Tokyo Teddy and Nancy and Tokyo CBS

"The other night we watched a movie called, "Flags of our Fathers." During the movie, I pointed out the radio broadcast of "Tokyo Rose." She had the best music on her station.

During World War II; the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work. They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways. The Japanese hoped it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

Does this sound familiar today? It is because we are being bombarded by Tokyo Harry, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo Nancy, Tokyo Murtha, etc., and they have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it to our troops on Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc.

Does anyone really believe that these people care one bit about the safety of our troops? All these guys have a vested interest in our losing this war: If we win, Bush is a hero. If we lose, then Bush can be blamed for decades.

The only difference in Tokyo Rose and these guys is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them.

Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side too."

General Peter Pace Casualty of NABFIL's War

All italics and emphasis are mine. So are asides in parentheses. The War Against Honor, God, and Country by the "not-actually"-but-faking-it-Liberals (NABFIL's) hit a new low. Don't worry, they are prepared to go lower. This show must go on. They are stupid and short sighted enough to believe their political careers are what this War Against Terrorism is all about. Related material: How Long Do We Have? below.


forwarded from a friend

I have what some might consider the macabre habit of reading the casualty reports from Iraq every day in the New York Times.

This may reflect the fact that I served in the military or that I worked in the White House during Vietnam.

But there's one name that hasn't yet appeared in the casualty reports: the name of General Peter Pace, the first Marine-and I say this with pride as a former Marine (What?!! There are no "former" Marines--except for John Murtha--H&A) --to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why am I looking for Pace's name on the casualty list? His distinguished military career was recently ended by the crudest kind of politics.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared Pace, a four-star Marine general with 48 military decorations on his chest, to be "incompetent. "

What incredible effrontery. Reid-who never wore the uniform-could have said he didn't agree with Pace's decisions or with the politically unpopular war in Iraq. He could have said he disliked the way Pace executed his responsibilities in advising the President.

But incompetent?

This kind of public disparagement of a military hero is disgraceful.

But Pace's career didn't end merely because of Reid's shoddy remarks. Pace, a faithful Catholic, also offended the secular god of Tolerance. He had the audacity to say that he believed sex outside of marriage was wrong, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

The New York Times instantly declared him a bigot. The rest of the media pack followed suit; few defended him. We are in real trouble, folks, if America's number one military officer cannot defend the proposition that the military should exemplify high moral standards.

President Bush decided not to send Pace's nomination up for the customary second term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Why not? Not because Peter Pace is incompetent; he was, after all, roundly commended by the President and Defense Secretary Gates. Gates recommended against Pace's re-nomination, and the President agreed, because his confirmation would have been subjected to Senate hearings that would have been grossly politicized.

Can you see the general sitting before a battery of senators cross-examining him, in front of the cameras, on whether he discriminated against homosexuals? Imagine the members of the Armed Services Committee-most of whom never served in the military-grilling Pace on whether his Catholic faith influenced his standards of prudery. At least two presidential candidates serve on this committee. The hearings would have been a (another) political circus.

It would also have been open season on second-guessing the war at the very moment our troops are in an offensive posture,
chasing al Qaeda.

The television reports, which our troops in the field see online, would have shown our so-called leaders berating the military and calling the cause in Iraq futile. They would have been demoralizing, to say the least.

But to our Senate leaders, the welfare of our soldiers is secondary to worshipping the secular god of Tolerance and raw
politics; thus they have in effect drummed out of the military one of the most honorable public servants I've ever known.

We should mourn the fact that we have lost the services of this decorated and principled man. And we should mourn the loss of honor, duty, and common decency among our nation's leaders.

Pardon my vulgarity, but Harry Reid wouldn't make a pimple on a good Marine's ass!

How Long Do We Have?

I wouldn't put this here for you to read if I didn't believe it's true. The jump to #3 below on the list is just what we'd like to see the Iraqi people make--at least those of us who want to see the Iraqis win this war so they can live and thrive in a civilized country before we come home. So far, the terrorist element in Iraq and its neighboring countries has held back its leap from spiritual faith to great courage and then on to liberty.

There are so many acts of courage every day that Iraqi citizens could absolutely make the decision to leap to liberty. It doesn't look like they will have as long as it could take them to make the jump, however. The narcissists in the USA are making the political pressure at home insurmountable. They've even preempted General Petraeus' September surge report by becoming loudly impatient--just when it looks like progress is inevitable--and just so the loss can be used as one of their election talking points. They NEED a loss for us in Iraq almost as much as Iran, al Qaeda, and the Wahhabis do. And THEY do not have much time for that.

As far as the United States goes, we have as long as we want to have. It all comes down to whether or not the majority of us want to be dependent on our government for basic needs, or whether we want to provide for ourselves. I'd like to see us back up a little from the complacency position on the list below to the step above: the abundance level.

We've been great in that phase--among the greatest the world has ever seen--and we really could stay there a whole lot longer if we collectively would want abundance more than to have our every need filled by our government. I welcome your thoughts.


HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University Of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years." "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 presidential election:

*Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29

*Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580 ,000
Bush: 2,42 7, 000

*Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million

*Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by :
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gores territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Thanks for reading.

Why The Dems Can't Wait To Declare The War A Loss

Here's why the Democrats just can't wait for General Petraeus' Progress report on the surge in September--why they simply "have" to jump up and down right now in July declaring the Iraqi "front" a dismal failure. It's because their own country (should be their own side as well, dontcha think?) might just be making a little too much progress in Iraq for them to make enough hay out of the situation to ace the elections in 2008. NJ primaries just got bumped up to February. You know the ol' timing line.

***
From World Net Daily

Friday, July 13, 2007


The Democrats' fear we might win in Iraq
Posted: July 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By David Limbaugh
© 2007

The Democrats' long-entrenched position, partisan interests and ideological inclinations militate against them changing their mind on Iraq, regardless of the facts on the ground.

First, please consider honestly what the Democrats' reaction will be if in September, Gen. David Petraeus reports that our troop surge in Iraq is yielding unambiguously successful results against the enemy and in training Iraqi security forces.

Do you believe there is any realistic possibility Democrats will rejoice at the news, applaud the efforts of our troops and retreat from their demands that we begin immediate troop withdrawal? (Their reaction to the surge's success so far give us some clues, does it not?)

If I am correct that they will not – and I would be most happy to be wrong – why do you think that is?

One major reason, of course, is that they cannot stand President Bush nor bear the prospect of history vindicating his stubborn determination. They have staked the last four years on discrediting him on Iraq and know that history cannot vindicate him without repudiating them.

Their repudiation would decrease their chances of electoral victory in 2008. Can you imagine all the capital they will have wasted on their efforts to destroy President Bush and undermine our mission in Iraq?

They shouldn't have the economy as an issue, including the deficit, since Bush's tax cuts are leading to fulfillment of his promise to cut the deficit in half. They'll still trot out class and race warfare and push national health care. But a consistently strong economy, apparent success in Iraq and an earned reputation for softness on national defense and security during time of war will be formidable hurdles.

But I submit that their unremitting hostility toward Bush and their partisan interests are not the only reasons for their intractable opposition to the war in Iraq. The Democrats want us out of Iraq, not necessarily because they don't think we can win, but perhaps because they fear we can, because they don't believe our cause there is just.

Not that I need further proof for these suppositions beyond my observations, but I received an e-mail recently from an articulate, passionate liberal saying he had no desire to wave the American flag because of his contempt for our policies in Iraq, which has resulted in the unnecessary and unjust waste of lives and resources. The e-mailer's sentiments were nothing exceptional, but fairly typical of the anti-war position.

We know, because they say so, that they don't believe Iraq is part of the war on terror. To them, it is truly a civil war that we have largely caused by our unjust ouster of Saddam and our prolonged, provocative "occupation" of that country. The sectarian strife and violent opposition to the burgeoning Iraqi government is being caused by our "occupation," as opposed to al-Qaida and Iran, and will probably end upon our withdrawal.

They believe either the terrorists are so few in number as not to constitute a global threat or that they are only directing their terrorism against us because of our policies, a matter on which they seem to sympathize with the terrorists.

They don't understand that people who engage in terrorism don't need provocation, that their terrorism is ideologically and theologically based and that it will not stop or be redirected away from the United States no matter what accommodating policy changes we make.

We are the Great Satan that represents a cultural, ideological, theological, political and military obstacle to their goal of worldwide domination. Unless we submit or convert, they will not relent; indeed their theology commands them not to, no matter how much we tailor our policies to accommodate them.

Democrats obviously don't believe our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen the terrorists' ability to wage war against us. Curiously, however, key anti-war Democrats are now saying they would not recommend a complete withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep a residual force there to prevent al-Qaida from using it as a safe haven.

Sorry to break the news to them, but preventing al-Qaida from establishing a permanent beachhead in Iraq for terrorist operations is one of the main reasons for the surge. They will be able to operate out of Iraq unless we keep sufficient forces there until the Iraqi security forces are able to assume primary responsibility for maintaining the security and protecting the new government – however long that takes.

The Democratic leadership simply will not be on board to help us protect ourselves against this global jihadist threat as long as they grossly underestimate its nature and scope and until they subordinate their partisan interests to the national interest. Sadly, President Bush will have to persevere without their help and over their opposition.

***
David Limbaugh is a best-selling author and attorney.

Send Well Wishes to Jon Schrieken

The rant of the day: When are journalists going to write stories that don't cater to their political biases? It's called "NEWS" guys! I know everything is cyclical. It's got to happen that they are going to "come around" one sane day soon. They've certainly been on the dark side for too long now.

In the meantime, you can send your well wishes to Jon Schrieken at: www.cooperhealth.org/content/PatientGuide_egreetings.htm

From Michelle Malkin's report.

***
When Peaceniks Attack, Journalists Snooze

by Michelle Malkin
Wed Jul 11, 3:00 AM ET

A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and "wanted to make a statement" on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force Base loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.

The shooting got no mention in The New York Times — not even a squib in a back section (though the paper did see fit to put the shooting of a 7-year-old girl in Trenton on the front page).

Local media outlets have gathered a few news tidbits about the shooter, Matthew Marren, who killed himself after attacking Schrieken outside his Willingboro home. Schrieken roomed with a few other servicemen in the rented house. Schrieken did not know Marren. PhillyBurbs.com reported that a relative said Marren was "angry at the government and wanted to make a statement" on Independence Day. Authorities found two suicide notes that "were indicative of an individual suffering from mental-health problems."

A random act of insanity? Not so fast. There's more to the story. A reader whose son is the best friend of Senior Airman Schrieken wrote to Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs (littlegreenfootballs.com) blog with background details:

"My son's best friend, Jon, who's in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base, was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22-year-old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said 'not any more' and shot him point-blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself.

"Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier. We are very worried about our Airman . . . he's like a son to me. He's been to Iraq and Afghanistan on our behalf and then gets shot in his own driveway here in the U.S. by an anti-war, anti-American lunatic. This is gut wrenching."

Now, imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to "make a statement"? The Times would be holding front-page vigil, and Katie Couric's brow would be furrowed for a week. The yakkity yaks on "The View" would be clucking their tongues about the culture of violence bred by the military — and who knows what Rosie O'Donnell would be dressing her poor child in to exploit the story on her website.

Funny how the Root Causes crowd becomes so incurious about the root causes of crime when the suspects are anti-military nutballs and anti-war protesters. To the extent leftists pay any attention at all to this attempted murder, you can expect it to be downplayed as an isolated incident. Never mind the pro-fragging comments made by troop-bashing academic fraudsters like Ward Churchill; the iconic banners that proclaim "We support our troops when they shoot their own officers" and "Don't impeach Bush . . . execute him"; the countless acts of vandalism against military recruitment offices nationwide since 9/11; and the burning of soldiers in effigy by hate-filled peaceniks.

Oh, and this week, the trial of Michael Curtis Reynolds began. He's a Pennsylvania man and al Qaeda sympathizer accused of plotting to blow up U.S. energy installations in order to drive up gas prices and precipitate a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. In e-mail exchanges with Internet sleuth Shannen Rossmiller, who unmasked the bombing plot, Reynolds called the United States an "accursed country" and said "it isn't the land of the free, but the home of the new dictators."

Harmless rantings? No. Ideas, like the bullet in Jon Schrieken's chest, have consequences.

***

Readers can send get-well wishes to Schrieken at www.cooperhealth.org/content/PatientGuide_egreetings.htm.

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.