled relics of the 1960s are more interested in the selfish reacquisition of political power. The most the Democratic leadership could muster for unity in fighting terrorism was a sophomoric version of "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps. Instead, America's fight against Islamic terrorism has been undermined by the worst partisanship and ideological divide in its history, thanks to the Democrat leadership and the lies they've spewed.

The old tradition of "politics stops at the water's edge" during wartime no longer applies. While President Bush as Commander-in-Chief leads our brave military in the fight against Islamofacist terror, Howard "the Duck" Dean, "Dirty Harry" Reid and Nancy Bella-Pelosi lead the fight against the Bush Administration.

Democrats and their Leftist allies are more interested in the rights of those who would commit acts of terror and how the rest of the world views America . They've used documented liars like Joe Wilson to undermine public credibility in the Administration. They attack secret methods used to track terrorist communications and funds instead of the traitors who leaked them. They show more anger at women's underwear on the heads of a terrorists than the beheadings of American civilians or the gruesome dismemberment of two kidnapped Marines, one of whom was also disemboweled.

Even more frightening, if Democrats are successful in attaining leadership status in November's election, they are promising impeachment proceedings of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Now, five years after 9/11, the Democratic party fights the airing of the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 more than Islamofascist terrorists. Why? Because the program shows documented incidents from the 1990s when their icon, Bill Clinton, failed to nab Osama bin Laden and fight Islamic terrorism. It shows how the Democratic party is weak on issues of security. For all their concern about the truth of the ABC program, they weren't concerned about the lies told by that lard ass Michael Moore in his treasonous Fahrenheit 9/11. Tom Daschle, Terry "the Punk" McAuliffe and Barbara "Check Bouncer" Boxer all attended the premiere. None of these Democrats attended the premiere of either United 93 or World Trade Center.

Drive around Marin County, CA and you see Bush Derangement Syndrome in hyper mode. This county had more of an uproar about being called "hot tubbers" by the elder Bush than the treason of Marinite John Walker Lindh (a.k.a. "Ratboy"). Our so-called representative, Lynn Woolsey, is not ashamed to appear with terrorist enablers Code Pinko or so-called "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, a psychopathic woman who wrote how she fantasized about going back in time to kill the infant George W. Bush and prevent the War in Iraq.

On top of it all, these Leftists have the nerve to call themselves "patriots." They don't even know the meaning of the word. Am I questioning their patriotism? You're damn right I am! Their behavior is not only unpatriotic, it is un American.

Wake up you Leftist fools! The Islamofascists of 9/11 were equal opportunity butchers. The nearly 3,000 casualties were murdered regardless of nationality, political ideology, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. What makes the foolish among our political and pseudo-intellectual class think they can reason with such madmen? These appeasing fools are more dangerous than their brethren of the 1930s. Neville Chamberlain (before his death) and isolationists like Charles Lindbergh eventually saw how they were deceived by Hitler and united behind the Allied war effort.

If Bill Clinton pursued Osama bin Laden with the same vigor he used in straining blue dresses or fighting a TV movie, 9/11 might not have happened. If today's elected Democrats fought terrorism with the same fervor as they fight ABC and the Bush Administration, we might be closer to winning the War on Terror.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Remember 9/11 on Monday With Move America Forward

The largest 9/11 remembrance event on the Western United States will be held at the State Capitol in Sacramento on Monday evening, September 11 from 7:30 to 10 p.m.

The event is being organized by Move America Forward and co-sponsored by The New 101.9 FM “The Wolf” Fresh Country in Sacramento. Among those who will be participating are MAF chair and host of the KSFO Morning Show, Melanie Morgan, Mark Williams, Deborah Johns of Marine Moms Online, Eric Egland, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Gold Star Parents.

In addition, Paulette Carlson of Highway 101, will perform her tribute to America's veterans: "Thank You Vets." Other musicians lending their talents include Derek Clark, Kaweah Angel, K Street Ramblers Jazz Band and Tessa Evans.

For more information, visit Move America Forward.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

ABC Stands for "Altered By Clinton"

UPDATE: 9/8/06: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers!

ABC Caves: See Hot Air & Michelle Malkin

Check this out: Senate Democrats attempt to blackmail ABC in order to get the DNC version of 9/11 aired.

"[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon."
If I didn't know better, I would have thought this letter was written by Nazis, Soviets or some other mad regime like Pol Pot. Instead, this letter was signed by Democrat Senators Dirty Harry Reid, "Tiny" Dick Turbin, Debbie Stupidnow, Shmuckie Schumer and Byron "Bad Combover" Dorgan.

Contact ABC to express your outrage at them for caving into more Clinton revisionism about 9/11.

Path to 9/11--Clintonoids Can't Handle The Truth

It is becoming apparent that the Democrat Smear Machine is going to sucessfully censor "The Path To 9/11" which will air on ABC Sept. 10 & 11.

Why is that? Because a statement I heard mentioned that there were still edits going on.

Americans everywhere should be angry and stand up to ABC and demand that this movie be shown as completed, not after going through the DNC Censor Committee.

Then again, with Democrats and the Left, truth is often the first casualty. Lies are their best friend. Look at how successful they were (with a little help from their friends in the MSM) in destroying President Bush's poll numbers by pushing the Big Lie spread by Joe & Valerie Wilson, Shmuck Schumer. They've learned well by adopting the old adage, "Repeat a lie over and over again and people will believe it."

This has happened before. Remember the VH-1 Concert for New York, when the Hildebeast was booed by the firefighters and police of New York? Well, you cannot hear those boos on the DVD version, as they were replaced with canned cheers.

Remember how the Democratic Party practically endorsed the lies and treason put forth by that fat bastard Michael Moore in Farenheit 9/11? There was no attempt by the Bush Administration or the Republican Party to censor or ban that pack of lies. What about the recent "crockumentary" by the racist director Spike Lee about Hurricane Katrina? It was just another opportunity for a Bush bash.

Bill Clinton is a sociopathic narcissist. Everything is all about him. Maybe we need a refresher of what really happened in that decade called the 1990s.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000 (Clinton did not visit the site)
The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers
The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel
The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515
The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000
The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39

In each of these instances, Clinton promised “those responsible would be hunted down and punished.” Yet, with the exception of a few missiles fired on the day Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury, not one thing was done to go after Osama bin Laden and other Muslim terrorists. See this story from Opinion by Richard Miniter how an opportunity to get bin Laden was passed up.

Yet, for Bill Clinton, self-gratification (symbolic of his generation still stuck in the 1960s) was more important than defending this nation, which he swore to uphold. For Democrats, party is more important than country. Plus, it's hard to fight terrorism when your pants are around your ankles, isn't it Mr. Clinton?

Need more proof how fighting terror was low on Clinton's list of things to do? Here's a quote from April of this year:
"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Did Omeed Popal Really Yell "Allah Akbar” When Taken Into Custody? Questions About Tuesday's Hit & Run Linger...

....And the public deserves answers.

I've thought a great deal about the distinct possibility that I might have jumped to conclusions in calling Tuesday's hit & run in San Francisco a "jihad," after reading Michelle Malkin's comments on her website. I have a lot of respect for Michelle, who is a great writer, blogger, and commentator. If it turns out I am wrong, I'm willing to admit that. However, as I keep finding more details about what happened Tuesday, I have too many unanswered questions to conclude that it doesn't quite resemble other acts of domestic "jihad."

Firstly, the changing alibis for the driver, Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont. The Devil was after him, then it was stress over an arranged marriage in Afghanistan, then he was "disturbed." Next, we heard he was angry at his parents. Then he wanted to run down a policeman, but couldn't find one and ran down pedestrians instead, especially in some areas near some Jewish organizations. (see map below by "911 Neocon")

Secondly, in a San Jose Mercury News article, one relative of Popal‘s said he, "was under such strict control from his parents -- who believed they needed to protect him from America's 'evil society' -- that Popal probably felt his arranged marriage was a ticket to freedom." America's evil society? Was Popal perhaps having this idea drummed into his head not just by his parents, but also by his mosque?

We heard on the KTVU Channel 2 report from Rob Roth how one witness said Popal exclaimed he was a terrorist (see link from Little Green Footballs). Also, an SFGate story from Friday mentions that Popal stated "Everyone should be killed" as he was in the back of a police car.

By far, the most damning allegation which brings more questions to mind comes from the website, Inside the S.F.P.D. According to this officer, a "credible police source" disclosed the following

"....the man accused of going on the driving rampage gunning for pedestrians (he couldn't find a cop?), was chanting "Ala Akbar" while being taken into custody. I was also told that, although he was hitting his victims in, what appeared to be a random fashion, when he arrived at the location where the Jewish Community Center was located, he was seen heading directly for the sidewalk in what appeared to be a direct attempt to increase his chances of hitting members of the Jewish community. This may, or may not be true, however what makes matters worse is is that this same source tells me that it was a member (or members) of a high ranking position, who directly or indirectly asked, suggested or ordered that this report not be written as a hate crime or as any sort of terrorist attempt. This certainly needs to be looked into further and I personally, as a member of the Jewish faith, hope to all ends that this be found untrue. Along the same lines, I believe that if this is found to have any merit, then swift action be taken."

I concur with this officer that these allegations need to be looked into to determine whether or not they are true. It seemed on Tuesday night there was an immediate rush to judgment that this was not an act of terrorism. The possibility that a police report was sanitized as to not mention "terrorism" or "hate crime" is a serious and disturbing allegation.

Unfortunately, political correctness seems to be king among the city's leaders, who also exhibit tremendous hostility towards the War on Terrorism, President Bush and the military. Voters last November, in addition to approving a handgun ban, voted to banish military recruiters from campuses in the city. In 2003, City Supervisors passed a resolution opposing the USA Patriot Act. Earlier this year, supervisors called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, plus rejected having the battleship USS Iowa in San Francisco as a floating museum. Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, appearing on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, even stated the United States didn't need a military. The thought that Islamic terrorism could happen in San Francisco is probably too painful of a concept for the politically correct Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City Supervisors to accept.

The men and women of the San Francisco Police Department are a dedicated group of individuals who do their best to protect and serve their city. However, in a city with a rising homicide rate, they don't often receive the support they deserve from the police commission and elected officials. It was an outrage how San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris refused to seek the death penalty for the killer of Officer Isaac Espinoza in 2004. Police Officer Mike Nevin Jr. stated at the time "You're talking about people that have absolutely no regard for the public, because if you're willing to kill a cop, you're willing to kill anybody." Witness also the disgraceful manner Mayor Newsom and Police Chief Heather Fong handled the video controversy last December, using it as an opportunity to publicly tar and feather police officers who work the dangerous Bayview District.

The unvarnished truth about what happened Tuesday needs to come out. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but only a massive public outcry can force city leaders and the local media to give us an honest assessment, not just more “feel good” exercises in political correctness.
The safety of the public depends on it.