Confusion and Anger in the Anti-War Ranks

Today I encountered a group of anti-war demonstrators at the intersection of Chapel Street and Temple Street in New Haven, CT as I walked to Subway to get a sandwich. Clearly, there must have been some confusion in the ranks, because I saw several signs that said "vote the incumbents out" or "dump the incumbents."

Now, I tried to figure out to who exactly they were referring. It couldn't have been any Connecticut state politicians, because they do not control foreign policy. Could it have been the Republicans in congress? Well, they already got "dumped" in the last federal election. Is it possible to vote out a politician after they have already left office? As my confusion grew, I considered other possibilities. Perhaps they meant President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Well, President Bush can't be "voted out" because of term limits, and Vice President Cheney has declared his intention not to run for President. Therefore, the 2008 presidential election will have no incumbents. It was still unclear to who they were referring. Could it be the incumbent Democrats in congress? Do the protesters really want to vote out the Democrat incumbents in 2008 and hand the legislative branch back to the Republicans? Maybe they mean Senator Joe Lieberman. But he isn't running in 2008.

Then I understood. I had been over thinking the whole situation. You see, the protesters were simply filled with rage and ignorance, and were focusing it on anyone who disagreed with them. It struck me as a bit humorous too. I mean, here the Congress has just been returned to Democrat control after 12 years and the protesters are still not happy. Their left-wing agenda is being pushed through the House and Senate halls, and still they are not happy. Legislation to withdraw the troops and bring them home has been passed by the new majorities in Congress, and still they are not happy. The Democrats and the Liberal Media have succeeding in convincing a majority of Americans that we are losing the war, and still they are not happy. And, as a result, somebody has to be responsible, somebody has to be voted out, somebody has to be dumped.

As I passed by them on the way back, I felt a level of pity for these poor souls. To be consumed with so much hatred and so much anger cannot be healthy, not for the head and not for the heart. It reminds me of a great line from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Captain Picard, as played by Patrick Stewart, tells one of his officers:

"I think that when one has been angry for a very long time, it begins to become comfortable, like old leather. Then, finally, one cannot imagine having lived any other way."

The anti-war movement is angry, and has been for a very long time. The anger of these liberals has been born of their depression at the direction of the country and their frustration at not being able to change it. It has been nurtured by Democrat politicians seeking votes, and a liberal media more intent on pushing an agenda than on reporting news. I believe that now that anger has consumed these anti-war protesters, and they cannot imagine feeling any other way. I could see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices. Now, no matter how many liberal Democrats are elected, no matter how quickly the War in Iraq is lost and how fast the troops are returned home, no matter even if President Bush and his entire administration are impeached and sent to prison, these people would not be happy. They are now defined by their anger and their hatred. And that to me is sad. Happiness is the end of human action, as Aristotle put it, and life is too short to spend it bitter and angry.

So, as I completed my thoughts, I held tight to my sandwich and returned to work.

And Another Thing... Democrats Surrender, Giuliani Attacks and Alec Baldwin Insults

4 of 8 Democrat Presidential Candidates: No "Global War on Terror"
That's right. During the 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate, Brian Williams asked the following question:

"A second show of hands question: do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"


Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson all raised their hands.

Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Joe Biden, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Former Sen. Mike Gravel all did NOT raise their hands.

You can read the transcript, watch the video, or look at the photos. No matter which way you slice it, these four men did not believe there was a Global War on Terror. This, despite the fact that terrorists have carried out bombings in America, Britain, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, and made attempts in numerous other countries. This despite the terrorists' own call to war against us. And, this despite the fact that both Sen. Biden and Sen. Edwards both voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, which specifically mentions the "War on Terrorism" 3 times. Well, Senators, if there is no Global War on Terror then why did you vote for the resolution? Do you believe the terrorist war has gone away? Or are you and your fellow Democrats simply demagoguing the issue again?

Congress Passes Bill Surrendering in Iraq, Veto Awaits
Your Democrat controlled Senate passed the measure yesterday along party lines, 51-46. The bill sends $124.2 billion to fund the war, but requires troops to withdraw from Iraq by Oct. 1 or sooner. A similar bill passed along party lines in the House on Wednesday, 218-208.

A couple thoughts. I got a bunch of comments when I called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a traitor. Well, every single Senator and Representative that voted for this bill is a traitor as well. Here you have a political party actively and joyfully seeking the military defeat of the United States of America. How will our withdrawing from Iraq magically make the terrorists there stop bombing innocent civilians? How will our withdrawal from Iraq keep the terrorists in the Middle East? Won't our withdrawal instead embarrass us worldwide, and send the signal that we are not willing to defend ourselves in the face of threats to our freedom? How does that serve the best interests of the United States? There's no way around it: This bill is treason.

Secondly, this bill is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund war. It does NOT have the power to determine troop movements. With this bill, the Democrats are seeking to illegally seize power from the executive branch. And the liberals say that the President is the one acting like a King... Well, it seems to me that these Democrat legislators are the ones attempting to amass power.

You know, I often wonder if liberal politicians even stop to think about the oath they took when they were sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Do they really think about it... about the meaning? Or are they so drunk with power at that moment that they just mouth the words. If they had really stopped to take in the implications of their oath, to "support and defend the Constitution... against ALL enemies... " and to "bear allegiance" to the United States, they would have never voted as they did this week.


Giuliani Assails Democrats' Health Plans
Mayor Rudy Giuliani stayed on the offensive today against the Democrats. He was speaking at the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference. Among other things, he criticized the Democrat plans for "mandatory" universal health care, saying that it would only raise costs and put control of health care into the hands of bureaucrats. Said Mayor Giuliani:

"[The Democrats are] moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin..."

Thank you Mayor Giuliani. He is on a roll folks, calling it like it is. The Democrat plans are just that, socialized medicine. It will be run by the government. As we all know the government does not produce, it takes wealth from its citizens and then doles out the spoils. The same will happen for universal health care. America's most productive members will be forced to pay for government rationing of health care. This is wasteful and socialistic at its core. The poor will over-consume health resources, leading to shortages, waiting lists, and poor quality health care. Instead of waiting for months to see a second rate doctor, the rich will instead pay for their own private health care in addition to the confiscatory taxes they will already be paying. Like I say (with great sarcasm), the government does such a great job running the schools and the DMV, lets put them in charge of the hospitals. The alternative is clear, as Mayor Giuliani pointed out, use the power of the free market to reduce costs.

"When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers."

Mayor Giuliani also stood by his comments from earlier this week (Yes!), adding this:

"When, in the history of war, has a nation that decides to retreat, printed up a schedule of that retreat and handed it to its enemies?"

If Mayor Giuliani continues to take such a hard line with the Democrats, exposing their ideological weaknesses, then I believe he will be the next President of the United States.


Alec Bladwin Leaves A Threatening Message to His Daughter
Some of you may be aware of the message Alec Baldwin left on his 12 year old daughter's voice mail. My mouth dropped open the first time I heard it. I could not believe a father could be so rude, insensitive and all around "mean spirited" to his own child! Not that his daughter is any saint, but this kind of screaming, insulting and poor behavior is simply uncalled for. And, when I listened to what he was actually saying, I was doubly shocked. It was all about him. He had been made an ass of, she insulted him, he called her and she didn't talk to him, etc... The fact that this girl is related to him seems to have been crowded out of his brain by his ego. All this from a champion of Democrats... Makes you think, doesn't it?

Turning It Around On The Anti-War Movement

I get so sick of hearing liberals regurgitating their bumper sticker slogans at me, like "Bush lied" or "This war is illegal." My favorite is "We Need Regime Change at Home." Oh? So you want to get rid of our current regime of representative republic? That explains a lot. The truth is that the anti-war movement is on extremely weak ground ideologically and morally. Moreover, all of the slogans liberals use to protest the war can more appropriately be applied to them.

The Liberals Rushed to an Anti-War Position
Remember when the country was "unified" after September 11th? How we all rallied around Mayor Guiliani and President Bush in order to find the attackers and bring them to justice? Democrats swallowed their ideology and joined in choruses of "God Bless America" with the Republicans.

Well, that bipartisan nirvana did not last long. The End of Unity came when then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle began his campaign of obstructionism, which ultimately ended his political career. Now, I understand that the Democrats have fundamental ideological disagreements with Republicans. However, the nature in which those disagreements can be expressed does not need to be so confrontational. Democrats, in their vocal opposition to the policies of the President, brought down the facade of bipartisanship that had been erected in the days after September 11th.

By staking out a confrontational and anti-Bush position, Democrats began to criticize everything the President did as an attempt to disgrace, discredit and ruin his presidency. The latest example is the US Attorney "scandal." The result was that Democrats rushed into an anti-war position as soon as the war started, even while many of their liberal supporters had staked out that position months earlier. Remember the talks of "quagmire" in Iraq? CNN even did a segment on whether the media was covering the war too negatively.

Now, liberals can blame Bush for ending the bipartisanship and for "rushing" into war all they want (even though we had a decade of UN resolutions and sanctions written against Saddam Hussein). But remember: it takes two to tango.

It's the Wrong Anti-War Movement
The anti-war movement has set it's sights on the wrong war. As much as the liberals are trying to make it so, the War in Iraq is not Vietnam. Two different places, two different eras, and two different enemies.

Yet, many members of the anti-war movement are the same who protested the Vietnam War. It seems that these aging hippies are trying to relive the glory days of their youth when they caused America to lose a war and brought down a Republican President. By taking a simplistic view of the situation, that there is a war and a "corrupt" Republican President, members of the anti-war movement think they can do the same thing again.

But, the situations are different. Iraq is not Vietnam, and Bush is not Nixon. Thus, it's the wrong anti-war movement. Protesters should focus their anti-war efforts on the genocide in Darfur, on demanding that the Iranian Government abandon its nuclear ambitions, and on denouncing Islamic extremists and worldwide terrorism. These efforts might ACTUALLY help to bring about world peace.

The Liberals Lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Yes. They Did. We found Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Bet you didn't know that. Well, the liberal media is so invested in the Democrat party line that they buried the story.

According to a 2006 letter by John Negroponte to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" were found in Iraq by Coalition Forces since May 2004. These are some of the chemical WMD's that Saddam had developed and possessed.

Documents seized in raids on terrorist outposts in Iraq also spell out Saddam's weapons program and his ties to Al-Qaeda. Here is a choice portion from a CyberNewsService story:

"(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere."

Besides WMDs, we found banned missile technology. This included the banned Al-Samoud missiles that Saddam revealed to inspectors as a way to delay the start of the war. Also, according to a report from AFP:

Source: AFP
Headline: Banned missile plan found in Iraq: Report
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2003

"Sources told the paper that in the past few weeks weapons experts discovered that the Abu Ghraib military base near Baghdad was developing a weapon with a range of about 960 kilometres.

Under limits set by the UN Security Council, Iraq was allowed to missiles with a range of up to 150 kilometres only, The Times said."

In addition, we found Al-Qaeda training camps that had existed in Iraq before the war. The picture below shows aerial photos of an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, Iraq. The photo was taken by Space Imaging, Inc. using an IKONOS satellite. Now, this doesn't mean that Iraq caused 9/11 (which the administration has never claimed), but it does mean that they were supporting terrorism, which is one of the reasons why we invaded.


We also have evidence that Iraq had an active Nuclear Weapons Program:

Headline: Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes
Source: NewsMax
Byline: Carl Limbacher and Staff
Dateline: Thursday, August 5, 2004

"Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

In comments that received virtually no press coverage in the United States, Duelfer testified that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." One Iraqi laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," the top weapons inspector said.

Duelfer's stunning assessment, delivered in March of this year, was first reported last week by renowned historian William Shawcross, in a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper.
The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.

According to Duelfer, Saddam was able to use Oil-for-Food to boost his military procurement budget to $500 million annually &$0150; a 100-fold increase from 1996 to 2003.

Most of the recent nuclear research took place at Iraq's notorious al Tuwaitha weapons facility, where Saddam had stockpiled over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium ore since before the first Gulf War.

Iraq was also in talks with North Korea on the possibility of importing a 1,300 km missile system, the ISG chief revealed. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.

Saddam's 500-plus-ton uranium stockpile was being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. In October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June of this year, the U.S. Energy Department removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium from al Tuwaitha.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press at the time that the low-enriched uranium stockpile could have produced enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

In March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but the claim was widely dismissed by congressional investigators as well as U.S. reporters."

The Liberals Lied to Get us Out of the War
Frustrated by the efforts of the Bush Administration and their inability to convince the American people to oppose the war, Liberals resorted to lies. They claimed that Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction when he did not. They claimed, through the documented liar Joseph Wilson, that Iraq was not seeking to obtain Yellowcake from Africa, when it was. To this day, the British have stood by this claim made by their intelligence agency. The liberals then claimed that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA Agent, when she was not (according to the person who WROTE the law about how a covert agent is defined). In fact, Valarie Plame had appeared in Vanity Fair BEFORE the entire "leak scandal" began (See photo below). They then claimed that Valarie Plame was "outted" by the administration as retaliation against Joseph Wilson's Niger Report, which she was not. In fact, it was Richard Armitage, former Deputy Director of the State Department, who "leaked" Plame's identity to the press. And moreover, a non-covert agent cannot be outted. The liberals continue to claim that we are losing the war, when we are not. There has not been another terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11. Schools, businesses and amusement parks are open in Iraq. The country has its own constitution and sovereign democratic government. Hundreds of terrorists have been captured or killed, and various plots foiled. Thus, the liberals are lying to the American public in order to get us out of the war. Are we going to take that "lying down?"


The Liberals are Engaging in Torture
That's what it feels like whenever I have to listen to the Democrats or liberal media members tell me that we are losing the war, that the war is immoral, or that we have to pull out. Liberals need to stop demoralizing our troops and the American people. We will win this war against terrorism, unless we decide to forfeit first.

I Support the Democrats, but I Oppose their Mission
I support the concept of Democrats running for election and then serving a constitutionally determined term if they win. I even support them using the powers invested in them by the people to make laws. It is their mission that I oppose. For example, their mission to maintain power into perpetuity by creating social programs that suppress individualism and create classes of dependent citizens. I also do not support their mission to undermine the American economy by forcing confiscatory taxes on the productive members of society and regulating their businesses into bankruptcy or worse, government control. I also do not support their mission to undermine the sovereignty of the United States by subjugating us to United Nations rule, "global tests," or international treaties whose purpose is to reach into our back pocket. But, I do support the Democrats.

Dissent is Patriotic
I dissent against the treasonous actions of the liberals in congress. They continue to vote against the best interests of America and seem to want us to surrender to Islamic fundamentalists (much like the Europeans). I say that We need an immediate withdrawal from the anti-war movement, with a cessation of all hostilities towards the troops and patriotic Americans. In addition I call for the Impeachment of liberal Senators and Congressmen who have thrown off their vow to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and have instead sought to surrender it to Islamic fundamentalists by drafting resolutions against our troops, by seeking to extend constitutional rights to the enemies of America, and by usurping the executive powers of the president.

This is war, and there is no room to play around. Our lives, and our way of life are at stake. So, liberals: either go join Al Qaeda or get out of the way and let us grown ups win this war.

Anti-War Vandals in Michigan

Congressman Mike Rogers, a Republican representing Michigan's 8th District, woke up this morning to find that his Lansing office had been vandalized. According to a story by ABC Detroit, the office was "extensively damaged" and is currently under police guard. ABC Detroit published the following pictures:

Andy Keiser, who is Chief of Staff for Congressman Mike Rogers, made this statement:

"The aggressive destruction of federal property and vandalism was a callous attempt to intimidate Congressman Rogers and his staff... We all are entitled to our own opinion on the situation in Iraq but we are not entitled to destruction of taxpayer property and intimidation of federal officials."

The matter is currently under investigation by the FBI and US Capitol Police.

Personally, I am not surprised to see such actions from members of the anti-war movement. From calling Bush "Hitler" to writing books and making movies about his assassination, we have seen that many extreme members are not content with peaceful protest. Many anti-war protesters are so consumed with rage and hatred for George W Bush that they are not willing to take the time necessary to convince the American Public that they are right. They are also frustrated that four years of effort to end the war have been absolutely useless. Even with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, anti-war protesters are still unable to effect a change. Anti-war extremists then turn to vandalism and other violent and illegal measures to make their anti-war statements. The whole purpose is to grab media attention and shock as many people as possible. However, the efforts of these vandals will have the opposite effect, as people will associate the message with their illegal and extreme methods. The public will shrink away from these vandals and their anti-war message, while at the same time lending greater support to Congressman Rogers.

I urge all of those who are against the War in Iraq to denounce the actions of these vandals, and anyone else who uses illegal or violent means to try to influence public opinion.

Blogger Mislabels Photos, Confusing Anti-War Rally Attendance!

Check out this photo posted by ctblogger at MyLeftNutmeg.com. ctblogger says " Here's a panoramic photo from yesterday...," refering to the March 17th Connecticut Opposes the War Rally at the Old State House in Hartford, CT.

However, this photo cannot possibly be from the March 17th rally. The Capitalist League was there, taking pictures and getting interviews for an upcoming video feature. During the production of the video, I noticed that the panoramic photo didn't seem right.

First, here are some more accurate pictures of the crowd, that were taken during the event.

As you can see, the crowds in my photos are noticeably smaller. I would estimate there were 500-700 people at the rally, if that. But you might say, "Well, they are from a different perspective than the one posted by ctblogger. " Here are some additional inconsistencies.

The panoramic photo by ctblogger prominently features a dumpster and chain-link fence directly in front of the Old State House. Here is a photo I took that gives a pretty good view of the front of the building. Where's the dumpster?

Before the rally, Connecticut was hit with a large snowstorm. The following side by side comparison shows how the photo posted by ctblogger could not have been from the 3/17/2007 rally. There is no snow on top of the CT Transit Kiosk.


Upon further inspection I saw that the photo did not have any flags waving on the flagpoles of the Pheonix Building. Moreover, the banners on the lampposts seemed different. The side by side comparison below shows again how the photo ctblogger says is from the 3/17/2007 rally, cannot possibly be.

Now, looking at the photo identified as being from last year's rally, I noticed that it had snow on top of the kiosk, no dumpster, and flags waving in front of the Pheonix building. That means that it was from this year's rally. Moreover, ctblogger states that "last year there was construction being done to the Old State House and because of the dumpster, people were forced to stand back further on the lawn." This means that ctblogger must have mislabelled the photos, probably by accident. Here is the other panoramic photo:

A quick look at the blog posting would have you think that more people attended the rally than actually did. Had I not been there myself, or not taken the time to examine the post more closely, I would have mistakenly thought the first panoramic photo was from the 3/17/2007 event.

Though probably an accident, such occurances underscore the power of blogs and especially pictures. We bloggers must be sure to exercise that power carefully, ensuring that our readers are given accurate news and true representations of reported events.