U.S. Troops gun down Muslim Cross Dresser

It seems yet another taliban commander forgot under Sharia law the penalty for homosexuality is death. In this case, the instrument of Sharia law was none other than our own military. Now I am against shooting gays or anyone else but when in Rome …

29 November 2008 (AP)
KABUL, Afghanistan — U.S.-led coalition troops killed a Taliban commander dressed as a women during a raid in southern Afghanistan, officials said Saturday.
-I heard he had make up, painted nails and fishnet hose under his burka.

Soldiers killed four Taliban fighters in Friday’s operation, including the Taliban commander named Haji Yakub who was dressed as a woman to evade capture, the U.S. military said in a statement.
-BS, he dressed that way everyday. He was only the commander because he was the favorite “girl” of his men. Enforcing military discipline in the Taliban is different from the way our troops do it. His screams of “I have been a bad girl spank me” gave away his position and that lead to a 5.56mm attitude adjustment.

Do we need armed Americans?

By Ronin, 29 November 2008
With the election of President elect Obama, many gun owners are worried. They are worried that guns, ammo or even the right of self-defense could all be taken away. I have seen all sorts of arguments both pro and con concerning gun ownership. Some feel the 2nd amendment is no longer practical because our government is to powerful for the average Joe to influence with a hunting rifle. A valid argument until it is broken down. Who really threatens our gun owning rights and why? Most of this is geographic; city dwellers may question why a farmer needs or wants a powerful long-range weapons or dozens of them. I question why city dwellers want a Lexus but I digress. Who if anyone are armed Americans worried about? Are we really preparing for war? With whom-ourselves?

I know a little about war; both conventional and unconventional and will toss out a few ideas for consideration. The US military has the power to take on any nation in a one on one force on force battle and do an excellent job of it. We have massive firepower, many hundreds of thousands of combat vets and excellent leadership. We can handle a conventional war although shear numbers could wear us down. Unconventional war is not our strong suit; a relatively small number of insurgents have managed to continue their struggle against our forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq for years. They have done this using relatively primitive weapons (no planes, artillery or SOF). The oft seen arguments about not being able to stand up to our government with light weapons has been proven false, the opposite is true; it has been proven to work.

Our government’s ability to project power is impressive to say the least. That said they could not become an effective weapon to be used against our own people. There are several reasons for this, among them: we have scores of patriots leading our military, most would refuse an illegal order to disregard the constitution. We have a very educated force; many have read and had no problem understanding the constitution. Americans are individualists even in our military; they question authority and follow only the leadership that has proven capable and confident. They are all taught to disobey an illegal order and to accept personal responsibility for their actions.

What our left leaning we know much better than you do types forgets is they have never served. Liberal members of congress, activist judges and the like have no idea of the wrath they would face if our military decided not to follow them but to remove them. Who would thy call for help-the police?

‘Moderate Muslim’ image doubted

There are moderate Moslems; they are the very young and the very old. Occasionally the name only or non-practicing muslims are mistaken for moderates. This is short sighted and false. Anyone who claims the title of muslim is only a verse away from becoming a full blown, frothing at the mouth murderous jihadi. Only by leaving islam can you become moderate.

Abdul Khalik, 28 November 2008, the Jakarta Post, Jakarta
With radicalism and conservatism taking root in the country without significant public opposition, scholars are questioning whether the silent majority of Indonesian Muslims is in fact moderate.
-I have no doubt. There are no moderates in indonesia.

They said the recent passage of the pornography bill and the government’s ban on the Jamaah Ahmadiyah minority sect, coupled with the enactment of sharia-inspired bylaws in many regions, evidenced the rise of conservatism in the world’s largest Muslim nation.
– Cute; “Conservative muslims.”  Our term for them is “terrorists” – they are joining their more pious radical brothers or offering support.

A discussion, hosted Thursday by the Maarif Institute, concluded that conservatism is growing in Indonesia — widely considered a moderate Muslim nation — with many Muslims in the country ranking their devotion to their religion higher than their commitment to their country.
-The key here is the reminder that loyalty is first to islam and second to the state.

Visiting political and Islamic expert Mark Woodward said a number of expanding radical Islamic groups had claimed there was nothing more they needed in their lives than Islam.

“Members of the groups, who wear Pakistani dress, covering all their body, and even wear gloves, claim that they are wearing Islamic dress while in fact they are not,” said the professor of Arizona State University in the United States.
-Misdirection and pointless, who gives a rats ass what a professor in America thinks? The article is supposed to be discussing moderates in indonesia.

Maarif Institute executive director Raja Juli Antoni said the enactment of the pornography law and the ban on followers of Ahmadiyah, which many Muslim groups consider a heretical sect, from disseminating their religion, were evidence of the growing conservative sentiment.
-Oppressing the ahmadiyah sect is necessary for islam to thrive. They do not follow the same rules for jihad nor do they blindly accept the worlds most famous pedophile as the perfect man and example for all things.

Google Censors Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs

More Orwellian stuff courtesy of Obamites:

And, if you think this is just paranoia, then you haven’t been keeping track of Obama’s relationship with Google.  Consider this – Google’s CEO (Eric Schmidt) stumped for Obama in the presidential race.  Now, he is an adviser for Obama.

Then, there’s that little love triangle with Obama, Google, and YouTube. wherein we witnessed first-hand how Google/YouTube would delete the anti-Obama videos for even the smallest of infractions while giving the pro-Obama videos all the leeway in the world.  Now, Obama is using YouTube as his primary upload site for his President in-limbo fireside rants.

Then, there is this very telling tid-bit: one of President in-limbo Obama’s first members picked to head up his transition team came from Google’s philanthropy division – Google.org.

H/T – Yonason

Google ‘censoring’ anti-Obama bloggers?
Writer claims Internet giant banning stories that expose president-elect
November 28, 2008
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily

Is Google censoring anti-Obama stories?

Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs claims the search engine giant has banned her groundbreaking articles about Obama – a technique many people refer to as “sandboxing.”

“There was no warning, no notice, nothing,” Gellar told WND. “They have basically sandboxed me.”

“Sandboxing” happens when Google strips a website’s rankings from its search engine results. According to some theories, this happens to new websites when Google puts them into a holding area known as a “sandbox” until the site gains credibility.

However, Atlas Shrugs is not new, and Gellar believes her stories have been intentionally suppressed by the Internet giant – especially ones about President-elect Obama. She said her exclusive stories about Obama’s birth certificate that once received thousands of hits every day will not come up in Google word searches.

“I was in the top five search results before the story got legs,” she said. “These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day.”

But now a November earnings report from shows her Google clicks and revenue flat lining since Nov. 20. Daily page impressions dropped from an average of 20,000 and 45,000 to single digits – overnight. Also, her Google images hits are slowed to only 4,720 since that day, while Yahoo and other search engines list them in the hundreds of thousands.

“The media gives blogs the silent treatment,” she said. “The only thing we have is these searches. The Google word search is gone – all gone. When you are in my business, that’s how you build readership.”

On July 4, Gellar featured a story about a board-certified forensic expert who declared Obama’s online birth certificate a “forgery” and an “obvious fake.” She attributes most of her problems with Google to that report.

“I think that it’s the birth certificate story,” Gellar said. “All of the sudden, my numbers were down by 10,000.”

She has also featured reports on Obama’s support of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga and cases of alleged campaign finance fraud involving his campaign. Gellar believes Google is censoring her stories because it objects to their content.

“It’s a freedom of speech issue,” she said. “Who are they to decide what should be searched? They don’t like what I’m running so they ban me?”

Brit hate preacher glorifies Mumbai terrorists

All my news stations are cautioning everyone not to just assume muslims are behind the attacks. Looks like two of us are 100% convinced that they are. For once, I find myself in agreement with a minion. Muslims are behind this and they are not sorry about it.

You Brits already know I think you are a bunch of mice but allowing this idiot the venue to praise terrorists and the murder of hundreds is disgusting even for you.

Your surrender of your nation only encourages the minions to use the same tactics elsewhere. What they do not realize is we are not mice.

Thanks to sites like islamicfinder.org I already know where hundreds of muslim owned schools, businesses and people are located. Just in case I ever decide to convert, finding a place to do so will be a breeze.

London, Nov.28 2008 (ANI): British hate preacher Anjem Choudary last night praised the slaughter of 127 people by terrorists in Mumbai.
-The numbers of victims are already much higher and will continue to climb as the last of the murderous dogs behind the attacks are shot down.

In a vile rant, the Daily Star quoted Choudhary as saying that any Brits killed had only themselves to blame for being on the “battlefield” in the war Muslims nuts are waging against the world.
-It would be a damn shame if some sort of backlash happened against his mosque, yep a damn shame, just sayin …

Mumbai, lessons learned

Mumbai, lessons learned.
By Ronin, 27 November 2008

Although the situation is not completely over, it is showing signs of winding down. Several lessons have been learned and will help stem future attacks.

It is apparent that the terrorists did not pick random targets. This was a well-rehearsed attack. The murderous slime had a plan – one that was practiced, coordinated and included committing atrocities on non-combatants. This is an important distinction as it removes the title of professional soldier and makes them common criminals and terrorists.

This plan was not just carried out by the attack element. This plan required:

• A careful planner and support staff
• Logistical support
• Connections with the military, law enforcement and insiders who worked on the attack sites, or had recently visited them. In short, they had insiders helping them.
• They would have had muslim clerics to bless them, brainwash them and send them to their deaths.
• They would have practiced great operations security and have had a deception plan. A plan which will continue after all the attackers have been killed or captured.

All of these things would have been needed and all can eventually be tracked.

Expect arrests and a deluge of muslim apologists attempting to misdirect the investigation and deflect blame.

Unless India identifies what we already know and draws a hard line against the muslim community, this will happen again and again. Members of the muslim community would have known something was up and training was taking place, money being moved, things bought, questions asked, information sought and who was involved.

They did nothing. Confirmation will be easy, they will resist efforts to find additional cell members and toss the victim card.  India, I hope you finally wake up and smell the smoke, you are under attack from insiders; seek them out and make an example.

Ideology caused this and can be used against them. The muslims community will claim no connection to these men, so feed their bodies to pigs, bury the remains in unmarked graves with absolutely no religious ceremony, take away the ability of muslims to praise them in the future as martyrs. Give them what the deserve – complete and utter disgust.

Dells, Wisconsin: Police Officers Disrespect Two National Guardsmen – Made them Lap up “Urine” Like Dogs

These cops need some serious Abu Ghraib time…

Police officers made guardsmen lick up supposed urine, lawsuit states
ED TRELEVEN – Wisconsin State Journal
608-252-6134
etreleven@madison.com

Two Wisconsin National Guardsmen filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Wisconsin Dells, its police chief and three officers because they were forced to lap up what was believed to be human urine from the ground last summer.

The guardsmen, both of whom have served two tours of duty in Iraq, were in the Dells for weekend training and were stopped by police officers Wayne W. Thomas and Collin H. Jacobson early the morning of June 1 and accused of having urinated in public, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Madison.

The officers pointed out a wet spot in an alley that they thought was urine, the lawsuit states, but the guardsmen, Sgt. Anthony R. Anderson, of West Bend, and Specialist Robert C. Schiman, of Kaukauna, denied having relieved themselves in the alley.

In order to prove that it was not their urine and avoid a citation, Thomas and Jacobson made Anderson and Schiman lick the ground and scrape mud up with their hands and lick it, according to the lawsuit.

Schiman also was made to eat a plant that was drenched in the liquid, the lawsuit states.

A third officer, Scott Albrecht, arrived at the scene and was told by Jacobson, “I can’t stop laughing. Wayne just made those two guys lick their own piss off the ground,” according to the lawsuit.

The suit alleges infliction of emotional distress on the soldiers; negligent hiring, training and supervision of Thomas and Jacobson; false imprisonment and violation of the Constitutional and civil rights of Anderson and Schiman.

The Fallacy of the Separation of Church and State

An excellent source of information when confronted by God-hating Libtards.  Be sure to read it all:

What Is the Separation of Church and State?
by Christopher Merola – Town Hall
November 27, 2008

With this year’s Thanksgiving holiday at our door, it is fitting that we ask an important question that has so much to do with our Constitutional liberties: What is the Separation of Church and State?

Why is it fitting to ask this question as we approach the Thanksgiving holiday? Well, it’s precisely the Thanksgiving holiday that reminds us of the origins of the phrase, separation of church and state.

In 1620, a group of Christian pilgrims known as the Separatists washed ashore in what came to be known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. They first left England to escape religious persecution there. They landed in Holland but realized Holland was not a place that allowed their faith to flourish. They set sail again; this time for America.

When the pilgrims set up their colony in Plymouth, Massachusetts, they soon employed a policy that came out of their own struggles for religious freedom. They employed the first American policy of a separation of church and state.

This may seem like a counterintuitive decision for a group of deeply religious people. However, the Separatists knew full well that when the power of the church is placed under the control of the government, the government then begins to mandate its own sanctioned religious practice. The Separatists had endured the religious persecution of the state in England and wanted to ensure that no such persecution would occur in America. Unlike the Puritans, who believed in establishing some form of a Theocracy, these Separatists, being true to their name, decided to separate the two entities of the church and the state so as to allow the free expression of religion to flourish. That is precisely what happened. Early America in the 1600’s saw many religious groups and sects set up colonies that were specifically designed for the free expression of their religion without government interference. That is what the separation of church and state is really all about: keeping the government out of the church’s business.

Fast forward to the writing of our nation’s Bill of Rights in 1789. Founding fathers like Patrick Henry and James Madison knew that allowing a mandated government religious practice would stifle religious expression in the new nation. They decided to embrace what is the most harmonious balance between the federal government and the church that the world has ever seen. They wrote the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In the First Amendment we see the balance between the federal government’s role in protecting religious practice and not coercing it. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all Americans the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious practice: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The federal government cannot mandate a religious practice, nor can they prohibit religious practice. Unfortunately, in the last few decades we have seen many judicial rulings that demonstrate a desire to uphold the establishment clause of the First Amendment at the expense of the free exercise clause. This is completely contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment and a violation of it as well.

The first major case that undermined the balance between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause occurred in 1947. In Everson vs. Board of Education the Supreme Court, led by Justice Hugo Black, an FDR appointee and member of the Ku Klux Klan, reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This decision set in motion an unconstitutional chain of events that has undermined our First Amendment liberties ever since.

Just what did Justice Black and the other FDR appointees to the Supreme Court do? They hijacked a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” found in a letter he wrote to the Danville Baptist Association in Virginia (1802). Jefferson’s letter was actually used by the court to limit religious freedom.

Some Iranian Islamic Justice I Can Get Behind:

Iranian court sentences man to be blinded by acid
Via – Google News

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian newspapers say a court has sentenced a man who blinded a woman with acid also to be blinded with acid under the country’s Islamic law.

Thursday’s reports in several newspapers, including the Kargozaran, say 27-year-old Majid confessed to attacking Ameneh Bahrami in 2004 to dissuade anyone from marrying the woman he loved.

Wednesday’s ruling was issued based on the Islamic law system of “qisas,” or eye for an eye retribution.

The reports say Ameneh asked the court to sentence Majid, who was only identified by his first name, to be blinded by acid to prevent similar attacks on other women.

Majid is allowed to appeal the verdict.

69-Year-Old Shoots Burglar

As I’ve said before, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting: