About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Isn't It Strange

Isn’t it odd that the very Muslims who claim the Islamic terrorists can't be Muslim because they kill Muslims never seem to be all that interested in supporting the effort to stop them?

In the last five years, for example, we've seen CAIR produce far more 'News Briefs' and 'Action Alerts' condemning the U.S. treatment of captured terrorists than it has acknowledging and condemning their acts of murderous violence - even against Muslims.  Neither can we remember CAIR ever condemning the killing or capture and execution of American soldiers, who are almost always in the line of duty to protect Muslim civilians overseas.

Obviously, the religion comes first.  And, as their action and inaction bear witness, Muslims appear to display remarkable tolerance for whatever furthers Islam - including Islamic terror.

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

NIE Confirms That The Outcome Of The Iraq War Is Critical To The War On Terrorism

From a report on heritage.org


After critics of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy seized upon selective leaks from an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” President Bush ordered the declassification of key judgments from that report to refute the misleading portrayal of it. The excerpts released by Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte make clear that, while the war in Iraq is one of many sources of inspiration for terrorists seeking to kill Americans, the outcome of that war is critical to the struggle against terrorism.

 

The Administration’s critics focused on one sentence in the report, which was leaked conveniently in the run-up to the fall elections, six months after the report’s release:  “The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

 

This conclusion should not surprise anyone. Of course, the jihadists are going to use any excuse to promote their evil agenda. They also have invoked the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the deployment of U.S. troops to protect Saudi Arabia, the Crusades, Islam’s eviction from southern Spain in the Middle Ages, Danish cartoons, and the Pope’s recent comments to advance their deadly cause.

 

But even more striking were the sentences that preceded and followed the now celebrated “cause celebre” sentence:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

  • The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

In other words, the NIE concludes that a victory against jihadists in Iraq would reduce the number of future terrorists while a defeat in Iraq would inspire more terrorists to take action. This is a very important judgment that has crucial implications for U.S. policy in Iraq. 

 

No one leaked this key judgment to the mainstream media. The leaker, of course, didn’t reveal that conclusion because it undermines the case against the Administration’s Iraq policy and would have diluted the political impact of the leak. After all, if the outcome of the war in Iraq will help to determine the number of terrorists who threaten the United States and its interests in the future, then the Administration is correct in arguing that Iraq is a crucial front in the war against terrorism.

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

The Peace Of Islam

Behold the Peace of Islam: Picture of the Week
Islam: Changing Lives for the Deader
The Religion of Peace at work in Ramallah.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Always Want To Scare You About This

Interesting information about "global warming"


Global Warming Scares Heat Up

by Alan Caruba
Posted Oct 02, 2006

To understand the whole global warming debate you have to understand that it is not about any dramatic warming of the Earth. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age with time out for some mini-Ice Age episodes.

As Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has repeatedly written, the average global temperature has increased about one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. It’s a natural cycle and, since we are at the end of the current 12,000-year interglacial cycle of temperate climate, we are due another Ice Age.

Global warming is about controlling the world’s population by impeding or making more costly the use of energy -- oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear -- in developed, industrial nations and thwarting efforts to expand the use of electricity in Third World nations. Keeping people ignorant and ultimately dependent on a vast one-world government based on failed socialist utopian policies is the name of the game.

This explains in part why so much of the global warming propaganda has been coordinated and emanated from the United Nations. Its International Panel on Climate Control and its Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control are just two examples of the mischief that is generated by the UN. The Panel has revised its estimates of global warming so many times that it has become a farce. Worse yet, those estimates are all based on deeply flawed computer models.

So what explains just a few of the headlines we are all reading every day now? “Earth spews troubling amount of methane,” “Winter ice declining rapidly in the Arctic,” and “Nastier hurricanes? Just blame us: Study links human activity, monster storms.”

A friend of mine, John Brignell, a British professor emeritus, runs a website called NumberWatch.com.  On it you will find a page that documents how just about every imaginable natural phenomenon has been attributed to global warming. It’s a very long, often totally contradictory, list and a tribute to the idiocy and hypocrisy that fuels the global warming hoax.

While the global warming hoax has an economic component whose focus is energy use, there is a political component because it is through the implementation of laws that the control of human behavior is achieved. This was seen most recently when California’s legislature voted to implement controls on “greenhouse gas emissions” from utilities and other industrial activities said to be the primary cause of global warming. California has notoriously failed to keep pace with the growth of its population and the provision of sufficient electrical power.

The global warming hoax is also intended to force people to use public transportation or to select alternative forms of energy such as solar or wind. These latter two are totally inadequate to our needs and exist, like ethanol, largely because of government subsidies and mandates.

So why are we reading this sudden new spate of articles about things alleged to cause global warming? It is not a coincidence as, indeed, nothing one reads or hears incessantly is accidental. Where it takes on a very dangerous potential is the proposed legislation emanating out of Washington, D.C. these days.

Largely unable to find traction with its anti-war diatribes, the Democrat’s fallback position is to scare everyone with global warming. It began in the summer of 2005 when Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) proposed a bill calling for modest mandatory limits on emissions of greenhouse gases said to cause climate change.

These limits are moving forward despite the unanimous rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the Senate some years ago.

It is essential to keep in mind that climate change is caused by factors such as solar activity, the heating or cooling of the oceans, cloud formation and activity, and volcanic activity. Human beings have absolutely no “control” over these climate factors.
 
The vast bulk of the Earth’s surface isn’t inhabited, despite the fact there are six billion humans extant. Humans and other animals’ lives depend on the oxygen we breathe. We exhale carbon dioxide. The Earth’s vegetation benefits from the carbon dioxide as the essential element it requires for growth. And yet there are people in government and elsewhere that will tell you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or even a “pollutant” that is bad for the Earth.

Some of those people are in Congress and these days it is, in the words of Business Week reporter, John Carey “awash in carbon-capping bills and proposals from Senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.), Jim Jeffords (I.-Vt.), Tom Carper (D.-Del.), John Kerry (D.-Mass.), and others. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) plans to introduce legislation on the first day of the next session of Congress.”

Perversely, they will find support from the utility industry that would prefer regulatory certainty. This has nothing to do with the dubious, often duplicitous, science of global warming and everything to do with running a business. Similarly, the agricultural lobby will no doubt support this legislation in order to benefit from crops used to make ethanol, a gasoline additive that actually and grotesquely costs more to produce and provides less energy per use.

Finally, these proposed regulations to cap emissions are immediately nullified by the obvious fact that other nations such as India and China, with a billion people each, will not be joining this fraudulent effort. We could shut down all energy use in America without having any affect even if the false assertions about global warming were true.

The proposed legislation must be stopped before Congress in its stupidity imposes it. Previous Congresses thought Prohibition and the War on Poverty were good ideas. If you think life in America is expensive today, you have no idea how that cost will increase if global warming “controls” are imposed.

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

Don't Let Them Take Over

From HumanEvents.com, great article to make sure you get out and vote



Election 2006: Barbarians at the Gate

by Rod D. Martin
Posted Oct 02, 2006

In June of last year, Rep. John Conyers staged a mock hearing into impeachment charges against President Bush concerning Iraq.

According to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, Detroit's loony-left congressman "banged a large...gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him 'Mr. Chairman.''" Milbank wrote that Conyers was enjoying himself so much, he ignored his aides' pleas to stop the session.

Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, is among the rabid cast of characters ready to rule if conservatives don’t turn out to vote this fall.

All it takes is 15 House seats to go Democrat -- and then the "fun" begins.

At the top: Nancy Pelosi, the radical San Francisco Democrat, would become House Speaker.

Pelosi supports gay marriage, taxpayer-funded abortions for women in the military and strict gun control laws.

She’s also apparently given Conyers the nod on impeachment hearings. They will tear the country apart, with the full-throated support of the same media that saved Bill Clinton; they will make it impossibly dangerous for any country to be a U.S. ally; and they will give Osama bin Laden (and Saddam, and Ahmadinejad, and Chavez, and Kim Jong Il) the ultimate gift, all for the advancement of their party and their agenda of insane Bush hate.

And how about Maryland's Steny Hoyer as House majority leader?  Even the liberal Washington Post deems him one of the top ten pork-barrel spenders. Are Republicans spending too much? No question about it. But you ain’t seen nothin’ like this.

And for House majority whip, try Chicago's brass-knuckles pit bull Rahm Emanuel. The former Clinton finance director is one of the most radical pro-aborts in America; he was also one of the leading strategists behind Hillary Clinton’s failed plan to socialize health care.  Both issues are at the top of his agenda.

Then there's Barney Frank, who will head the Financial Services Committee. He founded the National Stonewall Democrats, his party's homosexual advocacy group.   And he'd like to force America not just to tolerate but to embrace the gay lifestyle, censuring anyone who disagrees. Certainly any attempt to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment would be as out as Frank himself.

There's also Charlie Rangel.  He wants to become Ways and Means Committee chairman and says he'll leave Congress if the Democrats don't make his dream real.

So if you vote this November, you'll not only help keep Charlie away from the nation's purse, but ensure his retirement from Capitol Hill.

Rangel has made clear he intends to repeal each and every Bush tax cut. That’s an almost $2 trillion tax hike, including the return of the marriage penalty and a real beating for the small businesses that have driven the current boom. And that’s just his warm-up act.

There’s more.  Stay home, and Henry Waxman gets to chair the Government Reform Committee, which is sort of like Libya or Iran chairing the UN panel on human rights (oh wait: these guys all support that too).

Besides backing HillaryCare, abortion on demand and draconian environmental rules, Waxman hopes to repeal the President's pro-abstinence programs for schoolchildren. A condom in every locker, a scalpel in every womb!

Assisting Waxman will be New York's appropriately-named Louise Slaughter, chairing the Rules Committee. She heads the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, and in her new position would single-handedly block all pro-life bills.

And we mustn’t forget John Murtha, who would chair the Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. Murtha intends to cut off all funding to our forces in Iraq, and would have the power to do it. Fifteen House seats -- which is to say, conservatives staying home -- is all that stands between us and a public surrender to al Qaeda.

Now let's be very clear:  

Conservatives have a serious beef with Republicans who don't act like Republicans: RINOs, or “Republicans in Name Only”.  

But a large majority of congressional Republicans are fine conservatives who have more than earned our support.  Punishing them for the sins of their RINO colleagues is pointless.

Punishing America is even dumber.  The place to fight liberal Republicans is the Republican primary. We gain nothing -- and lose what we’ve gained -- by handing power to people who make Arlen Specter look like Ron Paul. And the fact is, conservatives have made serious gains indeed, from missile defense to gun rights to the partial birth abortion ban. We risk losing those gains and a great deal more.

Our fellow conservatives need our help. So do our country and our children. For the sake of everything we hold dear, we better turn out in force this November. This is not the time to take our toys and go home.

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

Great Picture

Saw this on gramps blog.



ANTI-AMERICAN LACK OF INTELLIGENCE NETWORK
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Get Some Perspective

This is from thereligionofpeace.com website, it has great information, check it out.


So you think the Ku Klux Klan and the Spanish Inquisition are bad?
 
Put the Numbers in Perspective


More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)
 

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (
source)

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years. (source)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't They Deserve Protection Of The Geneva Convention

.



 

.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Lies

The only proof that Iran, the world's fourth largest energy exporter, is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the mere fact that this is what they tell us.  But the Mullahs of Iran also spent 18 years blatantly lying to the world about the very existence of their nuclear program - and they still refuse to allow inspections of their enrichment facilities for reasons that aren't that hard to guess.

The government also lies continuously about its sponsorship of Islamic terror, which includes the virtual creation of Hezbollah.  The Islamic republic is even led by a man who can't muster enough integrity to admit his role in the 1979 hostage crisis - despite photographs and eyewitnesses.

What credibility does Iran have left?  How stupid do we have to be to believe that a country sitting on over 100 billion barrels of oil reserve and 940 trillion cubic feet of natural gas truly has energy needs?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Only Want Some Excuse

Taken from an article at nationalreview.com
the liberals seem to believe that if only we were nice to them [Islamofacists] everything would be ok and they would not kill us.


Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that those mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn’t have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein’s statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the Pope’s comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it’s a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you’ve basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Great Gift For All

This is a great gift for all those special people on your X-mass gift list.  Found this on Michelle Malkin blog.



A ceramic bobblehead doll of the Prophet Muhammed - created to resemble the infamous caricature published by a Danish newspaper - is being hawked online for $22.99 a pop by an ex-Marine.

The unapologetic creator, Timothy Ames, 28, said the bobblehead is similar to "dashboard Jesus" figurines that can be stuck with adhesive to flat surfaces. "I thought, 'If they flipped out over some cartoons what will they do with a dashboard Muhammed?'" Ames said from his home in Hawaii.

But Islamic experts are not amused, saying the bobbleheads could anger Muslims, whose religion strictly prohibits depictions of the prophet.

"No depiction of the prophet, even if it is positive, should be made ever - and certainly not one as ridiculous as the bobblehead Muhammed," said Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, an assistant professor at New York University. "I don't think it's about freedom of speech. This is the freedom to insult, which he shouldn't be doing."




http://www.dashboardmohammed.com/store.html

These are 10oz. ceramic bobbleheads, not cheap plastic. PERFECT stocking stuffers for Christmas or Hanukkah gifts, if you're a twisted freak like me. For full product views click here.

10% of every purchase will be donated to my beer fund.
 

  pad
padDashboard Mohammed

$22.99pad

 

The following shipping charges will apply:
U.S. and Canada: $4.99/item
Anywhere else in the world: $9.99/item

**Due to current demand, please allow between 2-4 weeks for delivery.


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

Another Clinton Violaton Of Law

Braggadocio: Bill Clinton Admits to Serious Violation of Law

by Oliver North
Posted Sep 29, 2006

"I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006

Now there's a passage for the next edition of "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations"! It was a stunning, blatant confession -- made in the midst of a heated exchange on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace -- that as president, Clinton sanctioned the assassination of Osama bin Laden. To put this little piece of braggadocio in context, it should be noted that no other American head of state -- sitting or former -- has ever before admitted to such a serious violation of law. Though assassination is specifically forbidden as a course of action open to U.S. officials -- including presidents -- no one seems to have taken notice -- perhaps because they were so caught up with the theater of what was happening on the screen -- and not listening to the words being said.

Over the course of the past week there is hardly a talk show in America that hasn't run the tape of the Clinton tirade and then proffered instant analysis of the former president's performance. One jabber-jawed host even asked a guest after playing the clip, "Who won that exchange between Wallace and Clinton?" as if he were interviewing the judges at the Friday Night Fights.

Yet, not one of the "experts" has, as yet, observed that in all of this, the biggest losers weren't on screen -- it's the American people. The tape of a former president, arrogantly proclaiming on international television that he personally authorized the killing of a foreign foe may be great stuff for the screenplay of "Rambo V" -- but it's specifically forbidden by U.S. and international law. Over the course of fighting the jihad being waged against us, Clinton's intemperate words will come back to haunt us many times over. And of course, he won't be the one to pay the price.

Apparently neither violations of law nor increasing the vulnerability of the American people seem to matter much to Clinton, his political cronies or his allies in the media. The silence has been deafening from the barons of bombast and political potentates who went nuts last year when Rev. Pat Robertson suggested that Venezuela's tin-horn dictator Hugo Chavez should be "eliminated." Then, there were calls for an investigation of Robertson. Not so for Clinton.

For the record, Clinton proudly claimed to have broken a long series of U.S. law:
  • Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
  • Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.
  • Executive Order 12333 -- signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, labeled, "Prohibition on Assassination" says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the intelligence community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this order."
Without hubris, I must acknowledge that I wrote, "staffed" and presented EO 12333 to President Reagan for his signature. I was asked then -- and have been many times since -- if I thought such a prohibition was important. I did then and I do now. And since no chief executive has ever rescinded them, it seemed as though they did, too -- up until Clinton's petulant outburst.

Ordering the assassination of a foreign national is arguably more important than lying about a tryst with an intern in the Oval Office. So where is the "shock and awe" from human rights standard bearers who still complain about the so-called abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Do they not care that Clinton ordered an assassination?

Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and Colin Powell now? If we want the world to know our prisoners of war are accorded protection under the Geneva Conventions, don't we also want the world to know we don't engage in assassination?

And since presidential findings -- orders for the CIA to conduct covert operations -- are all highly classified, shouldn't those who reveal them be held accountable?

Ah, there's that word again -- "accountable." It doesn't apply to Clinton.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive