31 August 2007
H/T CJ at ASP/THN Dear Friends, Another blogger naming himself as, "Thrashaero" penned this after watching vet John Kriesel who lost both legs in Iraq, "Aww poor thing. has no legs and still is too proud to figure out that he screwed himself over by joining to support a ridiculous war…your sacrifice is meaningless."
and some leftwing site has MY HOMEPAGE ranked 18th on a hate site list.
This is typical of the extreme radical left in our society. They have nothing constructive to say, never had an original thought during the entirety of their miserable existence, and have no honor or class. They are tools of the islamofascists and will be the first to scream "Please help me!!!"
Anti-war YouTube.com bloggers viciously attack vets and their mothers!
August 28, 2007
When I started two weeks ago, I could not imagine the out pouring of support you would give to this mission and how quickly everyone would unite – so thank you!
One of our partners, Freedom's Watch, recently began airing ads with Gold Star Mothers and Iraq War veterans. These people are real heroes who have sacrificed everything to defend our freedoms and they deserve our respect and honor.
Unfortunately, the anti-war bloggers on YouTube.com are now personally attacking these loving mothers and wounded vets with the vilest comments ever imaginable.
In response to Laura Youngblood, who lost an uncle in 9/11 and her husband in Iraq, a blogger who identifies himself as, "thewarden70" wrote this, "This lady, if she can be called a lady, is completely incapable of telling the truth, any use of simple logic, and devoid of a soul."
It gets worse!
The comment left on YouTube.com that makes me most sick is the one directed at Gold Star Mother, Vicki Strong. Ptboy90210 wrote this, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Vicki Strong is a terrible person. Her son is spinning in his grave."
We cannot stand for this.
These radical anti-war members need to know their comments are unacceptable!
Please, call 1-877-222-8001 today. An operator will connect you to your
Member of Congress. Please tell them what the anti-war crowd is saying about our brave American troops and their mothers! Tell them they must distance themselves from these cruel anti-war people!
If you still haven't seen Freedom's Watch video, you can watch them by clicking on this link http://www.youtube.com/user/Freedomswatch or visiting http://www.freedomswatch.org/.
Please remember that our message is silent unless you act!
UNITE FOR VICTORY!
Another blogger naming himself as, "Thrashaero" penned this after watching vet John Kriesel who lost both legs in Iraq, "Aww poor thing. has no legs and still is too proud to figure out that he screwed himself over by joining to support a ridiculous war…your sacrifice is meaningless."
30 August 2007
Lt Col Buzz Patterson:
Today our troops are fighting a war that Islamic jihadists declared against the United States more than 25 years ago. Unfortunately and undeniably, there are voices in our nation urging Americans to turn their backs on our troops, cut off their funding, and force them to abandon their missions in Iraq in ignominious defeat.
We simply cannot and must not let that happen. We learned that lesson in Vietnam, and we can ill afford to repeat it in Iraq.
We are winning this war. I write those words from my desk in the Red Zone in downtown Baghdad as hundreds of Iraqis working with my company -- Shia and Sunni, Arab and Kurd -- execute security, construction and logistics missions throughout the capital and Sunni Triangle. We have been here now over three years.
American-Iraqi Solutions Group, which I helped co-found in March 2004, has been intimately involved with creating the new Iraqi security services. Our principal business as a U.S. Department of Defense contractor is to build bases for the Iraqi army and police and then supply them with water, food, fuel and maintenance services. We are on the cutting edge of the exit strategy for the U.S. military: Stand up an effective Iraqi security structure and then we can bring our troops home.
I see no civil war between the Shias and Sunnis as I travel practically every day on the roads of Iraq with my Arab and Kurdish security team. The potential for renewed internecine warfare faded earlier this year, when al Qaeda failed to reignite the waning sectarian struggle the second time around with another attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
The perfect storm at the beginning of 2007 created the necessity of reconciliation. The Sunni Arabs who had used al Qaeda as leverage in the political struggle to re-establish their minority rule faced genocide in Baghdad from the Shia death squads. With pressure from the new Democratic majority in Congress, the Shia government of Nouri al-Maliki realized that time was running out for a dominant American presence in Iraq and finally allowed the U.S. military to clean up Sadr City, thus alleviating the death-squad activities.
Both the Sunni and Shia Arab sides of the Iraqi political equation (the Kurds have sided with us from the beginning) now see that there is no alternative to American protection. As a result, Sadr's people and the Sunnis have both returned to parliament. As always, democracy is messy, but it is working. We have to be patient, particularly because this nascent reconciliation has left al Qaeda as the odd man out.
Just as the rockets landing in the Green Zone are from a foreign source -- Iran -- the jihadis who destroy themselves in explosions aimed primarily at mass killings of Shia civilians are almost all foreigners. This is al Qaeda, not Iraq.
Even more to the point: The Iraqis basically ignore the al Qaeda car bombs, mourn the dead and then go to work, to school, join and continue to serve in the military and police -- and life goes on. There is no terror if no one is terrorized.
Let us, the American people, not be terrorized into retreating before our enemy -- al Qaeda -- just when they have begun to stand alone, stripped of allies, in a country beginning to enjoy the fruits of a democracy we have sacrificed much blood to help create.
Mr. Andress, CEO and principal owner of American-Iraqi Solutions Group, is author of "Contractor Combatants: Tales of an Imbedded Capitalist" (Thomas Nelson, 2007)
Posted by concretebob at 10:02 PM
The AP is reporting that Teamsters will try to block Mexican trucks coming into this country.
WASHINGTON - The Teamsters Union said Wednesday it will ask a federal appeals court to block the Bush administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.
The union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.
It's wierd when issues put you on the side of people you would normally have no use for.
A little history is required here:
I spent 5 years driving a tractor-trailer; specifically I drove a moving van for United Van Lines.
I was an independent contract carrier. In other words I was non-union.
I drove in the late 70's to early 80's, and was driving at the time of the so-called "truckers strike", during which time I saw some of my fellow independents get shot at, have rocks , and in one instance a bowling ball, dropped off overpasses onto their rigs, and was a witness to one instance of a particularly nasty trick of hanging a five ounce lead fishing weight on mono-filament over the edge of a bridge wall at windshield height. The driver doesn't see it until the weight encounters the windshield. Imagine driving along at 65 MPH and suddenly your windshield shatters, covering you with glass...all of these incidents were allegedly perpetrated by union drivers (Teamsters) who were unhappy about the pending de-regulation of the trucking industry.
Coming from a "right to work" state, Virginia, my attitude towards unions has always been biased. Unions are for people who couldn't normally hold a job, and had to have the protection of an organization to keep them from getting fired for failing to perform their duties. I know thats a stereotype... We've all heard the stories. (The one exception to this, in my mind, is the UMW. If there was ever a class of workers who needed protection, it's the miners)
The one redeeming aspect of unions is SAFETY!!!!!!!!! Safety is paramount. Safety is Job One.
There is no other single issue more important than getting home after your job is finished in the same condition as when you left that morning.
This is why I have to stand with the Teamsters on this one. This is a not a "they're taking my job issue". This is a safety issue. If we start letting Mexican trucks into this country, it will be a disaster. There is no ICC, no DoT, no safety inspections, no verification of competence for drivers, that I am aware of, in Mexico.
The first Mexican truck that kills a family on vacation becasue the driver was inexperienced, or the truck wouldn't have passed one of our safety inspections, is going to be a very bad day for this country.
It goes back to one more thing: the borders
I haven't even broached the subject of terrorism. Whats to stop al'caca from loading up a truck with explosives and just driving right across the border?
CLOSE THE DAMN BORDERS NOW!!!
Jeeez Louise, what has to happen to make the government see the absolute stupidity of this?
DISCLAIMER: The above is the express opinion of a God fearin', USA loving, gun-totin' , cammo wearing, pickup truck drivin, country-music listenin', NASCAR watchin', terroist hatin', former Marine, redneck male member of society. No one says you have to agree.
Posted by concretebob at 10:01 AM
26 August 2007
Christian TV show out, Muslim pressure group blamed
....CAIR said it had asked earlier this month that CBS remove Keller's nightly talk show. CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier had told CBS chief Tom Kane as well as WTOG that he objected to the programming.
"In the hate-filled program, 'Live Prayer with Bill Keller,' Islam and Muslims are referred to in the most vicious and bigoted of terms. For example on May 2, 2007, host Bill Keller said: 'Islam is a 1,400-year-old lie from the pits of hell. It's leading a billion peoples [sic] to hell ... those who follow this false religion will die and be lost for all eternity.' On the same program, he also said, 'The false religion of Islam is about hate, lies and death,'" the letter said.
"It is our belief that anti-Islamic rhetoric like that used in 'Live Prayer with Bill Keller' is exactly the type of language that is likely to incite hate crimes against the American Muslim community," the letter said.....
OK let me get this straight...a Christian preacher interprets Scripture on TV and CAIR gets its' collective panties in a wad and suddenly it's hate speech.
Well, isn't that speshull (my very best Church Lady)
I guess I need to help a bit now...
HEY CAIR OVER HERE LOOK AT ME!!!!
Radical Islam is a religion of evil. It's practises make satan grin with delight.
Your people follow the teachings of a false prophet who screwed little boys.
Radical Islam IS A RELIGION OF HATE
Did you hear me???
Let me be perfectly clear:
RADICAL ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF HATE!!!!!!!
Come get me, you bunch of perverts..........
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Gen. Petraeus must cope with the reality that should a half-dozen, or perhaps even one, of his some 160,000 soldiers, in the heat of combat, shoot a wounded terrorist, the damage done could rival losing an entire battle — a fact well known to a religiously zealous enemy that feels no such humanitarian constraints. Radical Islamists may be the enemy, but American forces in the field must downplay, not accentuate religious differences, if they are to keep on their side Muslim forces loyal to an elected government.
II. Fighting For Democracy?
In the Cold War, America justified supporting authoritarian regimes in Asia, South America, and the Middle East on the basis of their expressed and shared opposition to Soviet-sponsored global communism. We had some nasty SOBs on our side in the Shah, Pinochet, Somoza, and Papadopoulos. The U.S. apology was that elected socialist governments would inevitably devolve into Communist ones, either by intent or subversion. With 7,000 nukes pointed our way, we supposedly had no margin for utopianism. So America erred on the side of short-term assumed loyalty, stability, and security.
But well before the Cold War, the United States put realist concerns above principled idealism. That’s why we generously supplied a mass-murdering Soviet Union in its war against a mass-murdering Nazi Germany or didn’t restrict too much the methodology that Chiang Kai-shek employed against Japanese invaders.
The present war, however, is again qualitatively different: We are not seeking to quell the violence in Iraq or Afghanistan by the imposition or use of a brute. Instead we expend blood and treasure in the hopes that a consensual government can fight as well as a dictatorship — while at the same time ensuring freedom for its people.
So in Iraq, not only are we waging a war according to American rules of engagement, but for the idea of constitutional government run by a poor, deeply traditional, tribal, and often religiously fundamentalist population.
General Petraeus knows that Iraq Security Forces can get information out of detained terrorists much easier than we can. But he also accepts that winking at systematic torture would be at odds with his directive to protect and promote constitutional government.
Posted by concretebob at 7:52 AM
25 August 2007
by Christopher G. Adamo
No politician of recent decades could match the Clintons for sheer audacity and brazenness. Time and again, they appear in front of the cameras to declare an alternative reality, which Americans are then supposed to accept, based solely on the volume with which the Clintons shout its existence. Hillary’s outrageous new campaign ad, which recently began airing in Iowa, stands as the latest example of the relentless and despicable Clinton political strategy.
In her ad, she seeks to sound alarms with the message “As I travel around America, I hear from so many people who feel like they’re just invisible to their government. Americans from all walks of life across our country may be invisible to this president, but they’re not invisible to me, and they won’t be invisible to the next president of the United States.”
In light of Hillary’s own past, such a statement represents almost unfathomable hypocrisy. If any living politician should hold the title for being aloof and indifferent, it is the former First Lady turned Senator.
A few of the more reprehensible examples of Senator Clinton’s behavior (though the list is by no means complete) should serve to remind us of just how outlandish it is for her to accuse others of being unreachable or unsympathetic to the plight of the common citizen.
Stories abound of Hillary Clinton’s tirades as First Lady, carried out in front of her Secret Service detail, who were regularly subjected to her profanity and venom. Surely, anyone with even a modicum of decency would spare helpless subordinates from the airing of such dirty laundry, unless of course she did not regard them and their sensibilities as sufficient to warrant any regard or consideration. They were, after all, merely servants.
In the same vein, America should never forget the disgraceful abuse of the Marine Corps Honor Guard, charged with sentinel duty at the White House. During official gatherings, some of these outstanding Marines, who had been rewarded with White House duty as a result of exemplary performance, were pressed into service as “waiters” and “bellhops” for the Clinton guests.
Once again, the disgrace being visited on them was a matter of complete indifference to the First Couple, who obviously considered them mere chattel to be exploited in any manner that the Clintons found convenient.
And the list goes on. Among the most despicable episodes of the Clinton Presidency was the criminal abuse of power in the firing of the White House Travel Office staff. Desiring to supplant the long time employees of the White House Travel Office with personal friends of the Clintons, Hillary determined that it would be more politically expedient to trump up some charges against the original staff, thus “justifying” their firing.
Did Hillary pause for even one moment to consider the devastation she was bringing upon wholly innocent federal workers, for no other reason than to protect herself from criticism? Eventually, the entire staff was exonerated from the spurious accusations, but not before some had consumed their entire life savings defending themselves in court, attempting to salvage their needlessly battered reputations.
In his pivotal tell-all book “Unlimited Access,” former FBI agent Gary Aldrich relates the rules of conduct instituted in the White House and Old Executive Office Building under the Clinton regime. According to Aldrich, staff members were to clear the hallways when Hillary was out and about. If anyone did happen to meet up with her in passing, they were not to make eye contact with her. In other words, as underlings they were to remain absolutely invisible to her.
Even while out among the public, Hillary’s actions bespeak of someone who remains deliberately out of touch with real Americans, at least when the cameras are not running. Firefighters and rescue workers at Ground Zero recounted the startling events of her visit, which corroborated the worst suspicions of her complete disinterest and lack of concern for them as human beings.
According to their first-hand accounts, when she appeared on the scene, Senator Clinton strode right past them with her photo-op crew, posed for a picture or two, and then left as she came in, without venturing even a glance in their direction. Clearly, other than their use as convenient props for her publicity, they were completely irrelevant and “invisible” to her.
Invariably, last week’s audience, whoever they may be, heard statements that have since been completely contradicted by what she now professes to this week’s audience. In essence, they immediately became “invisible” once the cameras were gone and they no longer were of any use to her.
Hillary Clinton’s behavior, while more blatant than that of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, stems from the same basic character flaw that defines all liberals seeking or holding public office. In their minds, the real purpose of the “little people” whom they incessantly tout as their primary and heartfelt concern is to provide justification for the continued empowerment of the liberal agenda.
Thus can be explained every disastrous liberal social experiment, from the cesspool of public education where the children of so many Americans of meager means are hopelessly trapped, to the nightmarish prospect of a similarly structured government “health care” system into which Hillary and her kind would subjugate the rest of us if given a chance.
The real victims of liberalism remain invisible to its chieftains, except when being informed as to how lucky they are to be the “beneficiaries” of this enlightened bureaucratic compassion.
As such they will only ever be of value as long as they can be maintained in their underling status. Contrary to popular myth, Democrats do not believe in any virtue or worthiness of the “little people” except that they may be kept “little” in perpetuity.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Posted by concretebob at 11:04 AM
19 August 2007
September 15 is swiftly approaching. Please visit the Gathering of Eagles website for more information on how you can join the Eagles in DC for Operation Eagle Justice and stand up for our courageous military and veterans. Anti-American leftist groups such as ANSWER and the Muslim American Society will once again bring their "anti-war" crowd to DC.
As they did in March, the GoE will be there, too, with a grand showing of support for our heroes in uniform and to protect our memorials from potential vandalism. From GoE's website -
"It is imperative that we stand up to them and every other anti-American group that will be there on September 15th. Our troops and our nation can settle for no less than victory in Iraq and Afghanistan…and we as Eagles can settle for nothing less than victory on the home front."
I couldn't have said it better. Let's support our troops and the Eagles this September 15! If you cannot attend, please see www.gatheringofeagles.org to see how you can support this critical mission.
Posted by concretebob at 8:36 PM
18 August 2007
From an Academy Award winning actor.
Melanie Morgan made the announcement Friday morning on her radio show.
You can listen here. You can download or listen. The announcement is about 45 minutes into the program.
The actor is none other than Mr. Jon Voight. Hopefully you were lucky enough to catch Mr. Voight's interview with a certain FoxNews host who does not allow bloviating.
Mr Voight is a true Patriot IMAO, and believes in the military, the mission, and the threat they are protecting us from.
According to Melanie, Mr. Voight contacted her with an offer to assist in any way he could, with the Fight for Victory Tour.
More details as they become available.
Posted by concretebob at 2:04 PM
I have a developed an intense dislike for proffessional politicans.
However, there comes a time when politics must play a role, and the reason is simple:
Politicians make policy and policy affects the military.
Whether it's active duty, retired or veteran, politicians ultimately decide the fate of many issues facing our miltary.
We must cultivate and encourage politicians who understand and are willing to make policy favorable to the issues. We have to make sure the politicians know there are ordinary American citizens, voters, who care about the way the government treats its' Warriors.
This is the least we can do for those who made the choice to serve.
No matter the member rolls, regardless of agenda, whatever name the group decides to call itself, what we do is for the good of this country and the men and women standing in harms way now, those who have bled for us, and those who have already been there.
We salute those who took the responsibility for our safety at the risk to their own.
We acknowledge the sacrifices of those who stand the fence and say
"Go to sleep. Nothing will happen tonight, not on my watch"
These warriors deserve nothing but our total and undivided commitment to their welfare, because they're a little busy right now, and probably don't have the time to do it themsleves.
We should be so consumed with this agenda that we don't have time for anything else, especially egos and personalities.
It's about the country and the troops. Because we won't have one without the other.
Posted by concretebob at 2:16 AM
16 August 2007
San Francisco – Col. Harry Riley, U.S. Army (ret.) representing Eagles Landing which is rallying pro-military forces to support Gen. David Petraeus when he reports to Congress in September, will be the guest of Melanie Morgan, Chair of Move America Forward, on her KSFO 560 AM radio show Friday at 11 a.m. Eastern Time.
In addition to broadcasting in the San Francisco area, KSFO can be heard on the Internet at http://www.ksfo.com/home.asp. Melanie Morgan and co-host Lee Rodgers broadcast from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., Pacific Time – 8 a.m. to noon on the East Coast. Bryan Sussman will join Melanie Morgan on Friday’s show.
Colonel Riley spearheaded the highly successful gathering of veterans in Washington last March that deflected left-wing pro-terrorism efforts to undermine the military and deface national war memorials. He is working with Eagles Landing, which includes veterans of the Gathering of Eagles, to again bring thousands of veterans and supporters to DC on Sept. 15.
Move America Forward is sponsoring a nationwide caravan that will start in California and arrive in DC to join with other organizations in a massive show of support for Gen. Petraeus and the military.
Col. Riley will discuss Eagles Landing’s efforts thus far, and additional steps that will be taken leading up to the Sept. 15 arrival date. He also will explain why veterans and supporters by the tens of thousands believe it is necessary to again gather in Washington.
Posted by concretebob at 6:34 PM
15 August 2007
WEEK 6: "Cost of Defeat" Call-in Campaign
It has been brought to our attention that some of you may not have received the entire e-mail when it was originally sent. Below is all the pertinent information you will need for this week.In the past two weeks, Vets for Freedom has released television advertisements in 5 states (read about them here & here) and stood up State Chapters in 26 states. We plan to release 5 more TV ads this week, and formally announce 5 additional State Chapters. And every day, our membership numbers expand rapidly. Without question, we are on the offensive throughout America - communicating to members of Congress and the American people a very clear message: give General Petraeus, and his counter-insurgency strategy, the time, troops, and resources necessary to succeed in Iraq.
But rest assured, Washington DC-based, anti-war radicals are also active, and they plan to make their next political statement on Thursday, August 16th. According to a MoveOn.org strategy memo, they will "release a hard-hitting report to local media on what the war has cost your congressional district. This will happen on August 16th." MoveOn.org will send out press releases in every congressional district stating how much the Iraq War is costing American taxpayers. But, of course, they fail to ask a more fundamental question: what is the cost of defeat in Iraq? And what will it ultimately cost America-in lives, treasure, and reputation-if we declare defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda & Company?
What You Can Do This Week!
On Thursday, August 16th, as a direct response to MoveOn.org's crass attempts to politicize the Iraq War, Vets for Freedom is asking all of its members to participate in our "Cost of Defeat" Call-in Campaign.
And we are not alone in this effort.
We are proud to be partnering with Families United for the Troops and Their Mission, a grassroots coalition of thousands of Gold Star and Blue Star families including some with loved ones currently in harm's way. Both the troops-and their families-will be making calls this Thursday! So mark your calendar and call your members of Congress to explain the "Cost of Defeat" in Iraq. Tell them that defeat in Iraq would mean the following things:
A bloodbath in Iraq, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and possibly destabilize the entire Middle East region.
A failed state in Iraq and a safe haven for Al Qaeda to plan future attacks against America and her allies.
An emboldened Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons and a victorious Al Qaeda in pursuit of new ways to kill Americans at home and around the world.
For more tips and information about what to say when you call, please read the "Call Tips" section at the end of this email. We have provided a word-for-word script.
On Thursday, call your 2 Senators and 1 Representative. Call their offices in your home state and remind them of the "Cost of Defeat" in Iraq. Use the links below to find the phone numbers for your members of Congress: Contacting your U.S. SenatorsContacting your U.S. Representatives
After you have called your members of Congress, call the following 10 Senators and remind them what the "Cost of Defeat" would look like if they vote to undercut General Petraeus and the mission in Iraq in September. Phone numbers are provided below for phone numbers in their home state:
Senator Chuck Grassley
R - Iowa
Senator Sam Brownback
R - Kansas
Senator Pat Roberts
R - Kansas
Senator Ben Nelson
D - Nebraska
Senator Mitch McConnell
R - Kentucky
Senator Norm Coleman
R - Minnesota
Senator John Sununu
R - New Hampshire
Senator Judd Gregg
R - New Hampshire
Senator John Warner
R - Virginia
Senator Mark Pryor
D - Arkansas
When you're done with the calls on Thursday, please shoot a quick email to firstname.lastname@example.org and let us know. And if you had any particularly interesting exchanges, we'd love to hear about it.
What Else Can You Do This Week?
Attend Your Senator's Town Hall Meetings. We need pro-mission veterans and citizens at every single town hall meeting in August, encouraging members of Congress to support the mission in Iraq. If you find out about a Town Hall meeting in your state, do two things: 1) Attend! 2) Let us know at email@example.com.
Sign Up to Show Up in September. We still need more veterans to sign up early and join us on September 17 & 18 at our nation's capitol. Just send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with your name, military bio, your home state, and contact information. Once we receive this information we can start the process of arranging your travel and scheduling your appointments in Washington, DC.
Visit our "Live From Iraq" Blog. Check daily for updates from Jeff Emanuel, Iraq war veteran and Vets for Freedom member, who is reporting from the front lines in Iraq. He will provide daily "on the ground" updates from inside the surge.Our comrades in Iraq have Al Qaeda on the run-and it's up to us to keep radical anti-war groups on the defensive for their ill-informed and partisan viewpoints.
When you call the senators, a few important things to remember:
Always be courteous. The person answering the phone is likely a young staffer.
If you are calling a Senator who represents your home state, say "I am from [City, State] and am a member of Vets for Freedom. I recently returned from Iraq [or insert relevant experience] and I respectfully request to speak with Senator [name]." When they ask to take a message, say "I'm calling to tell Senator [name] that I oppose MoveOn.org's attempts to undermine the mission in Iraq and to remind the Senator what the "cost of defeat" in Iraq would be. Defeat in Iraq would mean [cite three reasons above]... Please pass along this message to the Senator."
If you are calling a Senator who is not from your state, say "I am a veteran of the Iraq War [or insert relevant experience] who served with [insert unit] in [insert location] from [insert dates]. I am a member of Vets for Freedom and I'm calling to tell Senator [name] that I oppose MoveOn.org's attempts to undermine the mission in Iraq and to remind the Senator what the "cost of defeat" in Iraq would be. Defeat in Iraq would mean [cite three reasons above]... Please pass along this message to the Senator."
Move out and draw fire!
Iraq War Veteran 2005-2006
Executive Director, Vets for Freedom
Posted by concretebob at 10:30 AM
14 August 2007
Don't cha just love it when the party apparatchik use new words to describe old practises?
During the last elections, the House Democrats' campaign chief, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, was clear as a bell on earmarks. "For far too long," he said, "business as usual has involved individual members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking and provides solutions to prevent the practice of earmark abuse."
As a Republican, I was glad. It's not that earmarks are inherently bad. Some serve important public purposes. But they need to be in the open, for all to see and evaluate, and their use needs to be significantly limited.
In January, the House and Senate both separately passed earmark reform but didn't quite follow through, leaving the final wording to conference committee. As the last session ended, we finally saw the bill, worked out in secrecy by the current leadership. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn got it right when he said it "not only failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights."
Immediately, earmark abuse reached new lows, symbolized ridiculously in the bloated children's health bill. Even the New York Times admitted that, despite "promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects," House members "quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers." Somehow, hospitals in the districts of a few powerful Members of Congress are now due higher Medicare reimbursement rates than other hospitals.
Apparently, Congress has acquired god-like powers to move hospitals hundreds of miles -- at least for billing purposes. A hospital in Kingston, New York, is deemed, by law, to exist in some sort of accounting twilight zone, 80 miles away in New York City where hospitals face much higher costs. A hospital in rural Green Bay, Wisconsin, has seemingly slipped 200 miles through time and space to the south, materializing somewhere in urban Chicago.
Republican legislators, seemingly cowed by a bill with the word "reform" tacked onto it, should have had confidence that the American people would see through this nonsense -- as witnessed by Congressional approval ratings.
What we need is a stake in the ground for basic reform of the budget and spending process in Washington, and then holding to that promise. Until that happens, and we get spending under control, we'll have Congress continuing to stake bigger and bigger claims on everyone else's hard-earned tax dollars. The President should hold the line and wield his veto as he has promised to do.
To read more commentaries from Fred, click here.
Posted by concretebob at 11:25 AM
13 August 2007
Well, looks like the announced Republican candidates are suddenly espousing the virtues of Federalism.
Well, guess what guys?
Fred Thompson was a Federalist when a Federalist wasn't cool.
Thing is, being a Federalist, is ALWAYS cool.
Looks as if FDT has stirred some brain cells in the RINO's...
Posted by concretebob at 6:35 PM
12 August 2007
They’re coming back to Washington, D.C. Will you stand with them? As you’ll recall, the first Gathering of Eagles in March to counter the White Flag mob drew unprecedented masses to the nation’s capital in support of the troops and their mission. In 33 days, the Eagles and a number of similar organizations plan to answer the ANSWER crowd again.
GOE is holding a Freedom Walk on September 10 and Operation Eagle Justice on September 15.
Eagles Landing “will assemble in Washington, D.C. on September 15, 2007 in support of America, our troops, and our fallen brothers and sisters.”
Posted by concretebob at 4:40 PM
11 August 2007
Companion piece at ASP
Michelle's earlier post
by Bob Parks
New Media Alliance
As many of us know, the "Baghdad Diarist" and the details of the "activities" of his American Army buddies have been, by his own recants, shown to be fictitious. However, The New Republic who published those "stories" continues to operate under assumptions borne of arrogance and ignorance….
Their latest "update" on Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp ended like this….
Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp–or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.
Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)
Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation–and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp–and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.
For 18 months or so, I worked in the Public Affairs Office onboard the USS Midway so, unlike Pvt. Beauchamp and The New Republic, I have a good understanding of how these things work.
While military journalists use the same style book as mainstream journalists, they also operate under a different set of rules. Civilians answer to their editors while military journalists answer to their superiors, who are ultimately answerable to the Commander-in-Chief. While The New Republic continues to refer to Beauchamp as their "writer", the private is under contract exclusively with the United States Army, and I would doubt they would formally recognize any relationship with TNR as valid, that is unless Beauchamp was given prior approval up the chain of command.
As Pvt. Beauchamp is not an Army journalist, I sincerely doubt he received such clearance. Most military journalists aren't given carte blanche access to the civilian media, and most information distributed from the military to the press is vetted carefully for the obvious security reasons.
The New Republic may believe they have a right to speak to Beauchamp, but that illustrates their ignorance of the Uniform Code of Military justice, which for military personnel, is the U.S. Constitution. Certain rights do not apply, such as the right to free speech. This is for the obvious need to maintain discipline and morale. So the Army has no obligation to allow Pvt. Beauchamp to speak to the New York Times, let alone The New Republic. It's apparent they do not understand this.
Also, I would bet the United States Army could give a rip about The New Republic's "findings."
The main reason why the military trains people to work with the media is so news can be distributed that is approved within the chain that will not jeopardize The Mission. The Mission is all the military really cares about. The New Republic need be repeatedly reminded of this.
It is possible for service members to be approached by individuals or entities that wish to obtain information. Some of these people can be friendly; some could be the enemy. It HAS happened. That is also one of the main reasons only trained personnel are permitted limited access to the civilian press. In this case, The New Republic is an entity that may not have the best interests of the Army and The Mission at heart. The fact they were so quick to publish negative stories about the military without adequate verification with the Army may imply a motive that may not be in the best interests of the military or our nation.
Now let me be blunt.
While Pvt. Beauchamp and his fellow soldiers were in the shit, The New Republic editors were sitting in air conditioned offices, sipping hot Starbucks coffee, and saw an opportunity to exploit a naive soldier, turning him against the very Army that is not only paying, but housing, feeding, insuring, later college educating, and VA home loaning him. That, if anything, is what I'd call inciting insurrection.
It's apparent The New Republic was hoping Beauchamp would eventually violate UCMJ Article 88
Contempt towards Officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Granted, Pvt. Beauchamp is not an officer but he has made serious accusations against his fellow soldiers that can result in their imprisonment for a very, very long time. This is no longer a game.
Some at The New Republic would be high-fiving if they could post Beauchamp blaming his situation, as well as the deaths of innocent Iraqis and their dogs on Bush and Cheney…. Those at The New Republic wouldn't be in trouble, but today Pvt. Beauchamp is. Serious trouble.
Those at The New Republic can sit protected by the 1st Amendment while leaving Beauchamp exposed to a military that has no obligation to let him speak to anyone. The Army doesn't have to let Beauchamp talk to his mother, let alone The New Republic. Also, the Army has no obligation to say one damn word to anyone in the press about what color the drapes in the chow hall is, let alone speak to someone who has enabled one of their soldiers to violate the UCMJ.
The New Republic just doesn't get it, and they probably don't care as they don't see beyond their own narcissistic wants as a "news" organization. They have used this dispensable young man and when they are done making him a symbol of abuse by the military they obviously loathe, they will move on and seek another soldier to destroy.
Let this be a lesson to all you uniformed bloggers out there. The enemy you don't see may be worse than the ones you do.
Bob Parks is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Posted by concretebob at 8:46 AM
08 August 2007
Back online with DSL...new modem arrived today, a 5 minute call to Verizon tech support, and we're screaming, Baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been without high speed broadband for a month.
Lightning strike took out the modem, a tv, a water heater, and a water pipe.
Very exciting stuff.
New ground rods ARE being installed.
I've been using a broadband wireless connection, and it's marginally better than dial-up, but not by much, and forget about videos.
Posted by concretebob at 4:44 PM
07 August 2007
Deadly Details Behind the Airline Liquids Ban
ABC News recently broke an exclusive report detailing the chilling truth behind the plot to explode horrendously devastating devices, which were to be mixed and detonated by terrorists using relatively small amounts of liquids that they planned to carry in innocent appearing soft drink container aboard as many as 6 to 7 jumbo jetliners bound for the U.S.
"I think that the plot, in terms of its intent, was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11," Chertoff told ABC's Pierre Thomas. "If they had succeeded in bringing liquid explosives on seven or eight aircraft, there could have been thousands of lives lost and an enormous economic impact with devastating consequences for international air travel.
"I got a call telling me that it looked as if the focus had turned on an attack on the United States, specifically an attack on airliners leaving from Britain, traveling to American cities," Chertoff said. "It also became evident, within 24 hours, that the time frame within which the attack was going to take place, would not be a matter of months but … a matter of weeks or even days."
To view this frightening video of how massive the threat was go to Family Security
Posted by concretebob at 9:31 AM
05 August 2007
04 August 2007
From Gathering of Eagles
Link to full page.
Retired Air Force officer Buzz Patterson was Kit Lange's guest on his show last night. You may remember him as the man who carried the “nuclear football” for President Clinton. He is also the author of several books, including Dereliction of Duty and his latest book entitled War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. Here’s a sample from last night’s show:
“I was a little bit naive when I went to Iraq… I really thought the media was undermining our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror. I found out it was much bigger than that; it is Democratic politicians; its academics, our professors and our deans and college presidents on university campuses across the country; its Hollywood popular culture; its anti-war organizations like Code Pink for Peace and United for Peace and Justice; its this “Wahhabi lobby,” I call it in the book, with funding from George Soros and MoveOn.org and the Ford Foundation that really wants to see America lose. I think the bottom line is the left today only wins when America loses… It’s a de facto alliance the left has with our enemies. They want to see America lose because they gain in Washington, D.C., if we do lose.”
Listen to the interview
Links to info on
code pink and more
Link to additional info on Buzz Patterson here
Posted by concretebob at 3:35 PM