Putin's NU-Soviets

The war that is now raging in the Republic of Georgia is the latest example of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's Nu-Soviet expansion. One can argue that President Saakashvili of Georgia bit off a bit more than he could chew with his assault on the South Ossetian separatists.

Observers have been all over the web accusing Georgia of attacking first and deserve everything they are getting. There is one small problem with that argument. South Ossetia is a part of Georgia and not a part of Russia. The Russians have given the vast majority of the South Ossetians Russian citizenship as a way of providing an excuse to intervene on these new Russians behalf.

When Georgia attempted to regain control of their own territory from the separatists it gave Russia the excuse it needed to invade. If you have not been keeping up with the politics in this area of the world, let me update you a bit. The Republic of Georgia has been a democracy ever since the non-violent Rose revolution in 2003 that saw the exit of Eduard Shevardnadze, former Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union.

Georgia has been a thorn is the side of Russia ever since with their aspirations of joining NATO and the EU. Putin has viewed Georgia and the Ukrainians ambitions of joining NATO as a threat to his sphere of influence. He maybe right, but with the history of Russian empirical lust, containment is good medicine for that lust.

For those of you that think Georgia is the instigator in this mess, just remember that Russia has been violating Georgian airspace with MiGs and launching wayward missiles into a democratic Georgia for the past year. Russia cut off natural gas supplies to Georgia during a brutal winter and they fund and arm the South Ossetian separatists in their quest to leave Georgia. The NU-Soviets are on the rise and they must be stopped now!

Sphere: Related Content

British had "secret deal" with terrorists

In a rare act of cowardice, the former British Empire signed a pact with the Iranian-backed al-Mahdi Army to "not" participate in the battle of Basra. If you remember, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki ordered Iraqi forces to take Basra back from the Mahdi army that was in control of the city. After the United States came to the defense of the Iraqis, the British watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.

According to the The Times (London) " Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who ordered the assault, and high-ranking US military officers had become disillusioned with the British as a result of their failure to act. Another confirmed that the deal, negotiated by British Intelligence, had been a costly mistake."

Also according to The Times, Captain Eric Whyne, another US Marine officer who took part in the battle, said that he was astounded that “a coalition force would make a pact with essentially their enemy and promise not to go into their area so as not to get attacked”. He alleged that “some horrific atrocities” were committed by the militia in Basra during the British watch."

The British have historically been America's best ally when it comes to fighting, whether it be the Nazis, Soviet Communism or the Global war on terror. Since the departure of PM Tony Blair, Gordon Brown's Nu-Labor government has become an unreliable partner in the war on terror. The labor party is in great peril with their own electorate and we can only hope that the Tories have a Lady Thatcher waiting in the wings.

Sphere: Related Content

Winning the war on terror

Between January 1st and July 28th. more than 2700 Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other Islamo-Fascist terrorists have been sent to Allah and the 72 virgins. Since the war on terror began in Afghanistan, over 24,000 terrorists have been eliminated in that theater of battle.

Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 22,000+ Al-Qaeda, Islamo-Fascist and insurgents have been regulated to martyrdom. It is estimated that 30,000 Iraqi military personnel were killed in the initial invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

With the success of the surge violence continues to decline in Iraq, down 85% from last year and Al-Qaeda is on the run. The United States just removed 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — from Saddam's failed nuclear weapons program.

I realize that most Americans have not seen the number of terrorist deaths inflicted by our armed forces. The liberal media would like you to think that only American soldiers and innocent civilians are getting killed. They also would like you to think that President Bush and our military are failures and torturers.

Americans should take comfort in the knowledge that America "is" winning the war on terror. Democrats in general and liberals in particular have fought Pesident Bush in his waging of war and delayed our victory in the process. If Obama is elected as the 44th President of the United States, I feel the tide will turn back towards the Islamo-fascists.

UPDATE-Afghanistan: As of 8-22-2008-There are now 3500 Islamo-fascist terrorists that have been sent to Allah this year alone. Nice work of our coalition forces wouldn't you say?

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's magic mystery tour

Barak Obama's recent "magic mystery tour" has been covered by the main stream media as if he were already the 44th president of the United States. The mainstream media has finally admitted their bias towards Obama with their collective orgasmic coverage of his trip abroad.

One interesting fact that has emerged from his foray is that he continues to deny the fact the the surge is working in Iraq. I am not a fan of Katie Couric, but she did press Obama on this fact and did not let him shy away from the facts on the ground in regards to the success of the surge. If Obama cannot see the American success in Iraq with his own two eyes, what makes us think that he has the judgement to conduct the war on terror.

He was asked about the success of the surge by Katie Couric and Obama responded "It doesn't meet our long term strategic goals". I guess victory is not in the liberals long term goals for the United States of America. It has been stated that "what is good for America is bad for liberals."

McCain had a good analogy about Senator Obama when he said, " I would rather lose an election than lose a war. My opponent would rather lose a war than a political campaign." I think that sums up the liberal philosophy towards American national security.

Sphere: Related Content

Who is really to blame for high gas prices?

When you walk into the polling booth this November, just remember which party supports cheaper energy. Every time that you vote for a Democratic candidate for Congress you vote for higher gas prices. Every time you vote for a Democratic candidate you support the tree-hugging and man made global warming lobby. Do you want carbon credits or do you want cheaper gas?

I am going to list the votes of our liberal controlled Congress in regards to the United States becoming energy independent. The liberals like to blame "big-oil" and George Bush for our current energy price spike. Here are the votes in our Congress:

ANWR exploration-
House Republicans: 91% supported
House Democrats: 86% opposed drilling

Coal-to-liquid-
House Republicans: 97% supported
House Democrats: 78% opposed

Oil shale exploration-
House Republicans: 90% supported
House Democrats: 86% opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (off-shore drilling) exploration
House Republicans: 81% supported drilling
House Democrats: 83% opposed to drilling

Refinery increased capacity-
House Republicans: 97% support more refined gas
House Democrats: 96% opposed more refined gas

Summary:
91% of House Republicans have voted to increase energy independence.
86% of House Democrats have voted against increasing American oil independence.

The next time you want to gripe about gas prices, look in the mirror and ask yourself: Why did I vote for that Democrat?

Sphere: Related Content

General Wesley Clark's ignorance

Who is General Wesley Clark? Former supreme commander of NATO forces, former Democratic presidential candidate and recent critic of Senator John McCain. Mr. Clark recently stated that "In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS’ "Face the Nation." ”It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions”.

Let us explore Mr. Clark’s military record in depth. General Clark was fired from his NATO command in Europe. During the war of Kosovo, Gen. Clark ordered British Commander Sir. Mike Jackson to attack and stop the Russians from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital at the end of the Bosnian war. General Jackson was reported as responding "I'm not going to start the third world war for you."

When General Clark was running for president, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Before the events of September 11, 2001, Clark seemed to be in the Republican circle. Clark in remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001 stated "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." Wesley was also quoted as saying "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001.”

Retired General Wesley Clark is a discredited political opportunist and a beggar for the V.P. post with the presumed Obama administration. Mr. Clark and his wisdom also stated that “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." I will say this to General Clark, “Sir, you cannot hold the jock-strap of John McCain and in your ignorance you support a community organizer(Obama) over a war hero to be commander in chief.” I would think that West Point would produce something smarter than this.

Sphere: Related Content

Drill here, drill now and pay less

I am amazed with the liberal arguments against drilling in our own country for oil. How can one argue that bringing more oil online will not decrease the price of a barrel of crude. I will admit that currently the price of oil is not priced in line with supply and demand and is being traded and valued like the 1990’s dotcoms instead of the true value of the product.

There are many theories being offered as to why oil is past $140.00 bbl and most have merit to some degree. Some experts claim that the speculators are the cause and others cite the value of the Dollar. The liberal leadership in congress likes to label “big oil” as the bogey-man to shield them against well deserved criticism.

Big oil has a profit margin of about 8-10% whereas Google has a 25% margin. I do not see liberals claiming that Google is gouging the American people and threatening a windfall profit tax on them. The U.S. government makes 18% of the price of every gallon of gas that you pump into your car and they claim oil companies are to blame.

The United States has more known oil deposits than the whole Middle-East combined. Some of our deposits are contained in shale, which used to be cost prohibited to produce. With new in situ retorting, oil shale can be transformed into a gallon of gasoline and help the United States become more self reliant.

The liberals would like you to think that biofuels can replace fossil fuels and help the environment in the process. In reality, these biofuels are starving the third world countries poor and raising the price of goods here at home. The average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. When these food staples rise in such manner, the rest is a domino effect on our economy.

Although controversy remains over how much of the food price increase since 2006 can be attributed to biofuels, their effects cannot be overlooked. In 2008, 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol. It is time that Americans rely on our own oil reserves instead of the Mullahs and dictators of the world. Tell our liberals in congress that it is time to “drill here, drill now and pay less”.

Sphere: Related Content