Take that Fiberal Moonbats

From CanadaFreePress.com

What the Left Never Will Understand About the War on Terror

by J.B. Williams

The first thing liberals fail to understand is that war is a serious business. If you are not prepared to take a side, you had better not stand in the middle of the battle field. Sit it out and remain silent, because the minute you speak, you have taken a side, whether you meant to or not, and if you speak against your own, you have chosen the wrong side. This error in judgment among liberals has earned them the current title of un-American or even Al Qaeda sympathizer.

Wrong from the start, the left actually thinks that the war on international terrorism is all about one man, one terror network, one event, one country and one day. How many liberals have you heard ask the question, "What about Bin Laden?" or, "What did Iraq do to us?" or, refer to Iraq as the "wrong war" in the "wrong place", a "departure from the war on terror" - a war which in their feeble minds, exists only in Afghanistan.

This notion is akin to suggesting that WWII was only about Pearl Harbor. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was just a calling card, an invitation to engage in a much bigger (world) problem. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was not our first invitation to engage in what was fast becoming a world-wide threat. Like Pearl Harbor, it was an invitation we couldn't afford to leave unanswered.

We received an invitation to the war on terror as far back as 1979 in Tehran. We received several more invitations throughout the 80's and 90's. We were invited in no uncertain terms in 1993, when Bin Laden first attempted to level the World Trade Towers. We were invited again in 1995 by Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia and yet again by Bin Laden in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We received yet another open invitation to join the war against international terrorism in October of 2000 with the bombing of the USS Cole, again, courtesy of Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, much of the free world was already engaged. We declined to answer any of these invitations...

We were not just patient in ignoring these invitations - we were cowardly and short sighted. Only when the invitation reached the massive intensity of 9/11, with nearly 3000 innocent American men, women and children dead, our financial center, defense center and government center under attack all at once, were we ready to accept these invitations.

A year before 9/11, the FBI had identified the New York Al Qaeda cell that would one year later, fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and even the White House, if not for the brave souls on Flight 93. But the Clinton administration looked at the threat as a "criminal" matter. That meant that the FBI and CIA could not share information concerning the New York cell and without proper warrants based on indisputable evidence, they did nothing...

One year later, that cell killed almost 3000 American citizens with apparent ease and liberals still contend today, that the war on terror is a "criminal" matter. They insist that the terrorists have civil rights and that our courts, filled with frivolous law suits, is the place to deal with this threat.

Despite numerous attacks and arrests all over the world, liberals still think that the war on international terrorism is limited to one man, Bin Laden, one network, Al Qaeda and one event, 9/11. Had we thought the same after Pearl Harbor, we would have leveled Japan and come home. Most of Europe would be speaking German and every Jew on earth would be baked to extinction. Most of the world would be living under communist rule and America would not be America today.

Yet the leftists in control of the once great Democratic Party fail to see reality. When they search for the enemy, they only see Bush. When they plot their military strategy, they only see defeat. When you ask them about terrorists, they think you are talking about American soldiers and when you ask for their victory plans, retreat is their answer. The retreat plan was tried in Vietnam and we are still trying to justify that decision today.

Prior to the Clinton administration, dangerous regimes like that in North Korea, Syria, China and Iran, had the desire but not the means to strike terror world-wide. By the time the Clinton's left office, both China and North Korea had long range nuclear warheads, Iran and Syria were working on it. But liberals will tell you that Bush made America less safe, answering the invitation and taking the fight to the enemy on their soil. Has there been another successful attack in the US that I am unaware of? Not that it can't still happen. That's really the point. It can still happen and if we don't get more serious about winning this war, it will.

The Hussein regime in Iraq had terrorized its citizens and neighbors throughout the 90's, broken every UN resolution ever written and played cat and mouse with UN inspectors until Hussein finally got bold enough to just toss them from Iraq, telling both Clinton and the UN to shove it. But according to leftists, they had Hussein "contained". Doing UN paper work I guess?

Today, as we head into the 2006 mid-term elections, liberals remind us that they have changed their collective minds about none of this. They still think the world wide war against international terrorism is about one man, one terror network, one country, one event and one day. They still believe it is a criminal matter for our police and our courts and they still insist that America, more specifically Bush and our military, are the real terrorists. They still believe that Bush lied, that Iranian, Syrian and Arabian terrorists killing innocent Iraqi citizens are just "civil insurgents" and that the central front in the war on terror, is a departure from the war on terror.

Now if you can sleep well at night with your families' lives in the hands of people like this, God Bless! Knock yourself out at election time. Vote yourself more money from the federal trough of socialist handouts and let the chips fall where they may on national security.

But if on the other hand, like me, you have something to lose, something worth fighting for, someone to pass this country on to in one piece, then pay attention...

Clearly, liberals don't get it. They don't like Bush's war because they can't begin to comprehend the very real world wide threat that Bush decided to confront on September 12, 2001. They don't get it because unlike the rest of us, they see more wrong than right with America and therefore, nothing worthy of defense. They won't fight because they don't know how and that limits their thinking to faux diplomacy via the most corrupt institution on earth, the United Nations.

They fear Bush more than Bin Laden. They trust those European nations that profited by keeping the most brutal regime on earth in business while holding the UN and US hostage as the international terror threat gathered global strength and reach. They trust the UN more than the US and firmly believe that we can negotiate peace with Muslim extremists willing to strap bombs on the chests of their grade school children and send them into a pizza parlor.

In short, liberals don't know anything at all about real American values or principles today and they know even less about what it takes to protect and preserve those principles and values for future generations. Therefore, the idea that they can be entrusted with upholding, protecting, defending and preserving the very principles that they spend every day attacking, is insane. But if insanity is your thing...go for it!

NO! They just don't get it... any of it - and apparently, no matter the mountain of evidence before them, they never will.

Those they have trained to be federal dependents will vote for them no matter what. Those who can't tell the difference between an American soldier and a real terrorist will vote for them too. Those who can't read a butterfly ballot will vote for them. So will those just released from prison and even those without a pulse.

People who believe that Americas "bubble of supremacy" needs to be "burst", like billionaire socialist and currency wrecker George Soros will fund them, as will Hollywood limousine liberals, New England ketchup queens and tree dwelling former draft-dodgers in the North West.

And that's why the rest of us better show up on Election Day...

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: JBW@JB-Williams.com

Salad Days (Are Here Again)

Chris and I must have been watching the news last night when we saw the latest Christie Vilsack commercial "Potluck".

It speaks volumes that nobody was sitting at the picnic table with her and that nobody had touched her seven layer salad of lettuce, onion, peas.

I sure hope it doesn't include Pickle.

Just like Vilsack's campaign, that salad doesn't add up and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Where is Christie when the President comes to town?

After all it was Christie Vilsack that said...

 

Christie has been ducking Obama in Boone, Ames and Sioux City.

Christie turned comedic when she noted her husband will be with the President, "I think one Vilsack will be enough".

Wrong again, One Vilsack is too many.

Wrong Again!

Two Dummycrats came to Iowa to tell us how to pick our President.

From Saturday's Ragister...

Biden: Americans need experienced president

Americans must not vote for inexperienced, likeable presidential candidates, then hope the winner can get up to speed after the election, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden said in Des Moines...

Then today comes word that...

Character Trumps Policy for Voters

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

Wrong-o Joe! (Pictured putting Patrick Leahy (VT) and Ted Kennedy (MA) to sleep).

Maybe it's time to go back to borrowing from Neil Kinnock, or since you're in Iowa borrow from Nile Kinnick.

It's no surprise your middle name is ROBinette!

Next!

The Ragister reports today...

Iowans should be skeptical of presidential candidates who promise painless solutions to the nation's health care problems, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards said...

"You ask them how much it costs, if they don't tell you," he said. "And you ask them how they're going to pay for it."

"My plan costs $90 billion to $120 billion per year, and I've got a way of paying for it," he said... "The way we pay for it is by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the richest people in the country."

The Washington Times runs a column today that takes on myths of President Bush's tax cuts...

The rich now shoulder even more of the burden. Since 2000, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4 percent -- meaning the average family in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Let's take a look at what John Kerry once said about John Edwards (Both pictured in what appears to be a shakedown of some youngster)...

"John Edwards, I notice, voted to give life to George Bush's tax cut, because he voted for the first round of that tax cut..."

Just like his old running mate, he was before the War with Iraq before he was against it and he was for the tax cuts before he was against it.

House that again?

House forced to revote farm bill

Most embarraskin' for the Dummycrat controlled House.

Hours after voting to approve just the second veto override of President Bush's tenure on the massive farm bill, a colossal blunder means the House will have to have a do-over and repass the entire bill anew.

A clerical error meant the version of the bill that Mr. Bush vetoed yesterday differed from the version passed last week by Congress, and House Democrats said they will have to go through the whole vote process again.

Which means there will have to be another vote to extend the current bill.

CONgressman BOZO-well, who sits on the House Committee on Agriculture, said...

“I believe the President made a mistake by vetoing the farm bill..."

Who made the mistake?

Sounds like "misleading misinformation" and the scientific community is united in that fact.

BOZO-well continued...

"...it strikes me that 318 members of the House can’t be wrong, and 81 Senators can’t be wrong".

Can you say Lemming?

CommieTommie Harkin weighed in with his own brilliance...

"You can't get much more bipartisan than 318 votes in the House and 81 votes in the Senate."

Technically, yes you can by adding 117 more votes in the House and 19 more in the Senate.

I Stand Corrected

When I first read the Bret Hayworth story Ratio of Democrats in 4th congressional district increases, in Sunday's Sioux City Journal, I felt it was a non story.

When I decided to check the Secretary of State's website for the numbers, I knew a correction was in order and that's what I noted in my e-mail, yesterday, to Hayworth.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned when I got this response --

We made a substantial error and are making a retraction, by admitting the error and writing a new version of the story. Thank you for pointing us on this.

I so often point out their errors that most in the media don't respond and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Prior to this the best I had received was when the Ragister admitted -- You are right and we were wrong.

I then received another e-mail from Hayworth --

A blog post I just wrote regarding this, FYI:

I made an error in the latest Iowa 4th District voter registration totals in a Journal article Sunday that summarized statistics one year out from the 2014 election.

We were tipped to the error late Monday morning. We've now cited the error in the original story online. I've also written a reworked version that cites the error and includes the correct information, which will appear online and on Page A1 in the Journal on Tuesday.

Journal Editor Chris Coates has written a blog post to share what happened. Now I'm adding to that.

I looked at the Nov. 1 Iowa Secretary of State voter registration totals many times in writing the story, but got it wrong. I've used that site for registration totals for years as a political reporter in sharing voter totals, but in this case a number that was off exactly 3,000 made it into print due to my error. Essentially, I saw a '6' in the thousands column and it became a '9.'

I misread the total for Democrats as 129,959, but it was properly 126,959. The story used that wrong number and relayed an improper picture, incorrectly saying Democrats have made registration gains when compared to Republicans, while in actuality Republicans have slightly gained since the 2012 election.

I have contacted the offices of U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, in order to directly relay my apology for the error. A reporter can say they deal with a lot of information and numbers in writing scads of stories, but the reality is that information has to be correct for readers.

I failed with my reporting last week, for which I apologize to all Journal readers, including six-term Congressman King.

A retraction and an apology to Steve King?

WOW!

Let me type that again, backwards -- WOW!

Technically the Non Party voter numbers were transposed as well (176,138 is the correct figure and not Hayworth's 176,318), but hey, I'll live off this high for at least another few hours.

Journal Editor Chris Coates also thanks me, the person who pointed out the mistake.

Wrong

I'm enough of an adult, but just barely and the scientific community is united in that fact, to admit when I'm wrong.

After all they've previously admitted it to me when I was right and they were wrong (Stop The Presses).

I thought for sure, after reading Rick Green's account of their interview with President Obama, You Spin Me Round (Like A Record), that the Ragister would endorse his re-election.

The Ragister endorsing a Republican for President, it's certainly something that I never thought I'd see again in my lifetime (Richard Nixon in 1972 being the last one).

Michael Barone notes that the Ragister is not quite the statewide paper that it once was, but believes it's in the interest of the Romney campaign to transmit the text of the Register endorsement to voters in affluent suburbs all over the country; it is the kind of thing that will appeal to them.

As for endorsing a Republican for President, the Ragister is not alone, of those major metro dailies that have announced their picks, more than one in five that had previously backed Obama are now pushing Romney, according to a tally by the American Presidency Project.

Now who doesn't seem to be based at all in reality, Stephanie Cutter?

Wrong?

Once again the editorial board of the Ragister pulls out their tiny violin to defend those in prison.

The Register's Editorial: Life sentences for nonviolent crimes are wrong

We're made to feel sorry for Robert J. Riley --

Riley received a mandatory life prison sentence for providing minuscule amounts of LSD to fans of the Grateful Dead band after two prior convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana after other Grateful Dead shows.

We're told --

At his sentencing, U.S. District Judge Ronald Longstaff of Des Moines told Riley, “The mandatory life sentence as applied to you is not just. It’s an unfair sentence, and I find it very distasteful to have to impose it. The laws of Congress [are] not letting me impose what I think would be a fair sentence.”

Riley is a Deadhead in more ways than one and the scientific community is united in that fact.

"Mushroom Bob", as he was also known, had previously pled guilty to four separate charges involving small amounts of marijuana, hashish, and amphetamines. 

Riley's federal charge was for conspiracy to distribute more than 10 grams of LSD.

At sentencing, Longstaff also stated -- “it disturbs me that you’re obviously still a strong advocate of the LSD culture, and you will be, I predict, until the day you depart us. And I fear that if you do get out some day, I’m afraid you’re still going to be an advocate of that culture; and I think it may lead to further problems unless somehow you reach back and step back from your full support of that culture.” 

There you have it, a model citizen.

The Ragister asks --

Are these really the people society thinks should be locked away for the remainder of their lives while taxpayers foot the bill to feed, clothe and house them, and provide them with medical care?

The only time the Ragister professes to care about taxpayers, is when it favors criminals.

Just Thinking

Let me get this straight ---

Obama's health care plan was be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it.

Would be passed by a Congress that hasn't read it.

Whose members will be exempt from it.

Signed by a president who smokes.

Funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes.

Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese.

Financed by a country that is broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

I believe that's known as irony and the scientific community is united in that fact.

My friend Cal, Freedom's pal, comes through again.

Like in many things, truth is stranger than fiction and these government screw ups highlight what could go wrong.

Exposing veterans to contaminated colonoscopy equipment and recently sending letters wrongly telling others they have ALS.

Making stimulus payments to the deceased and incarcerated.

Stop The Presses

This just in...

Ragister admits I was right and they were wrong!

Truth be told, it's more than once and the scientific community is united in that fact.

On Thursday, I wondered Who To Believe?

As a Ragister article said, "President makes no mention of ethanol".

I then noted how the Sioux City Journal had reported otherwise and the transcript of the President's speech supported the Journal.

I e-mailed Ragister writer Dan Piller (of the community?) to see how he missed it, but received no reply.

I then e-mailed Editor and Managing Editor to ask how they could make such an error.

Here's the response I received from Carolyn Wash (the)burn (off your face)...

You are right and we were wrong. I am horribly embarrassed and we are talking here about how the error happened.

Most of the story stands, because this is such scant mention for such an important energy industry. But it is true that we overstated in framing the story.

We have corrected it...

Again, my deep apologies

Carolyn

The online corrected headline became...

President makes little mention of ethanol

"scant" made an appearance in the corrected article too.

They Auto Know Better

For their 1969 line, Ford's ad campaign featured this better idea ad.

All these years later, the light bulb still hasn't gone on for Harry Reid or Robert Gibbs.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

Reid, in talking about the auto industry bailout, said --

"Isn't it a good thing today in America that we have an automobile manufacturing sector? If it had been up to them [Republicans], General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone. Chrysler definitely would be gone."

BUZZ--WRONG!

Ford was not part of the federal bailout.

Gibbs took on Rush Limbaugh and every other critic “sitting in the cheap seats” –for criticizing the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler as a “government takeover” that smacks of socialism.

"you should ask Mr. Limbaugh — I don’t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.”

BUZZ--WRONG!

The F-150 is a not a car, it's a pickup truck and once again Ford was not part of the federal bailout.

Here's another better idea for the federal government from Ford.

What's wrong with this picture?

I saw this in a recent Washington Times/Inside Politics column...

Opponents of a Georgia law requiring voters to present photo IDs at the polls asked a federal judge yesterday to prevent the new state law from being enforced during Sept. 19 special elections.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other groups oppose the ID requirement. The law took effect July 1, but state and federal judges blocked its enforcement during the July 18 primary and Aug. 8 runoff elections.
In a 195-page ruling issued in July, federal Judge Harold Murphy, a 1977 appointee of President Carter, said he would later address whether the law could be applied to the Nov. 7 general elections.

If we're supposed to "Count every vote" and make sure "Every vote counts". Then there's nothing wrong with making sure only eligible voters vote, and only once!

The only acceptable identification should be a picture I.D.

No more utility bills!

I worked for a utility and have experienced first hand the number of people who perpetrate fraud with aliases.

Maybe there should be a national database to prevent the Dummycrats from pulling these kind of dirty tricks...

If there's one thing Donovan Riley apparently learned during his time in Chicago, it was "Vote early and often."

Riley, 69, the former CEO of the University of Illinois Medical Center and a former law professor at Loyola University, was seeking a state senate seat in Milwaukee until this item surfaced in the media.

On Nov. 7, 2000, the day of the big election between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, Riley appeared at the polling place in Oconomowac, Wis., where he had registered to vote just the day before, voting records show. His ex-wife owned a home there.

"Then he drove down to Chicago where he was already registered and he voted again," said Michael Crooks, a Wisconsin attorney who filed a complaint against Riley with Wisconsin election officials. "This is about as blatant as it gets."

Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher said it's usually difficult to prove such allegations. "But in this case, these documents seem to be pretty good," he said.

Chicago Board of Elections officials are said to be compiling documents to forward to the Cook County state's attorney for possible prosecution.

"My best recollection is that I was splitting my time between Wisconsin and Illinois and it's possible I made a mistake," Riley said in a statement released last week.

Riley dropped his campaign in the Democratic primary election for a state senate seat in Milwaukee, 35 miles from Oconomowac.

Riley also was a partner at the Chicago law firm of Michael Best & Friedrich.

Dummycrat Demagoguery

It was an October Monday 2004 in Newton, Iowa when John Edwards first professed that Dummycrats have the power to HEAL!

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

This week Dummycrats have been at it again.

Representative Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) is running for the U.S. Senate and told a group of 15 people at a Cancer Support Center.... "We are going to lick cancer by 2015."

Not to be outdone, Leonard BOZO-well told a gathering of a similar size at the Iowa State Fair...

"Scientists and the research community - they are unanimous in this ... they think they are just on the brink to do something for that, for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and a whole bunch of others. Why wouldn't we do that?"

He came to his brilliantly spoken conclusion watching a little girl's battle with juvenile diabetes and a childhood friend's paralysis. BOZO-well says that helped shape his support for stem cell research in hopes of finding a medical cure for such ailments.

First: Scientists and researchers are never UNANIMOUS on ANYTHING! Here's proof BOZO-well is wrong. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Health (NIH), has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that "people need a fairy tale."

Second: Charles Krauthammer, well known political commentator, is also an M.D. and has been paralyzed since 1972 says...."For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis.
The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it."

Finally: George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are lines of stem cells now available. There is no ban, President Bush vetoed expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. If embryonic stem cell research was so promising it would attract private investment, like Adult stem cell research.

Dummycrats and the media can't be bothered with facts!

Dummycrats ARE Weak on Defense

A DETAILED Editorial at Investors.com

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

Dummycrats sticker is available at cafepress.com/allrightgear

He gives lawyers a bad name

Last week multi-millionaire trial lawyer John Edwards gave us ABC gum (Already Been Chewed) when he brought back his phrase from 2004...

"We need a president of the United States who can walk and chew chewing gum at the same time."

Edwards later admitted he wasn't sure he could pull off such a feat.

Edwards is now recycling his "Two Americas" mantra.

Gosh they worked so well before, I see why he'd want to go to them again.

"Our tax system has been rewritten by George Bush to favor the wealthy and shift the burden to working families. That is simply wrong," Edwards said, according to text provided by his campaign. "There are still Two Americas."

There are two Americas!

There's the America that John Edwards owns and lives in and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Per The New York Times, Edwards (praying his supporters won't wise up) reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million.

Edwards is also the creator of a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty.

The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and the main beneficiary of the center's fundraising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show.

The Center paid for Edwards' travel to college campuses, one can't help but wonder if those are the same college's where he gave speeches on poverty to the tune of $55,000!

As the song goes... "Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer...".

Part of The Problem

Jason Clayworth and the other idiots at the Ragister have again shown how irresponsible they are with this headline and opening paragraph.

Iowa has another $120 million to spend

Because the three-member Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference makes that projection doesn't make it real money that needs to be spent.

Reading further into the article you find --

At one point the group considered boosting their projections by $100 million than approved today for the upcoming fiscal year. They ultimately decided against that idea in an attempt to be more conservative and avoid possible headaches to state officials who would have to consider mid-year cuts should the numbers be overly optimistic.

The Revenue Estimating Conference wrong?

It happens and the scientific community is united in that fact.

March 2009, the Revenue Estimating Conference stated the net General Fund revenues would be $129.7 million less in FY2009 and $269.9 million less in FY2010 than the Governor’s budgets.

The Governor's budget's are based on the December Revenue Estimating Conference projections.

I Go To Rio

It was interesting to note that a couple of fiberal newspapers have taken Obama to task for his O lympic efforts.

In a mostly glowing editorial The New York Times did wonder what he was thinking and advising that Obama didn't need this loss.

The Washington Post story admitted that White House advisers -- many of them Chicago natives, had a personal stake in the bid.

Which just goes to show that David Axelrod was wrong when he said, "It's the world's loss".

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

Taxpayers were once again the losers as this 14 hour trip cost over $1 Million.

At least Obama found 25 minutes to talk with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Is that only their second meeting?

I agree that most Americans would prefer Obama in the role of president rather than the head of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

I'm willing to wager that this O lympic bid was a mistake, they really mean that the Cubs are going to win the World Series in 2016.

Peter Allen - I Go to Rio
by GaleMcDonald

Them vs Us

The Peacenik pantywaists will perform in an Ames tonight.

...organizers are hoping the event will be instrumental in "making Ames a hotbed of peace."

..."Some people may still see us as unpatriotic..."

I agree with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)...

"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism."

To help people take constructive anti-war action, organizers will provide information and materials. Plans are afoot to ensure that the city offers year-around peace activities.

Bernard Lewis, age 90, has studied Islam and the Middle East for more than half a century.

He says...

The Muslims bring fervor and conviction to the struggle; we don't. The Muslims are self-assured in the rightness of their cause; we answer with self-denigration and self-debasement. Muslims prize loyalty and discipline; we prize politically correct multiculturalism.

...When the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, we read it as a victory for the West; Osama bin Laden saw it as a defeat of the more dangerous of the two superpowers. When the United States did not respond to terrorist attacks on its embassies, on the USS Cole and the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center, he concluded that America was weak and unable to reply to its enemies.

Once again history repeats itself and these Peaceniks give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Poor Little Fool(s)

The geniuses of the Ragister editorial board have once again shown their brilliance...

It's not often Congress has an opportunity to cut a program and feel pretty darn good about it.

They urge lawmakers to Kill subsidy for Medicare Advantage plans

After the whole death panel debate, I'm not sure it's wise to use "Kill" and "Medicare" in the same sentence.

In addition, they are wrong in their first sentence analysis.

CONgress always has the opportunity, they never take advantage of the opportunity to cut a program and the scientific community is united in that fact!

In the words of Ronald Reagan...

“Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Obama In A Box?

It's about time that the media saw through the phoniness that is Barack Obama and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Mark Halperin: Obama was a 'dick' yesterday

Halperin has apologized profusely --

“I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the President. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers…"

Although, it doesn't look like Halperin was wrong

Oficial Ingles

With ICE doing their job in Eastern Iowa, I found this article to be germane and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The Assimilation Factor

It appears that a majority of Americans want immigrants to learn English and become citizens.

A report “Measuring Immigrant Assimilation” states...

The current overall assimilation level for all immigrant groups combined, measured on a scale of zero to 100, is, at 28, lower now than it was during the great immigration wave of the early 20th century, when it never went below 32.

...our largest immigrant group (from Mexico) arrived with little education and even less knowledge of English, and they have stayed that way for an extended period.

Why, again, is English as our official language wrong?