One For The Troops

First of all let me clear something up; when I said the other day that you should be "be nice would ya". As I have said so many times, to follow Jesus Christ and to serve God you don't always have to be nice to people but you should be pleasant. Anyway let's get on with today's blog ok

I hear a lot of News commentary and other means of communication about how average people feel about this war but rarely do I see or hear what the troops have to say unless it's the wrong point of view or it's the same old left wing story of sadness and gloom.What about all of the good that they are doing over there like putting up new schools and new power plants and giving out cloths to their poor just like we do here in our own country? No, that stuff doesn't seem to get on the news because the fact is, is that the media is painting a picture that our military are the bad guys and the insurgencies are the victims. That couldn't have been done better if the Sundance Channel had been the producers themselves.

What we need is to use the 'Real Network' to actually show what reality is all about when it comes to what a radical Muslim is all about; Cutting off the head of Daniel Pearl is a great example. When's the last time you saw anyone put on any real torture that those people really do instead of them blaming us for things like roughing up some guards and humiliating them sexually like we did at Abu Grab. Think about it, that's all we did, sexually harass a few of their guys and they cut heads off; AND WE'RE THE BAD GUYS?

People like Nancy-girl Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy need to pull their head out of their respective butts and reread that to themselves. We embarrass them and they cut heads off. That is when I call a normal human of reasonable intelligence completely retarded. They just don't seem to get it. And by the way when these people shoot off their mouth about a pole taken about how 68% of Americans feel about how President Bush is doing his job or not on the war on terror; HEY! That's 68% of the people that they picked to talk to, get it, THEY PICKED THE PEOPLE! The pole is rigged. I could go to Detroit and ask the same question and get a worse rating where as I could go and ask the pole in parts of the Bible belt and get a completely different number. Remember, America voted for Taylor Hicks, now rewatch American Idle One and watch Kelly Clarkston and then you tell me that Mr. Hicks isn't a joke. I just watched it last night and I was amazed with the difference in talent.

Another thing they don’t get is the fact that world history has a track record of repeating itself. It’s done it for thousands of years. Back before World War II Germany was bent on taking over the world, and the total slaughter of every Jew, just like Iran is today. Then Japan jumped in and bombed Pearl Harbor and killed several thousand people just like a few Syrians, a couple of Jordanians training in Iraq working along for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda did by crashing airliners into three of our US buildings on 9/11 and another in a field that was headed for the Capital or the Whitehouse.

Just like the Arms Race then, we can not let the bad guys get the biggest badass weapon of all time again because this time these crazy fucks will use it. They don't have the same sense of fair play that the Russians had back in the 1950's. They don't see the world in geopolitical terms. They see it in georeligious terms; if there ever was such a word but the definition being that they want the destruction of every other religion and only those of Muslim faith shall populate the earth when they are done. The Geneva Convention is a joke to them unlike honorable people like the Japanese and we hope the Chinese. They see only the total destruction of America and all that it stands for regardless of what hype they spin on TV and anyone that buys their bullshit is a fool. It's like trusting the Nazis with your Jewish children.

Any of the service men or women that I have spoken to that have come home has told me that first of all they didn't want to leave their buddies there. They also knew exactly why they were there and it was not for the reasons that most of the News keeps talking about. They tell me that it's the politicians that are lying, that I can believe. Now that there is a larger presence over there they defiantly don't want to leave because they know we can win and they don't want politicians slanted to the left to starve them out or do something equally as stupid as that. By the way when we're sort of on the subject but not really, it was President Bush's ADVISERS who told him that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He did not personally go over there and start flipping rocks. Does anyone think that he did that? Is America and the people that they hired to run this country that stupid? As I recall it was that dude that is now pissed at President Bush because someone else, again, someone else, supposedly leaked his wife's low-level name to the press and now he wants revenge; REVENGE, what a dick!

Listen, Shouldn't President Bush get the benefit of the doubt? As the President's actions was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on shows like Fox news and CNN, both of which I watched allot at the time. On several occasions, I thought for myself the following questions: Should we believe the President of the United States? My answer was that we should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assume that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, at least as I and a professor Dean, whom I am getting some of this information off of his website; at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton, statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, the President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs, and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, as I understand it, the political risk was so great that, it was inconceivable that the President would make these statements if he didn't have complete solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I think, the Presidential political advisers would be have telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would have been saying: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar shit. But he didn't. Maybe that is where he went wrong but to me the fast still remains that it was his advisers that told him that the stuff was over there.

So what are we now to conclude if the President's statements are found to be as inaccurate as they currently appear to have been? After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given the President's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

I have two answers for the weapons of mass destruction; on the matter of the chemical weapons. Sure, it's a fact that throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found. And as the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "we've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Well the answer is clear; they were taken over the boarders of Syria and Iran. There is so much evidence to support this that it is overwhelming America has entered a new age of pre-emption; when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons, exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself had now called for a Defense Department investigation into what had went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd found this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of the Administration can find someone else to blame; informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it, they may not escape fault themselves.

To put it more clearly, if the President had taken Congress and the Nation into war based upon bogus information, he would have been cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." But he didn't as I said, he looked to his advisers to tell his what to do and he acted upon that information. These bone heads at the New York Times just want to put a nail in his coffin whenever they can and that is such bullshit.

And one more point I want to make on this cold and snowy day in the Midwest. If you check out the big name Hollywood Networks right now like Turner Classic Movies and the one’s that play the old time stuff, you find that they are all playing in waves a lot of the old war movies but not just the shoot’em up ones and on the Western Channel they’re also playing a certain brand of old time classic movies too. It’s the patriotic classics, the ones that make you proud to be an American and proud to hear the Star Spangle Banner, not to mention the National Anthem. The reasons are probably because they know something is going to happen, soon, and they want us to know so we can be prepared without spouting off the same old dribble as their elitist counterparts within the acting community who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground because whether we want to admit it or not, many of the top brass in Hollywood and New York is and always shall be of Jewish faith and may God bless them for that.

Ah hell I just get bent out of shape when it comes to the men and women that serve our country and some of the shabby treatment that they get from both sides of the isle right now but at the same time my love of the Lord and my wife both do a great job at to keeping me grounded.

That's The Lazlo Report for February 18, 2007

More on the Nazi Problem

So what can I say, there’s just more to say about the Nazi proposition that is hovering over us here in the United States while on the Liberal Left they seem to be cheering them on and the people in the center are sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing just as they did back in 1934/35 when Hitler came to power and declared war on the Jews.

The radical Muslims in this world, The Islamic Wahhabi Movement, by that the Jihad, under Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law), have declared war on all Jews in the world and anyone that helps the Jews, namely the United States of America.

OH Shit, that’s us people. Yeah, that’s right; they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, and then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra GODDAMNIT!. It’s in their bible, their Koran …get it. They say one thing but mean something else; they are lying when they say they are not going to take over our country because they are told to lie.

Maybe it will help you all to understand if I give you a small history lesson and then I’ll give you a short choice of options to choose from at the end. I have copied some of the following text in a couple of the next few paragraphs, but the facts still remain believe you me. I have also stolen some of the following from some of my other blogs.

World War II, you know, that war with the Germans and Japanese, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin like the move Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945, a 17 year war. and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again So, it was really a total of a 27 year war; how’s that for history that today’s kids are not learning?.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP in 1945.

NOW, just adjust that into today’s money for inflation an that is equal to about $12 trillion dollars.

W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater: It would have been a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism. Just take a moment and think about if we would have lost that war and Hitler would have won and then he decided that all black must die, then all brown must die…where would it end? That’s Nazism

Life today is not 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. Sorry folks, the real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and it probably always will be. It is a goddamn shame that today’s kids put being famous and being on TV as their highest goals in life when it should be Lawyers, Doctors, or Teachers or any of the great professions that has made this country great., they still can, even after adding the trades like high tech jobs and newer things for the times, etc... My point is, is that there’s no reason to dumb our country..

The bottom line here though is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever it is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If we in the States can create a pretty good democratic and stable Iraq, then we have another "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help build new things and try to get them all to talk in the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons, unless somebody prevents them.

We have just four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is)

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America..

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of Europe too. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and take a shit load more lives.

So, the choice is yours, personally I can only fathom choosing number one because of the ramifications of all three of the other choices that I have given. If you look at number two and think of terrorist states like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and then just some of the rouge agents within the terrorist groups of the Jihad movement, just imagine if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon. They could kill every person in Israel, then set their sites on Western Europe, Russia and then finally America . This could be done all within two years.

Choose number three and we all basically become slaves to Islam within ten years and within that time we will pay up to ten and twenty dollars for a gallon of gas until the US Dollar crashes and our country collapses anyway.

Finally, you could choose number four and everything that I have said within two and three will happen anyway so as I said the choice is yours, but for me the choice is simple; #1) We have to fight now and win…. NOW.

The victorious warrior seeks to win first and then goes into battle where as the loosing warrior will go into battle, again and again, and then always seeks to win Our Terrorist buddies(who keep coming at us over and over and seeking to win) will continue to loose by using this strategy but then they are stuck in the 10th century and good for them. As I always say, “Jesus didn’t speak English”, so Fuck’em.

If you hate the Iraq war, I hope you also hate the fact that your children, or grandchildren, may have to live in an Islamic America life under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today; because that’s what’s going to happen if these Nazi-like people win this war.

The history of the world is the history of civilizations clashing and cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and what civilization should be like, and the most determined civilization always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless, cutthroat and partly barbaric will always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Case in point: How many of you remember how we won WWII against the Japanese? It was the Atomic bomb, right? OK, the only way that we were able to get that technology was to employ just a few Nazi scientists that we secretly decided not to put through the Nuremburg Trials for “National Security”. That is an example of the U.S. being more ruthless than our enemies. It’s just how it has to be to win. There are many more examples of this but why go into it now, the main point is that we must be more powerful than our enemies and be wiling to kill or be killed. That was the attitude of our fathers and grandfathers in WWII and must be repeated or the US will fall.

That’s the Lazlo Report for Monday, January 15, 2007