Custom Search

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Going after the head of the snake

Originally Posted At Right Truth

In order to kill the snake you have to cut off the snakes head. Al-Qaeda and related terrorists are trying hard to cut off the heads of those they see as snakes. It's easier for them to attempt this than it is for the United States, since al-Qaeda now is not one snake, but a bed of vipers spread out all over the world. I had planned pull together a list of attempts by the terrorists, but USA Today has kindly done it for me:

A week of assassination attempts, sudden hospitalizations

It's not a good week to be a senior government official.

Odcheney The Taliban says it was trying to kill Vice President Dick Cheney when it sent a bomber to blow himself up today at the main U.S. air base in Afghanistan. Cheney was nowhere near the blast, which took place at a checkpoint, but a number of other people -- 19 at last count -- were killed. "We wanted to target ... Cheney," a Taliban spokesman told Reuters by phone.

Tamil Tiger rebels "slightly injured" the American, German and Italian ambassadors to Indonesia today when they fired mortars at a helicopter that was carrying the envoys to a meeting on development in an area known for separatist violence. AFP says ambassadors from France, Japan and the European Union weren't wounded in the incident.

Iraq's Shiite vice president, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, narrowly escaped assassination Monday as a bomb, which may have been hidden in the podium, ripped through a meeting hall that had just been searched with bomb-sniffing dogs. At least 10 people were killed. "They started preventing visitors from entering the ministry a day earlier, so the criminal must be from inside. Early investigations indicate that an employee ... smuggled TNT into the building," an official told AFP.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani lost consciousness on Sunday and was rushed to a hospital in Jordan where he was being treated for exhaustion and inflamed lungs. Officials denied reports that the ailing leader was being treated for cardiac problems and staying in the hospital's intensive-care unit.

(Photo of Cheney with Afghan President Hamid Karzai by Omar Sobhani, pool via AP)

The comments at the bottom of the USA Today article are pretty interesting, going from one end of the political spectrum to the other. You can go read those for yourself.

What really strikes me from all this news, is that we have a problem folks. We have a security problem. Maybe it should be called an 'intelligence' problem. What a feather it would be in al-Qaeda's turban if they were successful in taking out the Vice President of the United States.

And what about this, "We wanted to target ... Cheney," a Taliban spokesman told Reuters by phone. So Reuters is taking calls from the Taliban? Does anybody think we should be tapping Reuters phone calls? Oh, wait. We couldn't do that, that wouldn't be playing fair.

Mike McConnell told the Senate Armed Service Committee in a hearing on global threats, that "More must be done to go after al-Qaida, which is trying to establish training camps and other operations in Pakistan." Well, that's not exactly breaking news.

I believe we should have had more troops and more emphasis on al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. We should have covered that area with everything that was needed. The fact that they are (1) not cornered, (2) not neutralized, and (3) expanding training and activities, tells me we have not done everything we could, or should.

'Musharraf has insisted his forces have already "done the maximum" possible against extremists.' Perhaps he has, I have no way of knowing the truth. It's clear that not everyone has 'done the maximum'. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency also testified with McConnell on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and more:

_Iraqi troops are taking the lead in securing parts of their country, but much work remains to improve the number and quality of those forces. "They are better today than they were a year ago, but they are still not where we need them to be," McConnell said.

Maples said two of the three brigades promised by Iraq have moved into Baghdad as part of the new security plan, but he acknowledged that those units have only 43 percent to 82 percent of their intended troops, according to ranges he has seen.

_On Iran, McConnell said that the regime could develop a nuclear weapon early in the next decade, but it will more likely take the country's scientists until 2015. But it's not clear whether the country will have a delivery system at the same time.

_Maples said the United States is seeing North Korea take initial steps to comply with the Feb. 13 agreement on its nuclear program, including inspection of its plutonium-producing Yongbyon nuclear facility. But there are other steps to which the U.S. will have to pay close attention, he said.

McConnell's top adviser on North Korea, Joseph DeTrani, said the U.S. continues to insist that North Korea declare all of its nuclear programs. But he backtracked a bit from a previous U.S. view of analysts, who had "high confidence" that North Korea was buying material for a uranium production program.

Now, he said, the U.S. believes the program exists "at the midconfidence level." (

Is that backtracking I'm hearing on North Korea? Looks like John Bolton was right in his criticism of that deal. What say you?

Check out my friend A.C.'s post at Fore-Left on the Cheney attack. He points out the attack doesn't speak well for the Taliban's capabilities. go read it.

Also check out "Secret Shots In The Face", Islamanazi's report on Pakistan's response to Cheney's visit.

Chad at In The Bullpen says B.S. "The entire Bagram stay was completely unexpected, “after bad weather forced postponement of his trip to the Afghan capital.” Does the Taliban now control the weather? Allah’s will and all. Heh."

Taliban attempts attack on VP Cheney

Originally posted at Right Truth

The Taliban claim they were after United States Vice President Dick Cheney, but they missed their target killing as many as 20, according to an Afghan official. Vice President Cheney was at the U.S. base in Bagram Afghanistan but according to reports is unharmed. NATO says three died, including a U.S. soldier, but AP reporters at the scene saw at least eight bodies. ABCNews

Cheney had been in Pakistan visiting with leaders there about their participation in the war on terror. After the Afghanistan attack, Cheney traveled on to Kabul for a meeting with Afghan President Karzai.

The VP had plane trouble that nearly aborted his original journey, according to MSNBC:

It was supposed to be a surprise trip. And it was, in more ways than Vice President Dick Cheney could have imagined. ...

On Sunday, the highly secretive trip was nearly derailed when Cheney'splane reported electrical problems shortly after leaving Australia—tipping news agencies off to a refueling stop in Singapore, a destination well off the route Air Force Two would normally take to get back to Washington. The small group of reporters traveling with Cheney were told of the secret stops more than 24 hours in advance but were warned not to divulge the information, out of concern for Cheney's security, as well as their own.

The VP and his entourage left Sydney on Sunday morning, flying more than seven hours to Singapore. During the flight, his plane experienced what his staff described as a power surge prompting a slew of alarming headlines back in Australia.

The small group of journalists traveling with Cheney were waiting to board the plane en route to Kabul, when sirens suddenly erupted around the Bagram military base. Reporters saw plumes of smoke rise in the distance. A loudspeaker announced that the base was under attack—and Secret Service agents rushed the press to the plane. ...

Instead of heading home, Cheney flew another seven hours to Oman, just across gulf waters from Iran. ...

Early Monday morning, the motorcade ferried Cheney and his entourage back to the airport, where Air Force Two was parked on the Omani Royal airstrip. But instead of boarding his familiar blue and white Boeing C-10, the VP got on a massive military cargo plane usually used to transport presidential vehicles.

Inside the massive fuselage, Cheney was escorted to his private quarters for the day: A silver Airstream trailer parked right in the middle of the cargo hold. Held into place by massive chains, ...

Two hours and 45 minutes later, the plane descended on its first stop, Islamabad, with Cheney's secret still intact.

There, Cheney met for just over two hours with Pakistan President Pervez Musharaf, pressing him to clamp down on militant factions along his country's border with Afghanistan. ...

... When Cheney boarded the plane from the tarmac, he seemed calm and collected, ...

... Cheney was supposed to have had a three-hour visit with Afghan President Hamid Karzai; the visit was cut to just an hour. ...

According to news reports, the bomber struck outside a security gate at Bagram, which is located north of the capital city of Kabul. The bomber was reportedly on foot.

Go read the entire account of Cheney's trip, very interesting details from a reporter's viewpoint. We are all thankful that the Vice President is safe. This incident serves to remind us that the situation in the Middle East must be taken seriously by the United States government. I would love to hear a plan for peace from the newly-elected Democrats.

Cameron's 'The Tomb of Jesus' Sinks Like Titanic

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed." —Adolf Hitler, quoted in Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155.

On March 4, the Discovery Channel will air a James Cameron/ Simcha Jacobovici documentary called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". The special attempts, with these new "findings", contradict the idea of Christ’s resurrection and takes massive liberties with other areas of Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and basic Christian belief.

Not wanting to waste a perfectly good opportunity to contradict 2000 years of evidence to the contrary, Cameron and the usual suspects raise questions about Jesus’ marital status and family status; enter Mary Magdalene and their son Jude. Right……..

The Catholic League issued this statement:

February 26, 2007


“Titanic” director James Cameron and TV-director Simcha
Jacobovici are claiming they have evidence of a Jerusalem tomb that allegedly
houses the remains of Jesus and his family. Commenting on this is Catholic
League president Bill Donohue:

“Not a Lenten season goes by without some author or TV
program seeking to cast doubt on the divinity of Jesus and/or the Resurrection.
Last April, NBC’s ‘Dateline’ featured the wholly discredited and downright
laughable claims of Michael Baigent, and two years ago ABC treated us to a
special that questioned every aspect of the Resurrection. Now we have the
Cameron-Jacobovici thesis.

“Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner was in charge of the
1980 investigation of the tomb that Cameron-Jacobovici have seized on 27 years
later to make their allegations. ‘The claim that the burial site has been found
is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell,’ Kloner says. He
adds, ‘I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the
findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists.’ Indeed, Kloner has
branded their claims ‘impossible’ and ‘nonsense.’ Moreover, he says there is ‘no
likelihood’ that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. ‘It makes a great
story for a TV film,’ he concludes.

“Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century as an archeologist
at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said that ‘Simcha has no credibility
whatsoever.’ Zias isn’t shooting from the hip: Jacobovici’s credibility explodes
when one considers that he still believes the 2002 tale about an ossuary with
the inscription, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’ On June 18, 2003, the
Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) condemned this claim as a modern forgery—this
was the unanimous decision of a 15-member IAA committee. Agreeing with this
decision were Harvard’s Frank Cross and Tel Aviv University professor Edward

“The Discovery Channel aired the 2002 hoax and now it’s
back with the Titanic fraud. It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics
and stopped with the sensationalism.”

Dr. Ben Witherington, a Protestant Biblical scholar, has excellent and comprehensive commentary on his blog, to include:

First of all, I have worked with Simcha (Cameron’s filmmaker
cohort). He is a practicing Jew, indeed he is an orthodox Jew so far as I can
tell. He was the producer of the Discovery Channel special on the James ossuary
which I was involved with. He is a good film maker, and he knows a good
sensational story when he sees one. This is such a story.

1) The statistical analysis is of course only as good as
the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He couldn’t run numbers he
did not have. And when you try to run numbers on a combination name such as
‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease the statistical sample dramatically. In fact,
in the case of ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease it to a statistically
insignificant number! Furthermore, so far as we can tell, the earliest followers
of Jesus never called Jesus ‘son of Joseph’. It was outsiders who mistakenly
called him that! Would the family members such as James who remained in
Jerusalem really put that name on Jesus’ tomb when they knew otherwise? This is
highly improbable. My friend Richard Bauckham provides me with the following

2) There is no independent DNA control sample to compare
to what was garnered from the bones in this tomb……

3) Several of these ossuaries have very popular and
familiar early Jewish names. As the statistics above show, the names Joseph and
Joshua (Jesus) were two of the most common names in all of early Judaism. So was
Mary. Indeed both Jesus’ mother and her sister were named Mary. This is the
ancient equivalent of finding adjacent tombs with the names Smith and Jones.

4) The historical problems with all this are too numerous
to list here: the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult
home was Nazareth.... Why in the world would be be buried (alone at this
point) in Jerusalem? ....We have no historical evidence of such a son of
Jesus, indeed we have no historical evidence he was ever married. ....the
name Mary is about the most common of all ancient Jewish female names....
By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty-- even the Jewish and Roman
authorities acknowledged this... Implicitly you must accuse James,
Peter and John (mentioned in Gal. 1-2-- in our earliest NT document from 49
A.D.) of fraud and coverup. Are we really to believe that they knew Jesus didn't
rise bodily from the dead but perpetrated a fraudulent religion, for which they
and others were prepared to die? Did they really hide the body of Jesus in
another tomb?

5) One more thing of importance. The James ossuary,
according to the report of the antiquities dealer that Oded Golan got the
ossuary from, said that the ossuary came from Silwan, not Talpiot, and had dirt
in it that matched up with the soil in that particular spot in Jerusalem. In
fact Oded confirmed this to me personally when I spoke with him at an SBL

6) What should we make of James Tabor’s being co-opted into this
project? You will remember his book which came out last year The Jesus Dynasty.
In that book he had quite a good deal to say about the Talpiot Tomb, and about
Panthera being the father of Jesus, and about Jesus being buried in Galilee, and
of course nothing about a ossuary which claims that Joseph is the father of


At the risk of being accused of shooting the messengers, James Tabor (who collaborated on The Tomb of Jesus) authored The Jesus Dynasty and is part of a long lineage of Christian conspiracy theorists. Simcha Jacobovici is a practicing Jew. James Cameron has long been critical of Christianity and despite the success of Titanic was widely ostracized for his many artistic and historical liberties taken in that epic film. This is a man, married five times, who sustained an ongoing affair with Titanic actress Suzy Amis (old Rose's granddaughter) while married to Linda Hamilton. Personal conduct aside, it's fair to say he has no vested interest in preserving any historical context in his newest "documentary".

Essentially, these attacks on the faith and fidelity of Christ are par for the course. Every year during Lent, some sensational piece of conjecture raises its ugly head in an attempt to discredit the basic foundations of Christianity: the resurrection, deity of Christ and his sexuality. Last year it was The DaVinci Code and The Gospel of Judas. NBC’s Will & Grace aired an episode starring Britney Spears called "Cruxi-fixin’s" on April 13 , just before Good Friday. Around the same time, ABC’s Desperate Housewives ran a Catholic smear campaign.

Jesus was on trial as Italian atheist Luigi Cascioli, who marketed "The God Who Wasn't There", brought suit against the Catholic Church for perpetuating a fraud, questioning the existence of Jesus . He lost, Jesus won.

What's going on is very much like that final scene in "The Passion" when Jesus died and Satan was left to be tormented by his own failure to defeat the Lord. These little pot shots at Christ inevitably fail because docudramas cannot compare with billions of Christians over 2000 years and the immeasurable impact they have had on history.

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Place your bets, who will take out Iran's nuclear sites?

Originally posted at Right Truth

Six leading world powers are meeting in London today to discuss the possibility of imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, but does Iran care? Nope. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced yesterday that 'Tehran's nuclear program is unstoppable and as an exclamation point, Iran fired a rocket into space.

The rocket 'soared to the edge of space was intended for research', according to Iran. Just what 'research' that would be still needs explaining.

Iran initially announced that it had launched a "space rocket" on Sunday. But the deputy head of Iran's Space Research Center, Ali Akbar Golrou, later in the day clarified that the rocket did not reach orbit level and was carrying a research package.

He said the rocket was built to soar to a maximum altitude of 93 miles. Space is considered to begin at 60 miles. Ham radio satellites - the lowest flying satellites - orbit between 100-300 miles, while communication, weather and global-positioning satellites fly between 250-12,000 miles up. (Forbes)

As usual, the United States wants 'measures that will bite into the Iranian economy, but Russia and China are more reluctant to impose such severe sanctions.' Vice President Cheney said all options were still on the table, while the French say we don't really mean it.

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad described Iran's nuclear program as unstoppable, comparing it to a train with "no break and no reverse gear."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice replied to the hard-line Iranian president's comments within hours. She took up the image suggested by Ahmadinejad of a machine running out of control.

"They don't need a reverse gear, they need a stop button," Rice said. "They need to stop enriching and reprocessing [uranium], and then we can sit down and talk about whatever is on Iran's mind." (Radio Free Europe)

Is it just me, or is Condi Rice sounding a little weak these days? Iran is going full steam ahead on their nuclear program, more like a bullet train, and the world seems to be standing up against Iran like a, well, wet noodle. Israel on the other hand seems to be making plans to attack Iran.

Israel denied reports that it asked the United States for permission to overfly Iraq during any attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Maybe.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper on Saturday quoted an unnamed Israeli defense official as saying that Jerusalem is in talks with Washington over creating a safe “air corridor” for the eventuality of Israeli bombing runs against Iranian targets.

The report was denied by Israeli Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, who suggested that it was concocted by Western nations keen to avoid the measures necessary for reining in Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy. (JTA)

Oh, snap! Now that's a slap at the West and perhaps a well deserved slap. If I had to put money down, I would bet on Israel taking action before I would the United States. Our politicians can't get together and agree on anything these days. Their heads would probably explode if President George W. Bush ordered a military take down of Iran's nuclear sites. Somehow I think a majority of Israelis would be united on such action.

WND says, "Iran is anticipating a U.S. or Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities and has been providing Palestinian terrorists and other regional allies with contingency plans for attacks against the Jewish state and American regional interests in the event of war, according to Palestinian terrorist leaders." If true, and I have no doubt that it isn't, this is something we should be preparing for.

"The Zionists and the Americans are coordinated 100 percent. It doesn't matter who attacks Iran, we are planning to hit them both," said the Islamic Jihad leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said the topic was "very sensitive." [snip]

The Brigades is the declared military wing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. [snip]

"We are preparing the tomb that Allah is digging for the Zionists and Americans," said the Committees leader.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter whether Israel or America takes out Iran's nuclear sites, both will be blamed, both will be targeted, but Israel will receive the worst reaction.

Other reading:
Jew Killed At Prayer; The World Is Silent, The American Israeli Patriot

Monday, February 26, 2007

Hope On Haifa Street

Soldiers assigned to Haifa Street in Baghdad, Iraq, tell of how U.S. troop presence helps add to the optimistic feeling on the street from the locals. Only a fraction of the violence which occurred in December of 2006 is occurring in and around Haifa Street now. Approximately 130 dead bodies were found in December, presumably victims of death squads and militias, compared toto 11-15 bodies recovered in the last 3 weeks. Residents who fled in fear of militias are now returning in great numbers because they trust the U.S. troops to protect them. Not only that, but commander CPT Peter Kilpatrick of 9th Cavalry/Charlie Company says there are so many Iraqi informants to rat out the bad guys that his unit can hardly handle the large amount of intelligence and cooperation.

One soldier on patrol says they are frequently asked by Iraqis if U.S. troops will be leaving because if so, Iraqis will leave the area as well. They feel safe as long as the U.S. stays. Will America be there for Iraq at the end of this story? Not if the Congress has anything to do with it.

Cross-posted @ Bottom Line Up Front

Guard the Borders Blogburst 2/26/07

Cross posted from Right Truth

By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative

As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts say this is the biggest! The defense says that a document from the Department of Homeland Security confirms that two supervisors were on the scene the day an illegal immigrant drug smuggler claims he was shot in the butt. The defense is just finding out about this document, that US Attorney Johnny Sutton’s office had and did not reveal to them during the trial. This was all reported on CNN show Lou Dobbs Tonight last night. I’ve YouTubed the video and you can watch it below.

Why did Sutton’s office withhold exculpatory information?

Ramos and Compean said they never filed a report because supervisors were there. Sutton claimed otherwise in court. Their version of the story has now been verified and once again we see another obvious lie from the mouth of Johnny Sutton.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst says this news is potentially major, as opposed to other news he does not feel is as impacting to changing the outcome of the case. Toobin says this moves things into a “new category” that may cause a new trial. Lou Dobbs says that Johnny Sutton “lied” when he said he had no choice but to offer immunity. And World Net Daily has found more information about illegal alien drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila still running dope into our country, after being given medical treatment at US taxpayer expense. This offense was gagged by the judge and the family of Ramos and Compean still refuse to even talk about it, for fear that Johnny Sutton will come after them.

We need and I mean NEED a full Congressional investigation of this entire case right now. We also need to know who in our government knew what, when and what orders they gave to Johnny Sutton and/or the judge. We need to know every single detail related to President George W. Bush involving this matter. It’s time to stop reading and start writing your congresspeople. We now have more than enough information to not simply be suspicious about this case, we know these men were setup!

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders syndicate. It was started by Euphoric Reality to educate the public about the vulnerabilities of our open borders during an age of global terrorism and the resultant threat to our national security and sovereignty. If you are concerned about the lapses in our national security and the socio-economic burden of unchecked illegal immigration, join our blog syndicate. Send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Others posting on illegal immigration:
Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border, Common Sense America
Imaginary Friend,Real Credit at Bank of America Liberally Conservative and Mexico Condemns U.S. Trespassing
Surrendering our Sovereignty , Bear Creek Ledger, also Don't Need to Stinkin' Social Security Card

North American Community Becoming Reality

Originally posted at Right Truth

The North American Community is not considered a formal union of the three countries, Mexico, Canada and the United States, as the North American Union is. However, there was a February 16 conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system, according to Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. He says, "The holding of the conference was itself evidence that a comprehensive process is underway to merge the economies, and perhaps the social and political systems, of the three countries."

[Robert] Pastor said that he favors a "North American Community," not a formal union of the three countries, and several speakers at the conference ridiculed the idea of protecting America's borders and suggested that American citizenship was an outmoded concept.

Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Pastor told AIM that he favors a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty and a national biometric identity card for the purpose of controlling the movement of people in and out of the U.S.

So the "conspiracy" is now very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it. (source)

One problem is that the media is not interested in this topic. Perhaps they think it's a good idea, but are afraid to publicize the fact that is is actually a possible reality for fear Americans will stand up and protest. Imagine for one minute that there is ONE legal system for all three countries? What a disaster that would be.

The conference, conducted in cooperation with the American Society of International Law, an organization affiliated with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, was held at the American University Washington College of Law. A large number of speakers came from American University. [snip]

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

Do any of you want a "North American Parliament", a permanent tribunal" on trade issues, or anything even slightly similar to the European Union, European Parliament or European Court of Justice? Talking about the suggested wall between Mexico and the U.S., Stephen Zamora of the University of Houston Law School said, "What does citizenship mean anymore?" Obviously it doesn't mean much to Mr. Zamora. To me being an American citizen means everything. It is a matter of pride, it means we have a special history, a special form of government, a special form of legal system. All that would change with a North American Union.

Another speaker, Tom Farer, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver said , Tom Tancredo 'was a backward thinker' and 'could be seen "dragging his knuckles along the ground."' I believe Tom Tancredo is a brave leader in the fight against illegal aliens here in the United States. Of course with a North American Union, there would be no such thing as 'illegal'.

The article is long, detailed, and well worth the read. Go read it all here.

See which banks do and which banks don't accept Matricula Consular Card and are soliciting illegal alien customers and encouraging, inducing, aiding and abetting illegal immigration here. The site has specific banks listed by state, scroll down to find information on your state. Hat tip The Uncooperative Blogger

Other articles:
Senate Illegals Bill Almost Complete, The Uncooperative Blogger
Friends, we HAVE to speak THEIR language, Common Sense America
Bank of America, The Credit Cards for Illegals Stays Liberally Conservative and Janitorial Services Swept Up Illegals

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Murtha Botches Things Again

Wapo has a very interesting article out today about John Murtha and his botched attempt at launching a "non starter" for a plan that even the moderate Democrats are criticizing and divided over.

I am going to put out some excerpts, out of the order they were written in the article because I want to make a couple points here.

Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

First, if Pelosi wishes to to "use" Murtha because of his previous military status, she better be prepared for him to open his mouth when she isn't there to gag him.

Second point: His military experience means nothing, nil, nada, zip, zilch when it comes to this war, the war on terror, and the same thing applies to John McCain.

Every war is different, our civil war cannot be compared to World War II for example, because the enemies and tactics were different as was every other detail.

By trying to use Murtha, Pelosi made a very large tactical error and it has just bitten her and the other Democrats in the ass.

That tactic did not work in 2004 when the Democratic party tried the same "failed policy" with John Kerry and it is not working today. Using a veteran's former military status to try to claim moral authority is a ruse, a tactic that has been tried and failed miserably. Maybe someone wants to send the memo to Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha.

But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

The moderates of Murtha's own party cannot and will not stand for a slow bleed on our troops and good for them.

So, now, Murtha will become a martyr for his own party in his cowardly attempt to undermine the President which would also undermine our troops, but to certain members of the Democrtaic party, the troops are secondary to political hits against the President and that is a sad state of affairs, one that the moderates of the Democrtaic party did not sign on to, nor will they.

I take nothing away from Murtha's military past, but it is just that, the past, he hasn't a clue to this war and is very out of touch with our troops and what they say...which is that they are seeing success and can finish the job they have started and have lost brothers in arms to.

The whole slow bleed Murtha strategy is just another cowardly attempt to control the actions of our military without taking full responsibility for the ramifications of their plan.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

Now, Murtha has never been hailed as a genius and I believe that age does offer us the benfit of experience, but age also offers senility. The brain as it ages experiences cognitive deterioration, for some it happens sooner than it does to others.

Just saying.

The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

I feel no pity for Pelosi, she strategically used Murtha in a calculated way to achieve defeat in Iraq and I hope she doesn't start whining because she cannot control him now.

Her own fault.

It came the day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke. Murtha dismissed that vote as he promoted his coming plans regarding the war spending bill. "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war," he said of his proposal. "This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge."

To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.

"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."

Ya think???????

Even after that Web appearance, some senior Democratic aides say Murtha might well have been able to save his plan if he had quickly laid it out before the Democratic caucus and marshaled Democratic leaders behind a defense. Instead, the House recessed for a week, Murtha disappeared from the media, and Democratic leaders were silent, saying they could not discuss Iraq legislation because no real plan existed.

In the face of an unanswered Republican assault, the Democratic rank-and-file cracked -- on the left and the right.

"While we're all for troop readiness, we're all for them having all the equipment they want," Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, "I'd be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground."

Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.

All in all, Murtha's plans will die as they well should and congress can either start acknowledging the success that are being seen on the ground, or they can continue to try to undermine those successes and continue to be the party of retreat in defeat for all the world to witness.

Pelosi and company would do well to start paying attention to the latest polls about what the American people think of them.

3. And, do you approve or disapprove of the job that the United States Congress is doing?



They have lost the support of the American people because we do support our troops and we see through the rhetoric that congress has been spewing forth about supporting the troops but not the mission.

5. And, which one of the following would do most to hurt America’s reputation as a world power...

59% To pull our troops out of Iraq immediately
35% To leave our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to restore order

Read the rest of the poll yourself, I do not usually put much stock in polls, but this one does accurately concur with the last poll done by a completely separate company.

John Stuart Mill, please meet John Murtha.

Personally I think Murtha should be put out to pasture.... who agrees?

(NOTE: The move is here and this is my last night posting until I am settled and back online again. The site will be maintained by Debbie from Right Truth, Amy Proctor from Bottom Line Up Front, Faultline USA, A Soldiers Wife and of course our very own HCdl)

See ya'll soon!!!!!


Saturday, February 24, 2007

Update, Good and Bad News From Iraq

Iraq the Model, which I check every day because I find no better way to find the truth of what is happening in Iraq, than from someone living there, well, they have a wonderful piece up today called "Operation Baghdad: Week II."

It's been less than two weeks since the Baghdad operation was officially launched. This period, though short, has been full of events; both good and bad ones.

Here we are not in a rush to judge the operation unlike some media or politicians who seek anything they can use to serve their agendas. We, Baghdadis, only want this operation to succeed and we still have some patience to show.

Go...Read....are you still here?


Done? Good.

Progress is being made in Iraq, security is better, deaths rates are down, 600 families have already returned and this is only week two with the new security operation.

So...for the question of the day.... why are the Democrats still trying to oppose this new plan when it is seeing success?

Talk amongst yourselves.


Why Do The Democratic Women Whine so much?

The past few days all we have seen is the women in the Democratic political party whining like babies, which I find annoying because they are making all women look bad.

Today it is Christine Jennings who is whining because she lost her election and it cannot be because the other party was better and recieved more votes....OH NO, it HAS to be because she was cheated.

Give me a freaking break.

Results of a comprehensive audit released Friday show that the voting machines used in the disputed Sarasota-area congressional race were not flawed.

The findings are a blow to Democrat Christine Jennings, whose main argument in disputing her narrow loss to Republican Vern Buchanan is possible machine malfunction.

The state-funded investigation included for the first time an examination of the source code, the software that makes the machines run.

"I am confident that the race in Sarasota County was fair and accurate," Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning said.

The result - though significant - does not mean the case is over.

Jennings and a group of voter advocacy groups vow to continue seeking access to the source code so they can conduct their own reviews. Jennings' campaign described the study as flawed and incomplete, and said that experts were not allowed full access to the machines.

Poor lost, get over it, it happens.

As we spoke about the other day, Pelosi thinks that Cheney was unfair when he questioned her judgement and calling to whine to the president, because she cannot handle the truth.....TOUGH.

Hillary Clinton whines because David Geffen told the truth about her....that she is a little too good at telling lies.... remember my post earlier this morning, where I showed you she testified in front of congress that she didn't know, couldn't remember or something similiar.... 250 times!!!!!!!!!

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Then of course queen Pelosi whined a few weeks ago because her plane wasn't big enough to fly her home without stopping to refuel.

These delicate little flowers better learn to toughen up and quit the whining....wanna play with the big boys, then act like an adult.

I have news for these ladies (and I DO use that term loosely) you chose to get into politics and if you think you can say and do whatever you want and use the "woman card" when the tables are turned and when it suits you....think again.

You are not above criticism, you are not above being called on your tactics nor your weaknesses and guess what? It isn't because you are women, it is because you stink to high heaven and people are starting to notice.

For the is going to get much worse.

Suck it up!


Will Democrats EVER Learn?

The retreat in defeat Caucus, the Democrats, once again are trying to play political games with our troops lives, but the Republican Minority leader is ready, willing and able to spank Harry Reid once again.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned yesterday that a new Democratic effort to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution would meet the same fate as two previous efforts to limit President Bush's authority: blocked by procedural obstacles, unless Democrats relent to GOP terms.

The last two times that Harry Reid tried to force the retreat in defeat resolutions through senate without full debate on all the resolutions offered, he got his ass kicked and here is, trying again.... goes to show, some people just never learn.

McConnell predicted he could muster Republican support to block the measure, unless Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) allows a vote on a nonbinding GOP measure to guarantee troop funding.

A showdown over both measures could come as early as next week. Reid has signaled that Iraq-related amendments may be offered to an upcoming homeland security bill. "It's a bit of a cat-and-mouse game," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Cat and mouse game....exactly. The Democrats keep playing games and in doing so, they keep adding upon the danger our troops are in.

Political games are more imporant to the likes of Harry Reid than our soldiers lives are.

Once again proving to the American people and others across the world how inept and incompetent the Democrats are when it comes to our national security.

Democratic architects of the new initiative, including Reid, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), have argued that the 2002 authorization is no longer valid, because the intent was to destroy weapons of mass destruction -- which were never found -- and if necessary to depose Saddam Hussein, who has since been captured, tried and executed.

Levin and Durbin obviously haven't read the resoluton giving the President authority or they would have seen that one of the major points, as I showed yesterday was:

7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Full text of resolution can be found on my piece from yesterday.

"If the Senate doesn't support the mission in Iraq, it has only one option, and that's to decide whether or not to fund that mission," McConnell said. "That's our constitutional role, and we shouldn't drag this into the morass of Democratic presidential primary politics."

Exactly Mr. McConnell, but if they did that, it would simply prove what we have been saying about them this whole time....they are cowards and weak on national security.

I do not think the Republicans need to do much to prepare for the 2008 elections, with the infighting, the resolutions declaring defeat while we are seeing success in Iraq and their unique ability to shove BOTH feet into their mouth at once....they will do what they have done in the past...implode from the inside and better yet, they will do it for all the world to see.

So, in answer to my question from the title of this piece, will the Democrtas ever learn?

It doesn't look like it, does it?

They wonder why they are known as the party of defeat? All they have to do is go back and reread their own words to answer that question.

They are seen that way, because they ARE the party of retreat in defeat.

Once again, McConnell is going to have to bitchslap Harry Reid in front of the world....I sorta envy him at the moment.


It is REALLY too early for this, but.......Rudy

It is no secret I despise Hillary Clinton and even though it is WAYYYYYYY too early for polls to actually mean much, it still does my heart good seeing that Rasmussen's latest polls shows Rudy Giuliani, America's Mayor, is rising in numbers above Hillary Clinton.

In a match-up between the early 2008 frontrunners, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) leads New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) 52% to 43%. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Giuliani’s lead growing in recent months. His current nine-point advantage is up from a six point lead in January and a four-point lead in December.

Giuliani has solidified his title as the most popular candidate of Election 2008—his favorability ratings have inched back up to 70%

I asked the other day why Hillary was even running... her base doesn't seem to like her, the Republican base certainly isn't going to vote for her and she is highly unpopular with, I ask again, why is she running in a race she cannot win?

Clinton is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. The last four times that Rasmussen Reports has polled on a Giuliani-Clinton race, Clinton’s support has remained unchanged at 43%.

While both candidates draw reasonable levels of support from within their own party, Giuliani has an enormous 64% to 27% advantage over Clinton among unaffiliated voters.

I have pointed out before that Hillary and her "common good" agenda is nothing more than a Democrat running using the communist manifesto as her guide.....didn't we fight against communism?

This is the type of rhetoric she has the nerve to tell her base, AS they are handing her money.

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Yeah, thats the way to keep your base happy, tell em straight out that you are not only going to accept their contributions, but then you are going to steal the rest of their money also!!!!!!

Let us not forget that Hillary has a little problem with telling the truth to congress also.

Hillary when testifying before congress Hillary Clinton claimed she either didn't know, didn't remember or something similar a total of 250 times.

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Yes, this is what we want running our country.

Her politics are more important to her than putting our troops lives in further danger.

As for Rudy Giuliani, I haven't decided yet who I will be endorsing or voting for, but he has an impressive record and on 9/11 he was the face of America. He stepped up to the plate and he showed a courage that not many in this day and age did or could have.

Time made him person of the year in 2001 and they did an extensive history on his life and his career.

Sixteen hours had passed since the Twin Towers crumbled and fell, and people kept telling Rudy Giuliani to get some rest. The indomitable mayor of New York City had spent the day and night holding his town together. He arrived at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit, watched human beings drop from the sky and--when the south tower imploded--nearly got trapped inside his makeshift command center near the site. Then he led a battered platoon of city officials, reporters and civilians north through the blizzard of ash and smoke, and a detective jimmied open the door to a firehouse so the mayor could revive his government there. Giuliani took to the airwaves to calm and reassure his people, made a few hundred rapid-fire decisions about the security and rescue operations, toured hospitals to comfort the families of the missing and made four more visits to the apocalyptic attack scene.

Read the is good.

He first gained fame as a United States Attorney prosecuting high-profile cases, including against organized crime. He served two terms as Mayor of New York City (1994-2001), during which time he was credited with a major reduction in crime, which made New York the country's safest major city, and with improving the quality for residents, but also suffered adverse publicity due to problems in some of his personal relationships. He then gained national attention for his leadership role during and after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center that led him to be named Time's 2001 Person of the Year and receive an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. His public visibility in the days following the attacks earned him the nickname "America's Mayor."

Impressive and I think he stands a good chance, better than most of the Republicans OR Democrats that have crawled out from under their rocks to announce their run at the White House.

Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Giuliani and you can read it here....he is good, has no problem laughing at himself, shows a charm and charisma that Hillary will never have.

All and all, I wish Rudy the best of luck.

All my Hillary pieces can be found on one page here.

Others discussing this:
Moderate Voice, Riehl World View, Scared Monkeys, Wizbang, Sister Toldjah, Power Line, Captain's Quarters, Hot Air, Politico.


Friday, February 23, 2007

Cheney Nails Pelosi AGAIN!!!

I ranted about Pelosi yesterday here. So, today let us take a look at what else Cheney is saying, despite Nancy Pelosi's call to the President (whom she couldn't reach) to whine about the Vice President telling people the truth about her. (Transcipt here) (Video here)

As Karl reports, "Cheney first made that allegation regarding Pelosi's call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Wednesday, prompting Pelosi to call the White House to ask President Bush to repudiate the comments.

"Pelosi called Cheney's words 'beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.'

"Cheney: She did call him. She got [chief of staff] Josh Bolten. The president wasn't in right then. But I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. [Cheney chuckles]

"She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment. If you're going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don't get to just do the fun part of that, that says, we'll we're going to get out and appeal to your constituents on that basis.

"You also have to be accountable for the results. What are the consequences of that? What happens if we withdraw from Iraq? And the point I made and I'll make it again is that al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al Qaeda. I said it and I meant it.

"Karl: And you're not backing down?

"Cheney: I'm not backing down."

At yesterday's press briefing, by the way, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino came to Cheney's defense -- quite aggressively.

"Q Was he at all out of line in making those comments?

"MS. PERINO: The Vice President out of line? Absolutely not. He was questioning the merits of the -- of their proposal. And I think if you go up and take a look back at some of the things that they've said about the President, the tables could be turned. But we're not making the same accusations."

I think I am starting to like Dick Cheney....he is telling it like it is and Pelosi can whine all she wants, but Cheney is speaking the truth.

If she wants them to soft step when speaking about her, she is outta luck, bigtime.

A little advice for Pelosi, you want people to think you are supporting the troops? START DOING IT and quit doing al-Qaeda's job for them.


If They Shoot At You, Don't Shoot Back...Unless it is al-Qaeda

As Jules Crittenden brings us the good and the bad news from Iraq, the Democrats once again prove to the American public why they cannot be trusted with our national secuirty and why the military should run the wars and the politicians should do what they are best at...... ripping off the American peoples money.

Good news in Iraq: Five of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army leaders were arrested in two locations in Baghdad on Wednesday, according to the Kuwait News Agency and UPI. KUNA also reported two days ago that an al-Sadr office was being raided, which reportedly was confirmed by Iraqiya TV, but did not appear to percolate into other media. Another bit of good news is also bad news: Still no sign of the momentarily departed, Moqtada al-Sadr, respecter of surges.

More good news in Iraq: Reuters reports a drop in violence in Baghdad and other results … the 50-a-day pre-surge body count has dropped to between 5 and 25 a day. Known terrorists who won’t be down to breakfast are tallied at 42, and another 246 will be dining as guests of the government. An additional 84 suspected terrorists also have been provided with accommdations. Five hostages freed and 642 displaced families have returned how.

Bad news in Iraq: Insurgents are trying to figure out how to conduct chemical warfare. Good news is, they haven’t been very good at it, and one of their dirty-bomb factories just got shut down:

Read his full is informative.

Considering that now 57% of the American public think we should finish what we started in Iraq, the Democrats in the Senate are playing a dangerous game with our troops lives that is going to backfire in their faces.....sooner, rather than later.

The latest news shows that the Democrats seem to think that al-Qaeda has the name "al-Qaeda" tatooed on their forheads and Iranians have it on their forheads and Iraq's have either Sunni or Shiite on their forheads, so that our troops know who is shooting at them and can then decide whether or not to protect themselves.....

Do you think I am exaggerating?

They said the proposal was intended to essentially overturn the 2002 resolution granting Mr. Bush the authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and limit the military to combating Al Qaeda in Iraq, keeping Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorists and training Iraqi forces. The proposal’s goal, officials said, would be to allow combat forces not engaged in those duties to be removed from Iraq next year.

Are we beginning to understand why we conservatives think the liberal democrats are a joke when it comes to fighting a war and winning?

Captain's Quarters:

This is a textbook case of micromanaging a war. Instead of taking the one option open to Congress -- defunding the war effort -- they have decided to override the Constitution by setting themselves above the President in the chain of command. They understand that a defunding effort would unmask them as defeatists and retreatists while American troops face the terrorists, especially in Anbar. Even Joe Biden understands that much.

Nor are they opting for an honest method of floating this unconstitutional nonsense. The Democrats plan to attach the reworked AUMF as an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on it in the Senate. They want to dare the Republicans to filibuster the spending bill or Bush to veto it if it passes with the new AUMF intact. They're playing games with the funds necessary to secure the nation during a time of war -- and they expect to be taken seriously on how to conduct one?

What a joke these people are.

Keep up over at The Victory Caucus for the latest ideas on what you can do to let your voice be heard by our representatives and so we can do it in an effective manner.

From Right Wing Nut House:

In other words, rather than cut our troops off at the knees by defunding the war why not aim the knife slightly higher and castrate the military by saying who they should be fighting and who they should allow to kill them. If a non-authorized enemy fires upon our guys, maybe one of them can call their Representative and get an amendment passed to grant an exception to the new policy.

Yes, yes it’s an exaggeration and wouldn’t really work that way. But can you see our boys landing on Omaha Beach in 1944 and having to get permission to fight Poles, North Koreans, Hungarians, and the other foreign troops the Nazis put into the front lines just because the Declaration of War didn’t mention any of those nationalities?

John Kerry makes a very dangerous mistake once again, one that continues to be repeated by the Democratic party and their nutroots.

"I've had enough of 'nonbinding,' " said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.

"The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we're engaged in today," he said.

Joe Biden also tries to lie about the original resoltuion:

"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

One has to wonder if they ever even read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Hat Tip to Ankle Biting Pundits for listing the seven additional reasons, excluding the issue of WMD's that are part of this resolution.

1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1991
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Maybe they should have read this before opening their mouths about it, because now they not only look stupid, but they look like the liars they are by continuing to insist that WMD's were the only reason they authorized the war in Iraq.

Perhaps someone needs to read it TO them since they are incapable of doing it for themselves.

From Jim Cooper, (Tenn) a leading Democratic moderate:

"Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha's whole effort "clumsy."

Cooper's position underscores the challenges now facing the House Democratic leadership. While the caucus's liberal wing is demanding legislation to end the war almost immediately, moderates such as Cooper say Congress should focus on oversight of the war and stay away from legislation that encroaches on the war powers of the president.

The moderate Democrats seem to at least "get" the fact that everything being proposed right now from the far left Democrats are clumsy and unrealistic.

By continuing to ignore the successes we are already seeing in Iraq and trying to stop those successes as the MSM is finally letting the world see them for what they are....defeatists that are actively working towards forcing defeat upon America.

I have no doubt that it will be killed in Senate the same way that their non binding "symbolic" resolution was, but their continued efforts to force America's defeat lets Americans and the whole world over what the nature of our enemy within looks like..... The Democrtic party.

I sincerely hope that this latest move will be the straw that broke the camels back.

Others discussing this:
Riehl World View, Right Wing News, Wizbang, RedState, Macsmind, Sister Toldjah, Decision `08, Gateway Pundit, A Blog for All, Betsy's Page, Politico, Wapo.


Thursday, February 22, 2007

Joint Task Force

We're going to try something new here. This is a first attempt at this, so bear with us, but WUA is going to tag team a topic between contributors, as it falls into "her territory," which is largely the war on terror and events in the Middle East, and "my territory," which is more related to political policy and homeland security. This is not to say that we don't cross over, often, into each others "areas;" we've made an incredible team in other avenues than this latest venture, and ego doesn't get in the way when we tackle things. There is also a little piece I left out on my bio that I don't discuss much, that being my theological studies several years ago when I was considering entering the seminary. That background sometimes gives me a different perspective on things than some people; I'm not a bible thumping radical, these days I tend to question more than I actually put faith into, but the background is there, and sometimes it's a very helpful thing to have when looking at world events.

That being said (and no, no rant this time, it's far more serious than just an opinion rant):

Not much is being said about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, signed on March 23, 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and the United States. As G. Gordon Liddy says, it came in under the radar. Seemingly harmless at a casual glance, what this does is begin an elimination of the borders between the U.S.A and our neighbors to the north and South, Canada and Mexico.

Sound familiar?

Europe has already done something similar to this, calling it the European Union, with the introduction of the Euro as a form of currency tradable across the continent amongst its member nations. Are we ready for the Amerio? I don't think so.

So why are we choosing to bring this into the spotlight now?

GOPUSA carries a story concerning illegal aliens and the crime rate that is growing to be a major, major problem. Jim Brown's article entitled More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says states:

Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.

Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.

"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.

Many people among the Christian communities who are following this are calling the SPP the next step on the path to a global, one world government. The creation of the United Nations is seen as being one of the initial steps, establishing a body that was formed for the specific purpose of establishing a centralized global government.

Sounds conspiratorial, doesn't it? Not when you consider the establishments of the World Bank, the World Court, the World Health Organization, United Nations Peace Keeping Forces, and other such organizations.

Our constitution would be null and void under such a situation. National borders would become more like the borders between different states. We're already facing a situation in this country where we are looking at several MILLION illegal aliens in our country taking jobs away from our citizens, and committing crimes on our streets.

So why isn't the Bush administration doing more about this? Why aren't our borders being sealed off more tightly? It would be contradictory to the SPP that President Bush signed for him to enforce the sealing off of our borders. National Guard troops are already stationed along the border with Mexico with "do not engage" orders. Why? Window dressing.

For more statistical information and her own thoughts, S will continue.

[S-- The numbers are troubling as is the thought processes behind those numbers. We have a precedure that hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants have gone through and followed the law and have become upstanding citizens of the United States of America.

After 9/11 this should be a huge issue and should not be up for debate, follow the law that is set up or keep them out.

We must protect our borders and further into the article linked to above tells us why.

"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."

This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.

The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

Look at those numbers....1.3 Million crimes from 267,000 "illegal" aliens.

Not only are they coming here illegally and breaking the law, but more than that...we are feeding and clothing these criminals, providing healthcare for them while they are jailed... how much money are we spending on this and aren't our legal citizens and immigrants being shortchanged because the money we are spending dealing with the illegal aliens could be better spent on those that are abiding by the laws of our country?

Educating illegal immigrants, as of 2003, costs states $7.4 BILLION a year:

States are spending $7.4 billion annually to educate illegal alien students-enough to buy a computer for every junior high school student nationwide, finds a startling new FAIR report.

In some states, the amount of money spent to educate illegal alien children accounts for a substantial portion of the state budget shortfall; in New Jersey, for instance, it accounts for 28 percent of the total state budget deficit.


Providing K-12 Education to Illegal Immigrants: Costs to States

In California, the $2.2 billion spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could buy books, computers, and other instructional equipment for 346,689 classrooms, 79 percent of all the classrooms in California, and fully fund the state's free lunch program for poor students for almost two years.

In Texas, the $1 billion spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could provide health insurance to every child in Texas for three and a half years. State budget cuts are expected to trim tens of thousands from the Children's Health Insurance Program, and 22 percent of Texas's children already lack health insurance, the highest percentage in the nation.

In New York, the $756 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could put a computer on the desk of every high school student in the state.

In Illinois, the $484 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could eliminate the need to cut $38 million from the state's financial aid program by denying financial aid to 34,000 college students and grant aid to an additional 399,120 students.

In New Jersey, the $359 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could expand pre-school enrollment by 23,652 children, which would allow the state to achieve its court-mandated pre-school enrollment in poor school districts.

In Florida, the $309 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could eliminate the need to cut $120 million from K-12 schools, with $190 million to spare.

In Georgia, the $231 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could eliminate the need to cut $14 million from the state school budget and $35 million from the state university system, with $181 million to spare.

In North Carolina, the $196 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could cover the cost of textbooks for all schools in the state for two years.

In Arizona, the $187 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could eliminate the need to raise in-state tuition by $1,000 a year in the state university system, with $150 million to spare.

In Colorado, the $141 million spent educating illegal immigrants for one year could buy books, computers, and other instructional materials for every K-12 student in the state.

That was in 2003, that number is rising and something needs to be done about it. We have laws and procedures and they should be followed and those coming here illegally should stopped and when caught, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Doctors and administrators around the state are complaining that the cost of treating illegal immigrants has forced them to delay the purchase of life-saving technology or the addition of valuable staff.... read the rest of this article.

It is not only the crimes these illegals residents are committing, nor just the monies spent on prosecuting these crimes, but our healthcare industry is also suffering because of illegal immigration.

Once again, we are not talking about legal immigrants. Our great country has always welcomed immigrants to our country and offered them a better way of life..... but they need to do it legally.

Doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

Now some may ask how does this affect us personallyand this next article tells you:

But while this argument is valid in many respects, it must give way when American citizens are affected in more negative ways than positive. At a certain point it is not only necessary but right to strengthen laws against those gaining work illegally. It may be true that illegal immigrants provide the cheap labor that keeps many industries afloat, but it is also true that illegal workers have displaced American workers and depressed wages at a cost of $133 billion, last year alone. And there is more to the story.

Even when the tax money illegal laborers provide is subtracted from cost of the services they use, it creates a net loss. The services illegal persons use, about $2.5 billion in Medicaid, $2.2 billion in medical treatment, $1.9 billion in food assistance, and $1.6 billion in prison and legal costs, among others, creates a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion for the federal government, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

The costs break down to about $2,700 per illegal household per year and these losses must be covered by tax money from American citizens or by our government borrowing more money and further increasing the national debt. It’s hard to fathom the billions spent on illegal immigrants, but to put it in context the total educational expenditures used on the children of illegal aliens, $7.4 billion annually, could buy a computer for every junior high student in America, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The economic costs of illegal immigration, from the direct expenses, such as schooling and hospital costs, to indirect expenses, such as remittances and American worker displacement, place significant burdens on the economy.

But we should think about more than the increased tax responsibilities. We should put greater consideration into the effects on American citizens, particularly the least fortunate.

There are over 34 million people living under the federal poverty line in America and the number has been increasing for the last four years. Some of these people are not actively searching for work or trying to improve their lives, but for those that are it is becoming harder and harder to compete against illegal laborers who often work for minimum wage or less, “under the table.” Before we try to help people from other countries through lax labor laws and government aid, we need to take care of our own citizens.

We cannot afford to continue to ignore this problem and we must be willing to do what it takes to secure our borders, not only because of what it is costing us as a country, but even more importantly, in my mind, because along with the problems that illegal immigration causes us finacially, the fact that terrosists are also entering our country via these same methods, it becomes a matter of national security.

Take for example, the capture of terrorist suspect Jose Padilla. The Justice Department says Padilla and an accomplice planned to enter the U.S. thru Mexico to blow up apartment buildings in major cities, like New York.

Or the case of suspected al-Qaeda sleeper agent Mohammed Junaid Babar.

Babar has told investigators of a scheme to smuggle terrorists across the Mexican border. He's tied to a terror plot to carry out bombings and assassinations in London.

And the Tombstone Tumbleweed newspaper reports that in June, 53 Middle Eastern men were apprehended by Border Patrol agents near Willcox.

It's believed they were from Iran or Syria.

Stoddard says, "It's the ones who are sneaking into our country under cover of darkness between our ports of entry that concern me and should concern every American.

Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner says, "You don't know what is getting by you unless you come across, as you said, small pieces of evidence, remnants of things that give you clues, that not everybody is coming across from mexico looking for a job."

Bonner knows exactly who and what current agents are uncovering along our border and he has a dire warning:

"It's only a matter of time before another terrorist attack occurs, unfortunately.

In 2004 an al-Qaeda suspect was arrested in Texas:

A South African woman picked up in Texas almost 10 days ago may turn out to be a key, high-level al-Qaida operative.

Her name is Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed. She was stopped at McAllen Miller International Airport on July 19 headed to New York.

Eddie Flores of the U.S. Border Patrol office in McAllen, Texas tells that a review of her papers raised some concerns.

"In looking at her documents, they did not find any entry documents in her passport where she was legally admitted into the United States," says Flores.

Ahmed produced a South African passport to the agents with four pages torn out, and with no U.S. entry stamps. Ahmed reportedly later confessed to investigators that she entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River. Ahmed was carrying travel itineraries showing a July 8 flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to London. Six days later, Ahmed traveled from London to Mexico City before attempting to travel from McAllen to New York.

Government sources tell that capturing this woman could be comparable to the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. It was revealed in court Tuesday that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.

In 2005 there was an al-Qaeda operative captured near the Mexican border.

An al-Qaida operative who was on the FBI's terrorist watch list was recently captured near the Mexican border, housed in a Texas jail and turned over to federal agents, Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, said on Friday.

"A confirmed al-Qaida terrorist, an Iraqi national, was held in the Brewster County jail," Rep. Culberson told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity. "He was captured in Mexico. This was within the last six weeks. He was turned over to the FBI."

The Texas Republican said he obtained the stunning information about the terrorist's capture "from the sheriffs who were directly involved.

"In fact, one was the sheriff who incarcerated him in the Brewster County jail [and who] confirmed this as well," he explained. The same sheriff also confirmed "that this guy is on the FBI's al-Qaida list," he added.

The examples continue but this is enough to make my point....we have terrorists crossing the borders using the same means that our illegal immigrants are using and it is a serious problem that needs a serious solution.