Terrorists Trying to Meet End of Month Quota

The morning news on September 30, 2012 brought some disturbing information.

The US death toll in Afghanistan passed the 2,000 mark. This is not a statistic to be celebrated. It is a warning that the war there is far from over. The latest casualty comes from yet another infiltrator attacking US and Afghan Soldiers at a checkpoint. These attacks are designed to hamper relations and rot away at the already tenuous trust between the indigenous forces and the US military. They are planned and deliberate, many times with a target already selected.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Tariq al-Hashami's in absentia sentencing for using Iraqi forces and a private militia to run death squads against Shia'a political opposition, Iraq was again pock-marked with attacks targeting Iraqi security forces and Shia'a pilgrims. Three VBIEDs detonated in the city of Taji. They targeted the homes of prominent Shia'a politicians and police checkpoints. Another VBIED detonated in the Iraqi town of Mada'in, targeting a bus loaded with Shia'a pilgrims from Iran. (Of note, other Iranian Shia'a pilgrims have been kidnapped in Syria recently). Another car-bomb attacked pilgrims and Iraqi Security Forces in the town of al-Kut. There were also attacks in the former Al Q'aeda stronghold near Mosul as well as the town of Baqubah, where former al-Q'aeda Iraq leader Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi was killed by a US airstrike. The violence in Iraq killed a total of 24 people.

Meanwhile, in Nairobi, Kenya, children at a church-based school were attacked by grenades. The attack killed one child and wounded six others. This was most likely committed by the al-Q'aeda linked al-Shabab terrorist organization. Al-Shabab is one of the Islamic Terrorist groups that has seized control of southern Somalia. Earlier this week, the Kenyan military conducted a military operation to liberate the Somali town of Kismayo from the group, which maintained a stronghold in the city.


With the attacks over the past week, it almost appears as though terror groups are attempting to meet a monthly quota.


While I could delve into the "payday theory" surrounding attack cycles in Iraq, this is hardly a viable justification for the seeming sudden rise in attacks. Most of the attacks took planning, rehearsal, funding, logistics, and other processes that involve more than sporadic, impulsive, spur-of-the-moment violence.

The "payday theory" was one used on the "street level" in Iraq to explain why Wednesday and Thursday trends were higher in incidents than the other days of the week. The simple theory was that Ahmad would pass off missions to people at mosque on Fridays, promising payment if an attack was performed (and could be proven) before the following Friday, when the Dinars and Dollars would be handed out for services rendered. Most of those attacks were far less professionally executed, and many of  them botched.

These attacks in Iraq come on the heels of a jailbreak near Tikrit that freed at least 90 criminals including several men described as "hardcore al-Q'aeda operatives". That jailbreak also involved the burning of evidential documentation and theft of source documentation identifying some detainees who were cooperating with intelligence investigations seeking insurgents and terrorists at large.

Taking other terrorist activities in the past few weeks into account, along with the UN's "general debate",  it should come as no surprise that these are not random. They are intentional and coordinated. It is as if a globally positioned subversive military group has mobilized into a world-wide coordinated attack. Instead of a single, large-scale, attention-grabbing event, they are smaller-scale and designed towards a specific set of objectives. It almost appears as these are all military shaping operations in preparation for the next terrorist surge.

Iraqi Jailbreak Frees Terrorists

Early Morning September 28, 2012, a vehicle-borne-improvised-explosive-device (VBIED) detonated outside of the main prison near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, in Iraq.

Seconds later, heavily armed men utilizing military tactics stormed several security checkpoints within the prison, killing at least 13 Iraqi policemen, wounding approximately 35 more.

They assisted over 90 prisoners (original count of 83 was found to be incorrect) to escape, including some influential members of terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Sunnah and Al Q'aeda. The terrorist operatives also broke into the administration areas searching for files about detainee interviews and confidential source information, taking documents that most likely pointed to identities of those who assisted the Shurta (Police). Other files were set on fire.

The Shurta Wattaniyah (Federal Police) and Iraqi Army are conducting an aggressive manhunt to recapture the terrorists and other escapees.

Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi

This is reminiscent of when Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi (AMZ) was liberated during what seemed like a random insurgent raid on a small prison in western Iraq. The coalition forces using the prison had no idea that the man the enemy combatants freed would turn out to be the leader of the Iraqi branch of al-Q'aeda and their political shadow government, "The Islamic State of Iraq".  AMZ is best known for personally beheading American Civilian Nick Berg with a rusty hacksaw. AMZ also kidnapped and executed Matthew Maupin.


Most likely emboldened by the recent violence in the region, the current rhetoric over the extradition of Abu Hamza al-Masri, and Ahmadinejad's statements before the UN; the terrorists enacted their plan. Plans such as this are not spur of the moment actions. The building of a VBIED can take weeks to accomplish, especially in a manner that does not raise suspicion. This action was probably in the planning and reconnaissance phase for well over a month. It was methodical, rehearsed, and deliberate. Taking all of that into account, in addition to their targeting of intelligence files, it is highly likely that at least one of those escapees is somebody of high importance. If not recaptured, we may see a sharp rise in violent and deadly attacks in Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and possibly even an attempted attack here in the US within the next 6 months. 



The video below is from SSG Maupin's funeral. Please render proper honors and respect. 

Thoughts on the Latest Poll Numbers

 
Hey Romney Campaign -- Since You Have No Balls, We collected Some For You!

Let's discuss political polling. There are allegations that the polls are biased. There are facts out there that indicate polling techniques and samplings lean in a way to skew the results in efforts to affect voting. That just might be true. It probably is true.

I worked market surveys in my younger days. It is true that the way survey and polling questions are worded can sway the answers received. It's a fact of human nature. Marketing polls are written in such a manner in order to gain attention to certain products. It is also true that pollsters will look at people, using profiling, in order to garner people to take the surveys that fit into a select demographic. I have two words about those facts:  so what?

Here's the flat out fact people ignore:  will the results of surveys that polled other people affect your vote? If your answer is yes, then pay attention to those numbers. They will not affect my vote. They will not affect any amount of campaign work I may do for any candidate other than to motivate me to work harder if my guy is behind. However, those results will not change my decision. They really should not affect yours.

If they affect your choice, you are an idiot. Electing an official who can and will do the job we are hiring him (or her) to fill is not a popularity contest. It isn't about who has better hair or a cuter smile. It is about which one will do the job. It is about which one will most comply with the rules, laws, and hard contract with the employers (citizens).

The pure facts remain that Obama has not upheld that contract. He believes it to be renegotiable on a second by second basis, and that we, the employers, have no say in how he changes it. If you doubt that fact, you may want to look at all of the executive orders he has signed. You may want to look at the executive regulatory policies enacted as though they are as valid as legislated law. You may then  want to take a look at those among those EOs and policies that have been decided upon by the court system. The vast majority that have been brought before the courts have been deemed invalid. However, that is after the EO, regulations, and policy in question has already done some level of damage.

If you want examples, research the light bulb fiasco. Take some time and research the way the socialists attempted to take over farms through excessive regulation of "farm dust" and cow flatulence. There are even cases where the EPA (which works for the president) has attempted to violate the fourth amendment and seize property from its lawful owners because of some bird or butterfly. Read that again. Notice I explicitly named the fourth amendment. The Constitution is the hard contract with the states and citizens that Obama seeks to bypass, violate, ignore, or alter at a whim. He believes that he has the right to seize private property acquired through the natural right of "the pursuit of happiness" without a warrant issued due to probable cause. He thinks he is king. He thinks he owns your property and is just lending it to you.

Whole books have already been written about violations such as these that Obama has committed. Whole books researching his upbringing and ideology are on the shelves at the book stores.

On top of it, you have idiots pointing fingers at Bush as some uncaring and heartless soul. Bush signed letters to our fallen. Bush still attends fundraisers for charities that assist veterans. Bush feels the weight of every life sacrificed during his administration and since. Obama calls them "bumps in the road". Brian Terry, killed by a weapon provided to a foreign criminal/terrorist organization by Obama's administration, is just a "bump in the road". Our ambassador to Libya along with the three others murdered by a terrorist group are just "bumps in the road". A US Citizen lawfully exercising his first amendment rights is, instead, criminalized. That citizen committed no crime, incited no violence, and called for nobody to be harmed. Yet, according to Obama, he is to be considered a criminal. Compare those two men.

Was Bush perfect? No he wasn't. He was far from the perfect president. He isn't even in my top 10 (about 20%). However, he was far better than O-blamer. Yes, I am just saying that because I met the man. However, I met each president who held office while I was active in the military except Obama. Obama considers military members to be just "bumps in the road", much like Hitlery Clinton thought herself equal to royalty when she commanded US Soldiers to "turn [their] eyes away" because they were "not worthy of looking at [her]".

Do I think Romney is the best choice? No, I do not. However, he is the only viable candidate who can beat Obama. He is far from perfect. However, his platform and policies are far, far better than those we have suffered under the past approximately 4 years. At least Romney knows how to run a business and manage people. At least he knows how to lead. At least Mitt knows that a balanced budget is better than bankruptcy. At least Mitt doesn't want the citizens of this country subjugated under him and his cronies and dependent upon the efforts of somebody else in order to prosper individually.

Yes, Romney's campaign is currently a little soft-cell. What does that mean to conservatives and libertarians who want nothing less than to evict Obama from our White House? Well, it falls upon us to do the "hard-sell". It is up to us to openly tell people why we want Romney (or do not want Obama). It is up to us to get our friends to register to vote and actually show up at the election sites and vote. it is up to those of capable to get certified as polling officials to watch those election sites to make sure laws are followed (and help prevent/deter fraud).

So, if you don't like the current poll results, quit crying about their bias. Instead, go out and do something. Sitting there and crying about it makes you sound like the zombies who are voting for Obama. "You want me to learn how to fish instead of just stealing your fish? Waaaaaah! You're racists! That's unfair!"

You Have to Get Past the BS (Decision 2012)

For those who wander through life unaware of world events, this is a presidential election year.

What that means is a few things. First is the obvious that at least three people are competing for the job of chief executive officer of the United States of America:  Romney, Johnson, and incumbent Obama.

It also means that, like happens every two years, every seat in the US House of Representatives is also holding an election in each congressional district.

It also means that approximately 1/3 of the US Senate is also headed to the polls for, by Constitutional Amendment, the citizens of the respective states to decide who will represent them in that house of the legislature.

Among those national elections that greatly impact the immediate and long-term futures of our great republic, there are also several state and local level elections to determine who will enter office and govern at those levels.

Another thing this means is that lawful, registered voters have some hard decisions to make. Some who qualify to vote will abstain and not bother to register (or, if registered, won't bother).

As with every election, this will mark the first big election cycle for many new voters who turned 18 within the past two years or so (or are energized enough to finally start voting). Today, September 25, 2012, is "national voter registration day", marking one of the last chances for many of them to register. I have had the honor to speak, chat, text, or otherwise interact with a few new voters in the past week.

One of them truly is currently undecided. That new voter confessed that she did not follow the primaries and finds the news depressing. She also admitted that she trusts the information and rhetoric she has encountered in new media only slightly more than she does the mainstream media. Most of her information has come from campaign commercials and word of mouth.

She asked me why I back the candidates I back. I answered her as honestly as I could. Next she asked about certain issues and what she had heard about one of the candidates. The majority of what she had heard was blatantly false. Those who spoke to her not only attempted to push the hyperbole of one party, but had mutated  that hyperbole into ridiculous lies.

I was honest about my bias and where it stems from. Those who have approached me understand that. I do not attempt to hide it. However, I also caveat my answers with a statement about making up one's own mind based upon verifiable facts and not heated rhetoric. I was asked specifically why I backed whom I did and about my thoughts surrounding these lies. So, I pulled the veil away about the lies and presented honest facts, then explained how I support the candidates I support. So, I was asked for a biased opinion and analysis. If asked to just state the issues, the platforms, and the constitutional facts, I could have restricted my answers accordingly.

Here are a couple of the lies. "[Candidate X wants to make birth control illegal". None of the candidates I was asked about, pro or con, wants to make birth control illegal. Even if the presidential candidates have moral issues with birth control, the president does not make laws, though Obama believes he has that power.

"[Candidate X] wants to steal federal funding of Planned Parenthood". Well, federal law already did that. The laws were voted on in Congress and passed years ago. As an NPO and NGO, groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Boy Scouts of America, AARP, NAACP, etc. should not receive federal tax money anyway. It is actually not a constitutional allocation of federal revenue. So, it's a moot issue.

Those examples demonstrated a serious lack of education. Before graduating high school, turning 18, and registering to vote, citizens should take a non-partisan class on the US Constitution and its history. Why? Well, if voters pulled out that rather short document and read it, they would know what each federal-level elected office is responsible to do, is authorized to do, and what it is expressly forbidden to. They would rest their eyes on some key amendments as well, such as the 10th, which states that anything not explicitly stated in the US Constitution as a federal authority/responsibility is reserved to the states and individual citizens. In other words, if it isn't in there, they can't do it. That pure and simple truth should eliminate much of the diatribe posited by all sides. Of course, in reading that supreme law of the land (not a guideline), the voters will also plainly see who has violated that supreme law, and who intends to violate it more.

It is the responsibility of a law-abiding citizen to vote. In accomplishing that responsibility, it is implicit that they do their diligence and do some research. This is NOT a popularity contest. We are not voting for prom queen. We are voting for our economic future. We are voting on our national sovereignty. We are voting on our individual rights, to include personal property (both physical and intellectual) -- otherwise known as the "pursuit of happiness". To get past the BS, you need to read. You need to do some math and check the math of a few other people. You need to ask important questions based in the real issues (not the shiny "gaffe of the day") and on the US Constitution. 

Personally, I voluntarily sacrificed, for 24 years of my adult life, much of my individual sovereignty in order to support and defend the citizens of  this great republic and the supreme law that governs it. Now, I intend to enjoy those basic natural rights and constitutional rights I spent so long fighting to defend. I see one candidate who has chipped away at those and seeks to deprive my fellow citizens and I of more of those rights. In actuality, I am not voting for one candidate. I am voting for the one candidate who stands the best chance of defeating the one that threatens all that I hold most dear. I am voting for somebody with a track record of professionalism and competency and against an amateur whose ideology is contrary to our Constitution.

But that is my informed decision. Each voter needs to get the facts (not emotive rhetoric), check that supreme law, and make their own decision.

Heads of State, The UN, and the Mess in the Mid-East

Today, Obama is set to address the UN General Assembly as the General Debate opens.

Among the main topics are terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and unrest in the Middle East.

A couple of years ago, another head of state addressed the general assembly concerning unrest and events in the Middle East. That man, Qaddafi, is now dead. His assassination was the result of the so-called "Arab Spring" that has led to much of the current rash of unrest in the region.

With the uprisings of alleged freedom-seekers came its left-wing shadow government, the Muslim Brotherhood, who is suspected of enabling various terrorist groups around the globe, including Al Q'aeda.

Today, Obama will point fingers at American film-makers for irritating the sensitivities of people in those countries. Those people rioted and enabled an alleged terrorist group to rape and murder a US Ambassador. Obama will most likely apologize and blame the citizens of his own country.

Obama has already hinted that he plans to warn the UN against placing more sanctions on Iran's nuclear proliferation and development program. In his typical ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth, Obama does plan to make a statement to the effect that Iran should not be allowed to make nuclear weapons. Think about that. he plans to advise against keeping religious extremists and a tyrannical theocratic oligarchy from having nuclear weapons capabilities. If you couple that along with Obama's plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal, it spells out a clear path to make the US weak and to enable our enemies to defeat us.

Of course, this is in response to the plight of the poor, peaceful people in this violent region of the world. It is to assist the uprisings and new governments in places like Syria that respect human life so much that they abduct, torture, and abuse children.

Meanwhile, Queen Elisabeth of the United Kingdom is quoted as having chimed in about an alleged Islamic Extremist and terror advocate, Abu Hamza (Arabic for "Daddy of the Bomb"), who gives firebrand sermons at the Finsbury Park Mosque in London. Officials in the US are seeking extradition of Abu Hamza on allegations of terrorist support. The Queen asked how a man who claims to be a cleric can be permitted to incite violence and terrorism. She found it odd that he hadn't yet been arrested. It appears she supports extradition to the US. Normally, the Queen does not publicly remark on such topics.

That begs the question of where Obama will stand. Will he push for the extradition that has been stuck in processing and awaiting approval for over eight years, or will he simply let the issue die? Will he stand with our long-time ally, the UK, or will he side with the child molesting forces in Syria? Will he stand by the American People or will he point fingers at Americans, again, and apologize to our enemies?

This General Debate is heating up to be one that would rival the "Who Shot JR?" episode of Dallas. I just hope the heads of state that are worth listening to remember that the US and UK do not bend their knees to the UN.

Sorry Kids, They Lied To You

Many times I have heard so-called "progressives" refer to the US Constitution as a "guideline". Well, those who believe so, you were lied to.

The US Constitution is not a game-masters' guide for some role-playing game.

The US Constitution is not some programmed rules in a video game for which you can buy, steal, or discover "cheat codes".

The US Constitution isn't the advice given from Dr. Phil or some high school guidance counselor.

It is not a suggestion.

It is not a guideline.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the list of hard and fast rules to which all other laws must conform. It is what gives our federal government its power, and limits that power to an enumerated and specific list of responsibilities. It is what reserves other authorities to state governments, limits those state governments so they cannot infringe upon individual rights of the citizens of this republic, and protects the individual citizens from any local, state, or federal official who attempts to become a tyrant.

The US Constitution is a binding contract between the free citizens of the US and the states they comprise, and the government of the republic of the United States of America.

It establishes a republic, not a democracy. It explicitly states that any new state entered into the union must have a republican form of government, with a constitution, that also restricts the powers of that state's government.

The history behind this supreme law is one the highly values individual efforts and merits. It hinges on recognizing individual property rights, both physical and intellectual. In fact, the state can only lawfully own what we the people allow them.

It is true that the US Constitution was written in order to allow it to be changed with the times. Those changes are called Constitutional Amendments. The changes are not subject to misinterpretations based upon the whims and slang misuses of terms of a given day. In fact, the US Constitution even goes so far as to establish a means of peacefully repealing that contract and convening a new congress to draft and ratify a new contract.

Imagine if the US Constitution really were just a set of "guidelines".

First, it would mean that every piece of legislation passed under it is also "just a guideline" and not enforceable by the government the Constitution authorizes. It would mean that no government official has any authority except what they can enforce through threats and violence. It would mean that the Constitution itself established something nearing an anarchy. That is a false notion. We are a republic, not an anarchy.

It would also mean that those in government offices are not restricted by the US Constitution. It means that the Bill of Rights is nothing but suggestions they can choose to not follow. It would mean nobody has any real rights. It would mean that, not only are we just shy of an anarchy, but we are already set up to install the tyranny that normally follows a period of anarchy. That is a false notion. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the government officials are restricted in power in order to prevent tyranny. The very rights enumerated in the US Constitution were placed there to further emphasize that condition.

If you believe the US Constitution is just a nice little essay that lists some suggestions and "guidelines", you are wrong. If some civics teacher told you it is such a list of suggestions, you were lied to. It is the progressives, socialists, communists, oligarchs, tyrants, and collectivists that want to see you enslaved that invented that lie.

Review -- Schlichter II: I AM A LIBERAL

Now Available Only at Amazon.com!!!

Just a few months after Kurt Schlichter released his first best-seller, I Am A Conservative, his follow-up, or sequel, I Am A Liberal is now on the electronic shelves at an Amazon eBook store near you. Yes, devoted Schlicter fans, it is full of #caring. In fact, there is $100.oo worth of #caring in that cheap $5.99 eBook. IN fact, you may need to purchase a Ballistic Tough Jacket for Amazon Kindle to protect your Kindle when you drop it from laughing too hard. No, you need not purchase a Kindle to read the book. There are free applications available for your iPad, Motorola DROID RAZR MAXX smart phone, or computer that enable you to read Kindle versions without purchasing an eBook reader.

If you have not yet read Kurt's first foray into political humor, it is a "must-read". It is Kurt's way of adopting one of Alinsky's tactics, employing humor to reduce your opponents' platforms to mockery, against the very oligarchists that champion Alinksy. It's brilliant.

Mr. Schlichter's sophomore work surpasses the first. His first work was mostly a collection of one-liners, many taken from various "Twitter-Rants" Kurt is near famous for publishing on Twitter. I Am A Liberal is more than that. The book contains many of those one-liners for which he is famous. However, his latest also contains more:  more humorous essays, more cited examples of those worth mocking, and more Kurt.

The opening chapter delves into the depths of the "Liberal Elite". After Kurt humorously explains his position, he adds one-liners such as:  

I am a Liberal: You can’t expect my half-wit constituents to support themselves...I sure don’t.
I am a Liberal: You’re racist. I’ll let you know why after I watch some MSM news shows or read the New York Times editorial page. 

Another chapter of the book sets its sights on Obama and his devoted lap-dog house servants:

When I think of cool, I tend to think of someone who is an achiever, who makes things happen, who has a way with the ladies. A cool guy is rough, and awesome to be around. He has a track record of success.

An uncool guy is just the opposite. He achieves nothing, and he’s someone who can’t seem to influence events, who has zero game. He’s soft, and a pain in the ass to be around. He is a failure.

Tell me again how Obama is “cool?”

He wears a goofy bike helmet and talks like a sociology grad student. The only time he shows emotion is when some mere mortal has the temerity to shout, “That skinny guy has no clothes… well, except for the mom jeans!” 

Then he delves into the rampant hypocrisy of the left on such issues as "cultural sensitivity", "racism", and the so-called "war on women":

Take women and women’s rights. Liberals are huge supporters of women’s rights. They love women. Women are awesome. And then, when a liberal hero leaves a woman to drown in a car, or decides to convert one into a walking humidor in the Oval Office, record scratch! It all changes.

Kurt even includes a wonderful lexicon so that non-collectivists can understand "progressives" when they are speaking with them. I, for one, am grateful for this section. It explains why some liberals nod in agreement with me, then attempt to tell me that my words do not support my actions (when they most certainly do).

America (Noun): A bloodstained hellhole of genocide and consumerism redeemed only at irregular intervals when the electorate inadvertently elects a borderline socialist.

______

Bigoted (Adjective): Holding or embracing hateful, prejudicial beliefs toward anyone except conservative, Christians, Jews, men, or anyone else that liberals have listed in their weekly enemies memo.

______

Bipartisanship (Noun): A state of being that involves conservatives jettisoning all their beliefs and buying into tax increases; see also “Reasonable.”

Other topics Kurt tackles are liberal teens, the "Occupy movement", the Democratic Party elitists, the lap-dog media, and the socialist-elitists in the entertainment industry. (Of note, not all people in the entertainment industry are oligarchs. People such as Adam Baldwin, Chuck Woolery, and Clint Eastwood serve as redeeming points of light in that otherwise plastic abyss.)
 
The snippets provided are, by far, not the most entertaining excerpts from the book. Those I reserve to those intelligent individuals that fork over the $5.99 to Amazon.com and make this investment. The eBook costs about the same as a venti latte at Starschmucks. Just think, after reading it, you will be able to properly converse with the "expert barista" as they "Fetch you latte". #caring