The Air Show at Andrews AFB

I love this country. I love our military. I love airplanes. These three things together make air shows one of my favorite places to visit on Earth. I love the sights, maneuvers and antics of the daredevil planes... but most of all, I love the sound. I love the roar - up close - of aircraft engines. I love hearing the sound of 60,000 lbs of thrust rattling my bones. It makes me emotional, this sound. I can't explain it. It's part pride in what we've accomplished as a nation (both technologically and militarily), and part patriotism from being so close to the mighty power that defends us.

I have compiled a few of the high-definition videos I shot for you to enjoy. Of course, in YouTube they are no longer HD... you'll have to come over to enjoy them in full glory!


Air Force Heritage Flight (4 generations of top Air Force fighters: P51, F4, F15E & F22)


F-22 Raptor Awesomeness


B2 Stealth Bomber

The Pakinstani Problem

In response to those news organizations lamenting the loss of stability in Pakistan... I hate to break it to you, but Pakistan has never been stable. In fact, it's ironic that Musharraf's dictatorship has been a beacon of stability when contrasted with Bhutto's old (and extremely corrupt) government.

Stability notwithstanding, Musharraf has made a poor move in declaring this state of emergency. He has essentially thumbed his noses at American and British support, without which he (and thus, Pakistan) doesn't stand a chance financially. However, his move, no matter how poor, has a certain amount of (madman's) logic to it. Masharraf had no other choice if he wanted to remain in power. And it seems, despite his platitudes to the contrary, that it is power he wants. He couldn't accept the Pakistani judiciary's looming opinion that he relinquish his military role if he wants to be President, because he would suddenly be vulnerable to Islamic extremists who have been trying to kill him for years. Without the military, he cannot enforce the high level of protection he has been affording himself.

Also, without the military, Musharraf cannot stop the swelling of support for Bhutto now that she's returned from her self-imposed exile. And while I have no love for Musharraf's dictatorship, I have even less love for criminals like Bhutto, who are blindly given support just because she claims to embrace democracy. Given the media coverage, you'd think that she was the savior of the middle east. In fact, it was largely because of her corruption that Pakistani madman and nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, was able to sell Pakistan's nuclear secrets to a half dozen rogue nations from Venezuela to Iran.

However, despite the alarm raised by the press, nothing has really changed in Pakistan. Musharraf is still the dictator and the government is still in control of Pakistani's nuclear arsenal (the latter point is a good thing). He will, eventually, have to face the music for going back on his promise of letting go of some power in the form of a likely drawback of US and British financial support. This may force him to relinquish his military title while remaining President, or it may not. If his goal is to remain in power, then this is his best bet. So, why go through the motions of declaring this state of emergency? Well, he may be sending a message to India that he still retains control. Remember, it is in India's best interest that Pakistan's government remains stable - and that means more Musharraf.

The US is in a tough spot, because we also recognize the level of stability under this dictatorship (and in a sense, rely on it). However, we have a problem of hypocrisy to deal with: namely, that we ousted one man (Saddam Hussein) because he was a tyrant, while we support another (again, it is in our best interest to keep Pakistan stable - not only because of the nukes, but because Musharraf has given the US more support in its war against Islamic fascism than any other Pakistani leader). So, we have to condemn his actions, and Congress may vote to reduce our financial support... but in the end, he'll still be President - albeit, one with further-weakened credibility. And, that's not good for anyone. Especially Musharraf.

The Left's Newest Boobs!

No, I'm not talking about the Pelosi twins. I'm talking about Rep. Jim "Moronic" Moran (D-VA) and Rep. Jim "McDorkus" McDermott (D-WA). And, if the United States loses in its next major war, I'm blaming these two idiots (and their ilk) for the loss.

In an effort to oppose everything related to our national defense, these two yokels on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee decided that they will vote against the recommended $88 million that it will cost to upgrade our B-2 bombers for 21st century warfare. Specifically, the upgrade would allow the B-2 to have increased payload capacity to accommodate a bomb that is in development called the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) - the soon-to-be largest non-nuclear bomb in the arsenal. So, naturally, in all their grandstanding glory, Moronic and McDorkus claim that this money is really Bush's way of funding his future war with Iran. Therefore, they must oppose it! Wow, what tremendous vision these men have... all 3 inches of it.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose the funding.

“That’s a clear red flag,” Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush’s war policies, said the funding request was the latest of many signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his “biggest fear between now and the election.”

“We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster,” he said. “They’ve been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.”

Do these idiots even know anything about the defense issue for which they write the checks? The MOP is currently under development. And as Spook86 points out:

Modifying B-2s to carry the MOP is hardly an indicator of a pending attack on Iran. As the CQ report notes, the weapon is still under development, and it's unclear when it might be ready for operational use. If the MOP follows a "typical" developmental cycle, then figure two or three years--at a minimum--for finalizing the design and testing prototypes. In other words, the massive ordnance penetrator won't be available until the next President is in the White House. So much for next year's "October surprise."

What kind of fools oppose a legitimate military upgrade that will help us counter threats against other states such as China and Syria - both of which have a penchant for hiding things deep underground? As if Iran is the only possible threat. But even if it was, this upgrade would still be a smart move for the military and any Commander in Chief.

So, we go without this upgrade, and thus, have limited capability to use non-nuclear devices in the theater of combat. The B-2 was designed to deliver a nuclear payload. I suppose this means we'll just have to stick to the policy of nuking our enemies due to a lack of other options - courtesy of two of the dumbest Members of Congress ever to grace the Capitol. Really, how shortsighted can you get?

Fostering Anti-Americanism: The Continuing Chronicles of Columbia University

At first glance, I pretty much agreed with Peggy Noonan's comments in the WSJ regarding Iranian President Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Columbia University in New York. After all, she makes some really good points:

But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.

And I have to admit, I really didn't care much about Ahmadinejad's visit until I read her article. I thought I agreed. But after reading her article, something started nagging at me. Then it hit me: Despite some of these points, I have a problem with Noonan's main argument: She compares Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech with Khrushchev's UN speech, without going into the reasons why Columbia wanted him to speak at their campus in the first place. Despite the fact these are two completely different venues, she's missing a crucial element behind Columbia's invitation - motive.

We know that Columbia has a political agenda that has opposed the leadership in our country since, oh, about the day The Goracle conceded the election. They have kicked military recruiters off the campus, and attempted to put the smack-down on the school's ROTC program as well. There is a huge anti-military presence there. So, in a sense, Columbia was continuing the problem Noonan points out with American political debates. By inviting Mr. Ahmadinejad, Columbia provided a safe audience (at least in terms of hostility towards American foreign policy). The laughs at the "we don't have any homos in our country" statement was inconsequential, and is actually what one would expect from a liberal school. It may have been a wake up call (of sorts) to the Iranian leader, but it was inconsequential as proof that Columbia had provided a true forum for debate.

Moreover, Noonan misses the point all together when it comes to the way universities have become a more focused tool aimed at subverting the nation's President and foreign political agenda. Can you imagine asking Khrushchev to come speak on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis to explain "his view"? Or what about inviting Ho Chi Minh to Georgetown while troops were dying in Vietnam? No way that would have flown. But now, we're expected to believe the argument that having this tyrant speak as we are considering sanctions (keeping in mind that we don't even engage in official diplomacy with Iran, whereas the Soviet Union had an embassy, ambassador and everything) is somehow the sign of a healthy democracy? I don't buy it.

The bottom line is that Columbia was not looking for honest intellectual dialogue. They only wanted to make President Bush look bad for pursuing sanctions (and possibly war) against Iran. It's safe ground for them - a win/win - many Americans are weary of war and they are capitalizing on that to make a point. Never mind that Iran is directly behind the murders of American troops in Iraq, and had publicly called for the destruction of Israel.

People like Ahmadinejad just don't deserve a forum in the US in a time of war.

Another Clock is Ticking in the Middle East

An unlikely source for good political commentary -- particularly when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs -- the good psychoanalyst over at ShrinkWrapped has a few interesting words about the time bomb that is primed and ready to explode in Syria. His analysis comes on the heels of this report, which says the rumors of war between Israel and Syria may become reality sometime very soon.

"Meanwhile, even The New York Times admits that leaving Iraq would be a disaster while opportunistic Democrats and feckless Republicans compete to see who can surrender more quickly, ignoring the fact that the fighting in Iraq is currently all about al Qaeda, who they claim we should be fighting.

Chaos could easily descend upon the entire Middle East with extremely dangerous implications for the entire world. Consider a summer war, with Iranian and Syrian over-reach and Israeli desperation. What are the implications of a super-critical Middle East disorganizing into a state of higher entropy. What happens when oil goes to $120 a barrel and stays there. The United States can tolerate a recession; can China?"

Check out the complete analysis here. It's worth a read.

Every Nut Seems to Be Demanding Fascism... But, Who Plans on Delivering?

You know, I grew up watching the sci-fi movies that showed a future world where everyone lived in a semi-fascist state. I used to always wonder, "how did the subject civilization get to this point?" as the movies always took place after such a system had been established for a long time.

The obvious reasons for such a state of affairs would likely be based on the conclusions one might draw now from the increased attention on security. "How can you let Bush ruin our freedom?" they say. And yes, the police that would be required to maintain security might seem like a scary prospect, but it's the least likely to actually lead to a fascist superstate.

Everyone seems to be asking for some kind of fascism these days. The environmentalists want you to give up all of your technology and conveniences so that we can live in harmony with nature and stop the spread of evil global warming (they really mean capitalism). How do they propose to do this? By using legislation to limit what you do and how you do it. It would force an absolute lifestyle change, and those in power promoting it would be able to stay in power indefinitely based on the never-ending nature of the so-called threat (the very thing with which they use to persecute Bush regarding the War).

But even with their proclivity for a Stalinist "green" state, the environmentalists have nothing on Islamic fundamentalism when it comes to fascism. As was said in a comment to a previous post, the stated goal of Islam is world domination (I'm simplifying the language here, but ask any Muslim if Allah will tolerate a world with many faiths). The Islamo-fascists want to forcefully impose their will on you. The penalty for non-compliance is death. That's as close to good 'ole fashioned fascism as you can get.

Yet the people who whine about things like profiling act as if it is the end of the world. "Do you want Big Brother" watching over your shoulder?" they say. Well, given our choices, I'd say that being secure is a little more palatable. The fact that the only point of reference those opposed to increased security have is a work of fiction shows how little they actually know about the issue.

There are limits, of course. And luckily, no one at the Department of Homeland Security is advocating that you give up any of your personal freedoms to the degree in which Islamo-fascists and Environmental Fundamentalists demand. Yet, because of the political correctness that has been forced down our throats for generations, we are afraid to stand up against those who would do us harm because we are afraid of offending them! (if only they had such self-control...)

If we are to face down the real threat posed by Islamo-Fascism, it's time we elect leaders who take it seriously. Instead of accusing the President of being the enemy, these people ought to open their eyes and turn their attention to the actual enemies who want to kill us and remove the word "freedom" from our vocabularies - permanently.

The Coming Islamic Showdown With the West

As we sit here in America with our heads in the sand, the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate. It's no secret that I think the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be stepped-up, and that our current leadership is letting the whole thing fall apart. But the reasoning behind my opinion has never been so succinctly articulated as was done in this compelling piece from today's OpinionJournal.

Here's an excerpt:

A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler's contempt for America, stoked by the policy of appeasement, is a familiar story. But there are many others. North Korea invaded South Korea after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Korea lay beyond our "defense perimeter." Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after our ambassador assured him that America does not intervene in quarrels among Arabs. Imperial Germany launched World War I, encouraged by Great Britain's open reluctance to get involved. Nasser brought on the 1967 Six Day War, thinking that he could extort some concessions from Israel by rattling his sword.

I would encourage you to read the entire article. We're sending messages of surrender to our enemies. It's no surprise they feel emboldened when they don't face consequences for their actions.

Here Come the Suicide Bombers

It was only a matter of time. In the 70's and 80's, they killed us overseas. In the 90's they expanded their operations to larger targets. At the turn of the millennium, they focused on large, dramatic attacks which culminated with 9/11. But was that all radical Islam had in store for the West? Of course not.

Now, hiding in training camps in the badlands of Pakistan, a new breed of radical Muslim terrorist is emerging. This new crop of recruits won't be headed to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem... these guys are headed to shopping malls, transit systems and public places near you - here in America.

What if We Get Nuked?

A morbid question, to be sure. However, it is something every American should have asked himself at least once - especially since we live in an age where the possibility of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon and using it in an American city is growing higher each year.

William Perry, former Secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration has a few interesting things to say about this subject. How would we be affected? What decisions would we need to make? Those of us in the DC area need to be mindful of such things.

Perry says:

"Only the federal government could help the country deal rationally with the problem of radiation, which is unique to nuclear terrorism and uniquely frightening to most people. For those within a two-mile-wide circle around a Hiroshima-sized detonation (in Washington, that diameter is the length of the Mall; in New York, three-fourths the length of Central Park; in most cities, the downtown area) or just downwind, little could be done. People in this zone who were not killed by the blast itself, perhaps hundreds of thousands of them, would get radiation sickness, and many would die."

Most of the time, if not all of the time, I would argue for reduced federal involvement during a disaster. It's not the place of the federal government to take the role of first responder, and (depending on the scale and advance warning) it's unrealistic to expect them to respond to every tornado and hurricane. That's traditionally the responsibility of the state. However, I am inclined to argue in favor of a federal leadership role in the aftermath of a nuclear attack - for precisely the reasons listed in the above quote.

The fear of a nuclear attack is something I grew up with as a kid in the 80's. I was familiar with most Cold War doomsday scenarios. Fortunately, mutually assured destruction (MAD) made such "end of life as we know it" scenarios less likely. This new threat, on the other hand, scares me even worse.

Terrorists want to kill us. I know that's a huge surprise, but they do. Osama bin Laden himself has said he wants to kill 4 million Americans. What better way to accomplish this than to detonate a nuclear weapon (or two, or three) in an American city? What's worse, is that the timing of such an event is unpredictable. And when it happens, as Mr. Perry points out, the citizens in this country are going to go nuts with panic.

If we don't prepare for such an event - mentally, physically and spiritually - our way of life (as we know it) will change in its aftermath, and I can guarantee you it won't be for the better.

Something to think about...

Directly from the Mouth of the Enemy

Despite what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha would have you think, pulling out of Iraq will not make us safer. It will not end the violence being waged against Americans. But don't take my word for it. The enemy just stated it for the record himself:

Directly from the mouth of the enemy (at time index 6:45):

"Let us be clear - a pullout from Iraq alone in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes. So stop wasting your time and trying to save face with the futile, farcical maneuvers on Capitol Hill, and start making some serious moves."

So there you have it. The democrats would have you believe that pulling out of Iraq will make America safer. As the enemy himself states, that is a lie. They will attack us no matter what.

Terrorism Works: Democrats Prove It!

It's that simple. Al Qaeda has successfully intimidated us into surrendering. No matter that far fewer soldiers have died in this war than for any war of similar duration in the past. No matter that the Iraqis themselves don't want us to leave. Nope, none of that matters. For Pelosi and Reid, all that matters is power. They use one simple formula: Biased media + disingenuous politicking + hatred for Bush = keep Democrats in power.

Congress just surrendered to the enemy. See, that's what happens in war. You fight with and wear down your enemy until someone gives up (in this case, us). The one who stays declares victory. Radical Islamic fascism has defeated our benevolent and "corruption-free" Congress. Yay for progressives!

Remember when Chamberlain did this back in 1938? I mean, if appeasement worked then... oh wait.

It's also interesting to note that the democrats, in a flagrant display of hypocrisy, did the following to get the bill through (according to CQ):

As minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded in 2004 that the House obey rules requiring that members be given a minimum of three days to read legislation “to prevent . . . hasty and dangerous decision-making.”

But now that she’s running things as Speaker, that rule was pushed aside — at least for the Iraq supplemental (HR 1591 — H Rept 110-107).

“That is concerning,” said Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has pushed in the past for more time so lawmakers can decipher the fine print in legislation. Still, Flake and his GOP colleagues didn’t put up much of a fight this time, since they want the bill sent to President Bush quickly so he can veto it and the process can start all over again.

House rules state that bills must be available to members for three calendar days (excluding weekends and holidays) prior to floor consideration. But the Rules Committee, which essentially operates as an arm of the Speaker’s office, blocked members from raising any points of order against the conference report.

Pelosi's Felonious Shadow Presidency Isn't Just a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory

Now she wants to go to Iran??? No wonder the rest of the world seems to think that we have two operating Heads of State, just like Europe (a President and a Prime Minister). What they don't understand is that our constitution and laws clearly leave foreign policy (especially with our enemies) to our only Head of State, the President of the United States. Unfortunately, that quaint piece of ancient legalese is also lost on our House Speaker, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

The "Logan Act" (one of our oldest laws) makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

The WSJ Reports:

When proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war . . . ."

Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

These trips of hers go beyond fact finding. If Pelosi continues to play the part of President II, then perhaps it's time to take a long hard look at a law that has been part of this country almost as long as the country itself has been in existence, and prosecute her under the Logan Act.

Little Ahmadinejads

Iran has pulled off a major public image coup. Not only did they make Britain look completely impotent and weak, they were able to get away with parading prisoners of war on television (against international law), got to show a disingenuous "nice face" of Iran, and turn a bunch of British soldiers into Ahmadinejad-clones. Embarrassing. And now these soldiers are showing off their goodie-bags, given to them by the Iranian government as a courtesy for being used as total propaganda tools.

Iran walks away from this showing the world it can get away with anything, as well as demonstrating the influence it can have on global oil prices (prices spiked when hostages were taken).

Some may argue, "If these had been American soldiers, Bush would have risked their lives and war by threatening military action. At least Blair got it right, through diplomacy." Such thinking is ignorant and short-sighted. By appeasing Iran without consequence, far greater damage has been done. Does anyone honestly believe that Ahmadinejad will come away from this thinking, "You know, Europeans are so nice. I'm going to stop playing terrorist and abandon my dreams of ushering in the Hidden Imam who will turn the whole world's population into Muslims by force", and abandon his nuclear plans? Ha. This kind of appeasement will only embolden him, and we'll all end up paying the price down the road in war, a world economy turned on its head and increased belligerence from middle eastern countries.

How the Left Communicates

When there is no rational argument for their position, those on the left often resort to what you see here: Vandalism, and the destruction of personal, private and public property. And it's not a rare occurrence. It would appear that most of these anti-American protesters have a way of disrespecting the institutions they claim to represent.

Parallels Between the Left and Jihadis

Islamists have been doing it since 9/11, but only recently have their efforts risen to such levels as to influence American discourse and politics - especially on the left. Below are some of the marching orders which instruct the Mujahadin (jihadi warriors) in their efforts to persuade Americans to withdraw from Iraq. Ironically, the American left have been using these same tactics as well. Don't believe me? Check out these pictures (again, below) from a Portland, Oregon "anti war" rally.

What the Islamists say (courtesy Memri.org):

Invent Stories About American Soldiers You Have [Allegedly] Personally Known

“Obviously, you should post your contribution... as an American... You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates... or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves...”

“Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God...”

How to Make Americans Feel Frustrated With Their Government

“You should enter into debate or respond only if it is extremely necessary... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government..., which will... render them hostile to Bush... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote to bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible.”

What the American Left says (courtesy LGF):

(I obviously edited a certain word for this blog)

Blatant Media Bias

You know, the next time Media Matters and the left wants to cry about Fox News being biased, they ought to stop by CNN's webpage and see what mainstream America has had to put up with for the past 15 years in the way of blatant liberal bias.

This is a screenshot of CNN's top stories taken a few minutes ago. Absolutely ridiculous.

Let's break it down a bit...

A trumped-up hit piece on Rudy Giuliani, a republican, followed by a story about Hillary Clinton, a democrat, showing her to be fairly balanced when it comes to the war (aimed at making people feel she's not so bad, after all).

Then, an apologetic article about one of the worst terrorists in human history, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. CNN/Time asks, is he "believable?" I'll tell you what's unbelievable - the fact that CNN is even asking that question.

Then the list goes on to describe Nancy Pelosi as one of the sexiest seniors around. Yeah, that's top story material. More like pandering to the leader of the left.

But CNN's icing on the cake, however, is a story about how Fox News' number one rated Bill O'Reilly is being sued by Zsa Zsa Gabor's weird husband. With reporting like this, it is no wonder CNN consistently gets trampled by Fox News in the ratings.

So, let me ask you, does it get any more biased than this? Can it be any more obvious? I mean, they're talking about how sexy Pelosi is for her age when real stories, like the fact US soldiers are making real headway in Iraq with the increased troop levels are being ignored. Or what about how the Democrat majority's plan to withdraw from Iraq failed in the Senate?

If the people in this country continue to rely on the slanted news of the left, this country and its cherished freedom of the press is doomed. If we cannot trust major world news outlets like CNN to be balanced, how can we expect any more from the citizens of our nation?

80% Less Insurgent Attacks in Iraq, and the Liberal Press Doesn't Bat an Eye

In keeping with the leftist agenda of destroying President Bush at all costs (including one-sided reporting, shameless progressive propaganda and lying), the mainstream media is failing to report that insurgent attacks in Iraq are down 80%. This is significant news. This is news the country should hear about, but they won't... at least, not from CNN and other liberal news outlets. They'll continue to report every misstep, and provide refuge to our enemies. Heaven forbid they actually report news that will weaken the enemy's resolve.

The World Tribune reports:

The U.S. Army has reported a sharp decrease in insurgency attacks in Baghdad.

In the week of Feb. 24 to March 2, officials said, insurgency strikes and suicide bombings dropped for the fourth consecutive week in Baghdad. They linked this to the steady increase of security patrols in the city.

The army said violence has decreased by 80 percent in the most insurgency-ridden areas of Baghdad. Officials said Shi'ite and Sunni insurgents have been overwhelmed by the current joint Iraqi-U.S. operation in the Iraqi capital.

Democratic Leadership Raises White Flag

Dear Democratic Leadership:

Do you really think, in a climate of warfare, that anything less than full public support for our President will be seen as anything but beneficial to our enemies? Look, the terrorists want us to lose. They don't want us out of Iraq, they want us out of existence. Iraq keeps those who hate America engaged overseas, instead of coming here to martyr themselves.

No one wants this war to go on forever, but it's not done yet. The President said, in 2002, that the War on Terror would require patience, and would encounter many losses on both sides. We all agreed. That's what happens in a war, and wars are fought when our own lives at home are threatened. If you think that this war in Iraq is about anything other than protecting America from unstable middle eastern influence, you're wrong.

Please, stop with the soundbytes and posturing for the short term, and start thinking about the long term survival of our way of life. I don't want to be cowering in fear when the attacks start here at home. And they will. They will if you continue to weaken our nation in the eyes of the enemy.

Sincerely,

The Conservative Futurist

The Line Must Be Drawn Here!

Spray painting the United States Capitol? This is intolerable. Anti-American (passing themselves off as anti-war) protesters spray-painted the U.S. Capitol building. If anything shows these people for who and what they are, then this is it. There is no question in my mind that these people hate America, hate its institutions (the Capitol building, for example) and hate anyone who disagrees with their obtuse world view.

Hanging for Dummies, Courtesy of CNN

Did you know there is a right and wrong way to hang a man? Well, you probably do now thanks to this head-popping story. But a day too late for the people losing their heads in Iraq, CNN has posted "How Hanging is Supposed to Work" for their viewers. Apparently, the head isn't supposed to come off.

Here's the facts:

• Hanging is the suspension of a person by a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death. Throughout history it has been used as a form of capital punishment in various forms. The method used in Iraq is modeled on the 19th-century method of execution used in Britain, which formed the Iraqi state after World War I.
• Four types of drop have been used in hanging: the short drop, suspension, standard and long drop. In all but the last, subjects can remain conscious for minutes and eventually die of strangulation and/or loss of blood to the brain.
• The 19th-century long drop through a trap door is intended to be more humane, generating enough force from the tightening of the rope and the twisting of the noose knot under the jaw to break the neck. A calculation is made based on the convict's weight, height and build of the drop needed to break the neck. The distance is typically 1.5-2.5 metres (5-9 feet).
• When the neck breaks and severs the spine, the subject immediately loses consciousness. Brain death follows in minutes. But if the drop is too short, the subject can be strangled. If it is too long, the subject can be decapitated.