Friday, April 27, 2007

Tehran Praises Pelosi/Reid Bill of Surrender

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid deny their actions in passing a bill to "redeploy" US troops from Iraq is, in fact and deed, playing into the hands of the enemy, here is what one enemy is saying:


Tehran Times Opinion Column, April 28, By Alireza Davari

Vietnam flashback

TEHRAN, April 27 (MNA) -- The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill according to which U.S. military forces would have to leave Iraq by March 2008. However, President George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that he would veto the bill.

But it appears likely the U.S. will be forced to leave Iraq in a far more humiliating way than the Soviet Union left Afghanistan.

This would be a major defeat for the United States almost as bad as the Vietnam debacle.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have cited the increasing unrest in Iraq as the main reason why U.S. forces should be withdrawn from the country.

The Democrats in Congress believe that stability can only be established in Iraq through a political solution, although such views seem overly optimistic, like the White House’s claim four years ago that U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators. However, U.S. citizens are worried about the White House’s mismanagement of the war since it has become evident that maintaining stability in Iraq is almost impossible.

Many U.S. officials have even admitted that the implementation of Bush’s ambitious policies in Iraq over the past four years has been a miserable failure. Iraq has become a smoldering ruin while Bush is trying to prevent a total collapse by calling for the deployment of even more troops to the region.

Yet, after a meeting with Bush, Reid told journalists that the United States had lost the war and that a troop surge would not help. He went on to say that success in Iraq would only be possible through political and economic means, not war and bloodshed.

Yet even this relatively honest senator did not tell the whole truth about how much the Iraqi people have suffered over the past four years of occupation.

On the other hand, the fact that the U.S. media occasionally mentions the terrible conditions the Iraqi people are experiencing indicates that U.S. citizens are apprehensively following the Iraq story.

U.S.-style democracy seems to mean only endless pain for Iraqis. The violence that came with the occupation claims the lives of about 100 Iraqis every day, on average. Two out of three Iraqis do not have permanent access to clean drinking water. Hundreds of thousands of children suffer from malnutrition and many of them are dying from preventable diseases. The health system is falling apart.

So far, four million Iraqis, or in other words, one out of every seven citizens, have felt compelled to leave their homes. Should the current trend continue, the tide of refugees will turn into a regional tsunami with significant political consequences, which, of course, would not be in the best interests of the U.S.

Despite all these problems, the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge the terrible humanitarian disaster brought on by their mistake and is pretending that they can handle all the problems in Iraq. However, the reality tells a different story.

Half of the displaced Iraqis have fled the country. Jordan, with a population of six million, now hosts 750,000 Iraqi refugees, and Syria, with a population of 19 million, hosts 1.2 million refugees. Jordan has officially declared that it will no longer allow Iraqi men between the ages of 17 and 35 to enter the country. According to the New York Times, Kuwait has completely shut its borders to Iraqi citizens. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is building a border barrier costing $7 billion to prevent Iraqis from entering the country. The U.S., which is the main cause of all this misery, has accepted only 500 Iraqis, mostly just the educated asylum-seekers.

The Bush administration has lost more than the military battle because the consequences of the U.S. occupation are far-reaching.

Bush and his warmonger supporters have failed to realize that establishing stability in Iraq requires political strategies, not military ones. The new plan to increase troop levels in Iraq has met much opposition so far while there has been a rise in suicide bombings and other violence since the U.S. implemented the new Baghdad Security Operation, which is a joint effort by U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Indeed, the recent assessment of the first months of the ongoing Baghdad Security Operation by high-ranking U.S. military officials like Peter Petraeus and William J. Fallon is vague.

It should be noted that U.S. casualties in Baghdad have increased by 21 percent since the Baghdad Security Operation was launched on February 14.

U.S. officials claim that the decline in violence in certain areas of Iraq, particularly Baghdad, is due to the new U.S. military strategy, but the real reason is that certain groups have chosen to take a hiatus.

As Bush and other U.S. officials are calling for a troop surge and constantly defend their new Iraq strategy, the Democrats are trying to find appropriate ways to limit Bush’s power.

Democrats in the U.S. Congress have also said that they will vote against Bush’s bill requesting an additional $93 billion for the military. This would undermine the plan to deploy another 21,500 troops to Iraq.

From a wider perspective, the miserable conditions in Iraq and the dispute among White House official show that the U.S. will soon find itself forced to withdraw from Iraq, just like the Soviet Union was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Thus, U.S. officials should draw up a timetable for withdrawing their forces, as Democrats in Congress are demanding, in order to end this war, which is becoming increasingly unpopular in the United States.

PA/HG
END
MNA
Publish date,Tehran: 2007/04/27, 23:17


The leadership of the Democrat Party cannot connect the dots, cannot learn the lesson of their failure to support the Vietnamese that resulted in millions of deaths and refugees, cannot learn the lesson of appeasement of NAZI Germany that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions, and cannot learn from the "failure of imagination" of the 9/11 attacks that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

The failure of the Democrat Party has been unconscionable and oft times criminal. Individual Democrat leaders have committed what in past times would have been considered treason. As a group, the Democrat Party is approaching actual treason and the destruction of the Union, as well as Western Civilization. Their blinkered and myopic view of events unfolding around them at a pace apparently too fast for their comprehension, signals that the complete and absolute destruction of that once great party is of the utmost importance. The dual philosophies of radical Islamists and pacifist Democrats is far too dangerous to allow continued existence.

How difficult can it be to listen to the enemy? Especially when that enemy, on an hourly basis, demonstrates their fealty to idea of detroying everything non-Muslim. If the Bush Administration cannot be believed, then listen to our foes or get the hell out of the way.


The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Security and Prosperity Partnership Nearing Reality?

It's either the greatest immediate threat to American sovereignty or the largest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated against the people of North America. Whichever you may believe it to be, something is happening without much opposition, investigation, or even notice. The President of the American Policy Center, Tom DeWeese, has written the best brief history of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), North American Union (NAU) I have found.


Is the Security and Prosperity Partnership the beginning of a North American Union?
By Tom DeWeese

Is our government working quietly to create the equivalent of a North American Union - much on the lines of the European Union?

Some charge that such a Union will eventually override our Constitutional government, our judicial system, our economic system, and even our currency, which, some speculate, will be replaced by something called the "Amero." Can it be possible?

Others say such charges are just another trumped-up conspiracy theory of a lunatic fringe.

I can't possibly address every issue and describe the complete history of the situation in our short time together, but I can go over the highlights and give you an idea as to why many of us are greatly concerned, and, in fact, believe we are entering the fight of our lives.

Here's a quick run down.

On March 23, 2005, President Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in what was officially described as a "Summit." The three leaders then announced the signing of an agreement to create common policies concerning various economic and security issues among the three nations.

The initiative is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or the SPP.

Its purpose?

According to a joint statement from the three leaders, the SPP is to:

"... establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate low-risk traffic across our shared borders."

Desirable or not, such an undertaking represents a radical change in how the three nations interact and cooperate with each other. It is a matter of changed foreign policy, monetary policy, and military policy.

Yet there has been no Congressional oversight or authorization for the undertaking. No funds appropriated.

Meanwhile, since that Summit in 2005, at least 20 working groups have been organized under the SPP to produce memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement covering nearly every issue affecting our daily lives.

Whether or not you accept the idea that a North American Union is being established, clearly, it must be acknowledged that a new layer of tri-national government bureaucracy is being created.

As you know, the major debate in the U.S. today is over border security. Our nation is being flooded with hordes of illegal aliens. They are over-burdening our schools, hospitals, and social services.

In many parts of the nation, hospitals and services are being forced to shut down, damaging the quality of life of American citizens.

On top of the illegal alien situation, we face danger from the threat of terrorists, as Americans are forced to surrender liberty in the name of fighting this threat.

And there is the flood of illegal drugs pouring over the border, straight into our kid's schools.

More than 80 percent of the American people have demanded that something be done to secure the borders.

Yet, the Administration has fought efforts to close the border. Why? It appears obvious, in light of agreements made in the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

The SPP calls for "harmonizing" our borders into one seamless entity called North America.

So, under what authority are more than 16 government agencies being organized to create the SPP?

As reported by Congressman Ron Paul:

"According to Administration officials, "...The SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States... "What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has no role at all in this "dialogue." According to the SPP, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States."

"As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements, that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services, than they do with government coordination and management of international trade."

Congressman Paul went on to say the SPP is "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments."

It is important to note that administrators of NAFTA and CAFTA are major participants in SPP working groups. Thus the connection to these trade agreements is obvious and substantial.

According to Article 5.11, under the NAFTA agreement, participating nations must reform their laws to NAFTA regulations.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the U.S. government cannot hide behind a claim of federalism to avoid its "international obligations."

NAFTA, then, appears to be the governing entity for the SPP. That means NAFTA regulations (and ultimately SPP regulations) will supersede U.S. laws. NAFTA courts (and ultimately, SPP courts) will overrule U.S. courts. And NAFTA policy (and ultimately, SPP policy) will override U.S. labor, energy, environmental, health and economic policy.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is basically NAFTA-on-steroids.

But how will the Administration move forward to fully implement the SPP without Congressional oversight?

Answer: Fast Track.

Renewed again in 2002, President Bush has been given by Congress the power to freely negotiate treaties and trade agreements with foreign nations.

According to the lobbying group, Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that "the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for Congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time, with no amendments, and only 20 hours of debate."

Mexican economist Miguel Picard wrote in an article published in the foreign press detailing the "deep integration" planned for North America. He said there will be no single treaty, and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a "merged future" will be implemented through the signing of regulations not subject to citizen review.

Picard concluded by saying the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency.

Who benefits from the creation of such a union? Multinational corporations.

They are the driving force behind its creation. They seek one currency, one set of rules, one controlling entity - to enable them to move goods and services effortlessly across the border. Above all, they do not want the public involved in the process.

At a September meeting in Banff, Canada, top officials from all three nations met to outline policies within topics such as "A Vision for North America," and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Top U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills were in attendance. No media was present. No details of these top level discussions were released.

However, the Toronto Star, on September 20, 2006, reported:

"The public has been kept in the dark while business elite have played a lead role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America."

One participant at the Banff meeting didn't like what he was witnessing. Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author said,

"We're talking about such an important thing, we're talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning about it, right away you've got to be hugely concerned."

The SPP is not about free trade. Its use of public/private partnerships creates an elite of certain, chosen global corporations which basically become part of government, at the expense of their competition and our national independence.

One more major example of how this works is the planned NAFTA Super Highway or, as it is officially called, the Trans Texas Corridor.

This massive highway would be ten lanes wide, with rail lines, utility corridors for natural gas and oil, and power lines running down the middle.

It is designed for containers loaded in foreign lands, such as Asia, to arrive in Mexican ports, there to be loaded in trucks and shipped up the NAFTA corridor through the U.S. and into Canada.

As global corporations are now reaping the benefits of using cheap labor in foreign lands such as China, South Korea, and Indonesia, now they want to use the NAFTA Super Corridor to reduce the transportation costs as well.

These corporations certainly care little about national sovereignty or security.

The borders would be little more than speed bumps. Trucks would not be stopped and inspected. Instead, they would be simply scanned by high-tech gamma ray screening in drive-by inspections.

Nor do they care about private property ownership in their drive for cost cutting.

In Texas alone, some 584,000 acres of private land is scheduled to be taken by eminent domain for the highway. Texas Department of Transportation has the authority to use the "Quick Take" provision, which will allow them to give notice to property owners that they must leave their land in just 90 days.

Even if the landowner disagrees on the compensation - and appeals the decision, they still must be off the land in 91 days.

As part of the Corridor's public/private partnership, the Texas state government is keeping up its end of the deal by stonewalling every effort to obtain information as to whose property is affected. They have operated virtually in secret.

When news has leaked out about the NAFTA Highway, Texas officials deny it, and simply say it is just improving its state highway system.

The Trans Texas NAFTA Corridor is not, however, an improvement project for I-35, as the state claims.

The NAFTA corridor will be a completely separate highway - a toll road run by a foreign corporation. The state of Texas has signed a 50-year lease with a Spanish company named Cintra. The company will build the highway, run it and collect the tolls.

That lease contains a "no compete" clause, meaning that I-35 cannot be expanded nor can any other non-tolled competitive highway be improved.

Above all, as goods are shipped into Mexican ports, use of American ports on our East and West coasts will be drastically reduced, costing Longshoremen their jobs.

These facts are causing great concern among U.S. labor unions. The corridor will allow free access to the U.S for Mexican trucks, which means the containers can be moved through the U.S. by Mexican nationals. In addition, the flood of Mexican trucks will not be required to meet U.S. standards for safety.

These are just a very few of the details concerning the SPP. We believe it is the beginning of the creation of a North American Union, much on the lines of the European Union.

The game plan is very much the same. The excuse for the EU was trade. But today, according to the former president of Germany, 84 percent of that nation's laws now come from the European Union.

It begins in secrecy and slowly builds incrementally. But step-by-step, a structure is put into place - run by communitarian law and regional governing councils of appointed, well-connected, yet unknown and unreachable officials, hiding behind public/private partnerships, not answerable or responsive to citizens.

This is why we fear the creation of a North American Union.

The United States is the unique nation on earth. We are the only nation which was created to protect our natural rights.

The greatness of the American system arises from the fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That means that public policy must be enacted only by elected representatives of the people. This principle ensures that the people can remove and replace policy makers who make policy with which the people disagree.

To harmonize this land with nations which do not share our values and governing principles, can only result in a lessening of our liberty, and our quality of life.

To do it in secret, refusing to allow us to engage in debate before such massive changes take place - is nothing short of treason.


The threat from Islamic fundamentalism is obviously a very great threat to America and Western Civilization. It is a treat of unmitigated evil, but at least the fundamentalist adherents are up-front about their goals. The people behind the SPP/NAU don't even have the brass to say exactly what is happening. They hide behind some benign veil of co-operation, co-ordination, free trade, harmonization, prosperity, and dialogue. After all, who could be against any of those goals. Individually, each is a fine goal. But, together they leave me feeling very uneasy and preferring a straight forward al-Qaida invasion.



SOURCE:
Eco-Powerhouse


The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Iraq and VietNam: Are The Wars Really So Different?

The Iraq War is a quagmire, the Left has been telling us the past four years; Iraq is VietNam Part II, they say. The Right has been saying there is little or no similarities between VietNam and Iraq. Perhaps there is more similarity in the two conflicts than even the Left believes.

In April 2000, J.R. Nyquist, expert in geopolitics and international relations, author of "Origins of the Fourth World War", wrote the following piece for World Net Daily on the anniversary of the end of the VietNam War. Much of what he wrote more than a year before the four attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001 will be very familiar to anyone who has paid any attention to the current state of the world's conflicts.



Indochina 25 years later

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the communist victory in Vietnam. To this day most Americans do not know why our side lost and the communists won. More significantly, few really care. Most Americans also do not know that one of the chief goals of communism is the liquidation of the middle class, which communists refer to as "the bourgeoisie." In addition, the communists seek to eliminate property rights worldwide and to smash the planet's leading constitutional governments -- especially the United States government. The takeover of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were steps toward this overall goal.

Contrary to what many people think, U.S. forces and the army of the Republic of Vietnam successfully repulsed two major communist offensives in Southeast Asia -- the first one in 1968 and a second one in 1972. The first of these, the infamous Tet offensive, was a disastrous defeat for the communists. The second of these, launched in the spring of 1972, was also a defeat for the communists.

The communists had begun the war using light weapons and guerrilla tactics. In 1972 this changed. The Russians weighed in with shiploads of tanks and heavy weapons, so that the North Vietnamese army (NVA) could initiate large-scale conventional attacks. In 1971 alone, the Russians sent 350 cargo ships loaded with over a million tons of supplies. Shipments included Russian T-34 tanks and long-range 130 mm. guns.

But still, all these supplies were worthless against the power of America. The U.S. had better weapons and was determined to support the army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). So the Soviet General Staff had a plan. This plan was to pour even greater resources into the United States itself.


To understand what really happened we should consider the statements of Col. Stanislav Lunev, a high-ranking Russian defector to the United States. Lunev worked for the GRU, which is the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) General Staff. According to Lunev, the GRU believed itself responsible for North Vietnam's final victory. In Lunev's book, "Through the Eyes of the Enemy," he says that his GRU instructors and superiors would not directly claim credit, but "they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success."

How was this success supposedly achieved?

According to Lunev, the GRU and KGB "helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad." This funding, said Lunev, was provided "via undercover operatives or front organizations." More amazing still, Lunev claims that the GRU and KGB "had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States than it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese."

In other words, Russia's antiwar propaganda campaign against the American effort in Vietnam had cost the Kremlin over $1 billion. And look how well it worked. As Lunev recounts in his book, "it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military."

In other words, U.S. military victories were negated by communist propaganda victories in the United States. While the communists were being slaughtered in futile offensive attacks against Vietnam, the American people were being systematically convinced that the war was hopeless. Allied victories were overshadowed by intensive GRU-KGB propaganda. In fact, the United States was almost destabilized by Russian propaganda. Not only were there antiwar protests that paralyzed campuses and disrupted the Democratic Party's national convention in Chicago, but following the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968, federal troops had to be deployed in Washington, Chicago and Baltimore to restore order. There were major disturbances in 125 American cities.

Things were so bad the FBI was asked to gather domestic intelligence on various domestic troublemakers. But the FBI refused. Then the Justice Department asked the United States Army to perform a domestic intelligence function. As Gen. Bruce Palmer, then Army vice chief of staff, later wrote: "a large amount of information on various American nationals had been accumulated and placed in military intelligence computers, and some undercover intelligence operations had been conducted which were probably illegal."

When the civil libertarians found out, the Army got a black eye. All the information the Army gathered was destroyed while the civilian politicians refused to take responsibility. Therefore, the subversives in this country, financed by the Soviet General Staff, operated with impunity -- protected by the United States Constitution, which they had vowed to bring down. The American experience of 1968 shows that under the right circumstances a foreign general staff can bring chaos to the streets of America.

Consider the testimony of these two military men:

"While in Vietnam," wrote General Palmer, "I had not fully appreciated the seriousness of the dissent back home. ..."

"The GRU and the KGB, " wrote Colonel Lunev, "helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad."


Here is the historical lesson: The American people were hoodwinked by communist propaganda. They were hoodwinked into believing that victory was defeat. And they were hoodwinked into believing that the Vietnamese communists [today Arab and Islamic terrorists] were patriots defending their country against American imperialism.

The Indochinese Communist Party was violent and murderous from the start. It was founded in 1930. In 1931 the party created rural "Soviets" and began by murdering local landowners and stealing property. While still under Japanese occupation in early 1945, the 5,000-strong Indochinese Communist Party launched a terror campaign -- not against the Japanese but against political rivals in the nationalist movement.

When Ho Chi Minh became a major power after the Japanese surrender, he ruthlessly liquidated his political opponents. In August 1945 the Viet Minh press called for "traitor elimination committees" in every village. They weren't simply eliminating those who collaborated with the Japanese. One of their interests was to eliminate communists who deviated from the party line.

When French rule in Vietnam ended the communist atrocities accelerated. According to "The Black Book of Communism," which documents communism's most horrendous crimes: "The scale of the violence (in Vietnam) was extraordinary."

The communist slogan at the time was:
"Better ten innocent deaths [martyrs] than one enemy survivor [infidel survivor]." There were an estimated 50,000 executions in the North Vietnamese countryside. As many as 100,000 were imprisoned for being anti-communist. Masses of refugees poured into the south, fleeing from the communist tyranny.

This was the enemy we were fighting. This is what we were protecting Southeast Asia from.

Inwardly confused, weak and uninformed about the evils we were opposing, the American people acknowledged the guilt of their own armed forces, the vileness of their own national leaders, and left Indochina to the communists [the Middle East, Europe, and Africa to the Islamic fundamentalists]. It was a genuine case of false consciousness. People's emotions had been manipulated. The country felt sick in its gut.

And so the communists won. The killing camps of the North were not closed until 1986. Hundreds of thousands fled in boats to escape. Many drowned or were murdered by pirates. In Cambodia the communists abolished all money and all private property. Everyone was ordered to wear peasant work-clothes. In other words, the entire urban population was forced into the countryside. Pol Pot, the communist dictator of Cambodia at that time, said that only a few thousand Cambodians died in this process.

But that was not true. According to Pen Sovan, one-time general secretary of the People's Revolutionary Party of Kampuchea, Pol Pot had killed 3.1 million Cambodians. A CIA study later calculated that 3.8 million died in Cambodia from 1975-1979. Reseacher Marek Sliwinski was more modest in his calculation, putting the figure at over 2 million. He concluded that approximately 33.9 percent of Cambodia's male population and 15.7 percent of the female population died in the initial period of communist rule.

The GRU and KGB-financed antiwar protestors can believe what they want. But their action undid America's battlefield victories and led to a slaughter that far exceeded anything seen in the actual war. The Paris peace agreement that was signed in early 1973 was a sham. The communists violated it before the ink was dry. In Richard Palmer's book, "Summons of the Trumpet," it says that the Soviet Union and China poured military supplies into North Vietnam after 1973 "while the United States gradually constricted its own flow of supplies to Saigon."
[As will happen again in Iraq under Democrat leadership and their retreat timetables.]

This constriction of supplies was effected by the antiwar lobby in America, which influenced the United States Congress to cut support to the Republic of Vietnam. There was no reason to restrict the flow of supplies to our ally. Those supplies represented a very small cost to us, and no Americans were then involved in the fighting. The Vietnamese people were defending themselves. All they needed was fuel, spare parts and ammunition. More than that, it was what we had promised them. But the antiwar movement did not care that the communists broke the peace. They did not care that the communists were the aggressors. [Again today, the antiwar move does not care about the people forced live under absolute despotism, despite all their pre-war protestations about those conditions and cries for Washington to do something.]

The people that made up the antiwar movement are still with us today. And this month we should take a moment to remember that President Clinton was himself an antiwar activist and organizer. [As was Hillary Clinton, currently running for the office of President of the United States of America and John Kerry who ran for that office in 2004.]

The people the GRU and KGB were financing in this country did not go away. And their 1975 victory was only the first of many.
[Wahabi Saudi Arabia is financing 80% of the Islamic Centers and Mosques in America, eventually obtaining their funds from the sale of oil to Americans. We are financing the war against us and paying for our own funeral.]

Posted: April 6, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By J.R. Nyquist

© 2000
WorldNetDaily.com


To say that Iraq is VietNam is not strictly true, but there are many similarities when the battlefields of guns and bombs are left behind. What happened behind the curtain then and now has too much in common to ignore. History doesn't repeat so much as rhymes. And a bad rhyme at that.


The words appearing in brackets, [*] and black, are my own additions to the text and may not reflect the opinions of J.R. Nyquist. Bolded passages are my emphasis.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Terrorists Gone Sissy


The Palestinian website Dunia al-Waran is saying that Palestinian security forces have emotional issues that once were only experienced by women and children. The Director of Mental Health at Gaza Hospital told YNET News,

Palestinian infighting plays a striking role in the increase of shock, tension and depression, present in previously unseen amounts...One member of the Hamas security force came to me suffering from high tension, which was causing physical problems. He said he felt fear from the fact that he would burn in hell forever if he fired even one bullet at someone.
Al-Aqra experienced a similar case. An afflicted member of the security force told him,

...he couldn't fire at another Muslim, and that he felt pain and bitterness.
The good doctor explained that the emotional issues also stem from an altercation that occurred between Hamas and the Egyptian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

These are the feelings on both sides of the infighting, and emphasize that everyone, deep inside, rejects the civil war in his soul, rejects that which is unnatural.
It is puzzling to see the once much feared terrorists who could kill without hesitation, do the unconscionable without second thought, able to slaughter the elderly and babies with pride rather than remorse, brought low by a silly little thing like emotional issues. Have the barbarians suddenly developed moral scruples? Have they been watching American television shows about new age touchy-feely girly-men? Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see terrorist organizations destroy themselves from the inside as much as the next guy. I just don't want to have to credit Hollywood for doing so.

And just so we are clear, it is still okay to kill Jews without emotional pangs or scarring because Jews are pigs and apes, not real human beings.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

No Need to Tolerate the Intolerable

This post started as a comment reply to Gayle from My Republican Blog, concerning my previous article "Unintended Consequences of Alternative Fuel and Elephant Dung". As happens so often, the comment just grew to be more than a reply and here it is as a full fledged post or rant as is your wont.

How it began -

Gayle: ...you are being very reasonable here so I don't think many liberals will agree with you. You can give them all the facts in the world and they will ignore them. It's so darned frustrating!

Me: Fortunately, Gayle, I write this blog for my own amusement and for like minded individuals such as yourself. The few liberal moonbats, knuckle-draggers, and assorted elite loons who venture here, I generally find annoying and worthy only of being voted off the space island we call Earth.

I do this in the absolute certainty that the truly smart people, those who reason with facts will out-breed the moonbats who practice a secular religion that involves the killing of their young. The pathetic moonbats will be rendered to street corner conversions to increase their herd. Throwing facts in their faces is much like pouring water on the Wicked Witch; it is grand sport watching them melt.

Gayle: So I take it you don't like moonbats, Indigo? LOL! I hear you. I visit some conservative blogs where the moonbats change the subject and in general absolutely take over the blog. I don't understand why the administrators of those blogs let them do that.
I struggled with that question myself, Gayle. I came to see that what I was doing by allowing the crazies to spout-off was not so much adhering to freedom of speech and liberty as one sees it, nor was it an act of tolerance. It was really an act of fear - fear of being called racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI, or any of the other labels the anti-lablers like to plaster about. Too many people are frightened from speaking out for fear of being branded a racist, etc. Being branded a coward by one's family and peers is preferable because they will understand and will love us anyway, is not what the Founders had in mind. Those brave souls pledged thier "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause in which they believed. Shouldn't we be as brave, or at least a little bit as brave as that?

It is none of those ugly labels to say that some speech is unacceptable, that some commenters are unwanted. The 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech actually applies to speech between the citizens and the government not between citizen and citizen. There are many laws restricting C-C speech and expression - libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater. Liberal celebrities take advantage of these laws as suits their needs. The concept of tolerance has not been reasoned or debated, but simply imposed upon an unwitting society.

Tolerance is 'forbearing or lenient treatment'. It is synonymous with charitableness, charity, forbearance, indulgence, leniency, but nowhere is the word defined as chaos, anarchy, absolute personal freedom to do as one chooses regardless of consequences to one's self, to others, or property. There are limits. Those limits are defined by what the majority of people deem tolerable, acceptable, and bearable. We could end all crime in 15 minutes if we decided all acts currently defined as criminal to be tolerable, acceptable, and bearable. Done, all crime wiped out, aren't we all righteous and just people!

Islam claims it can do just that - eliminate all crime, all poverty, all want, all disease, all disagreement, if we all define our lives as enslaved to the one true god of the universe, allah the merciful and benevolent, the god who has not been able to provide his followers with one single straight up victory in 700 years, nor bring his people out of the 7th century. "If allah is willing" the adherents say, but they haven't realized allah isn't willing, so, PLEASE, curb your god.

The Democrats also claim they can eliminate all personal, societal, environmental, and civilizational problems if we all rendered more unto Caesar than we do to our own well being and that of our family. The secular god of benevolent government is insatiable, and since we've run out of virgins to sacrifice (praise be to the government god of education), then more and more money from the electorate will have to do. But, the electorate isn't willing, so, PLEASE, curb your god.

There are things that are intolerable, unacceptable, and unbearable. Chopping off of heads is intolerable. Forcing people to believe something as true and eternal which many find abhorrent is unacceptable. Stoning women for being rape victims is unbearable. Listening to my fellow citizens defend a Muslims right to do such things is intolerable. Demanding that a woman's right to choose only includes the choice to abort is unacceptable. Attempting to restrict my right to bear arms is unbearable. Witnessing Western Civilization being dismantled by the wreaking ball of tolerance is intolerable.

Those who speak of the absolute need for absolute tolerance are really nothing more than spoiled children decrying the fact they can't go the party where alcohol, drugs, and sex will be available. The word "No" as it applies to them is not in their lexicon while the rhetoric of "Yes" prevails. They want people to respect them when they are being disrespectful. They want respect for ideas that have no gainful purpose, do not advance the individual or general welfare, nor enhance the well being of society. They want respect without doing the hard work of earning it. They want credit where credit is not due. They want love when they themselves pander to the voices of hate, division, and nullification. They want...they want. They will manufacture "facts" to suits their need at the moment, abandoning that "fact" if it has no purchase in favor of another - it's global cooling, no wait, global warming! That's the ticket. Anything that comes close to substantiated fact is anathema, like daylight to Dracula, or kryptonite to Superman.

"All men [and women] are created equal" liberals throw in our faces, 'it's in the Constitution', they will cry, not knowing the phrase is not in the Constitution. Neither does the phrase mean that all men are equal throughout their lives. We start from the same line and what we do with our lives is up to us as individuals. Life is fair that way. The idea is that, in a Republic, the vast majority of people want the same thing. By allowing individuals to vote their conscience, an equitable solution will result and we will know it to be so because everyone will disagree with the result, but will find it tolerable, acceptable, and bearable.

So go ahead and call me intolerant, racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI, or any of the other epithets favored by the dead-end tolerant liberals. I can take it. However, I still reserve the right to decide what I will bear on my own blog and in my own life. I will continue to resist the politically correct nonsense in my society and the intolerable threat of backward thinking religions to Western Civilization. If that is not acceptable, well aren't you just the intolerant, racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI one.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.