My Granddaughter’s Granddaughter’s world.

My Granddaughter’s Granddaughter’s world.

We have a way of viewing our country’s history through the eyes of our own individual experience. While schools attempt to teach us our nation’s history, it is hard to imagine Jamestown, the Pilgrim’s landing and their struggle, the rise of discontent and the Revolution, the razing of the Whitehouse during the War of 1812, the Gold Rush, discoveries of Lewis and Clark, the Civil War, my Grandmother’s birth, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, sputnik, polio, Alan Shepard, my Grandmother’ death, the assassination of the Kennedy’s, Munich Olympics, Vietnam, Leon Klinghoffer, Wars against Israel, rise of Islamofacism, Gulf War I, Somalia, The Cole, Gulf War II, the Democrat’s declare defeat and surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, and, finally, today.

My Grandmother way born in 1881. She was a tiny woman, barely reaching 5 feet tall. She seemed small standing next to her husband Bill, 6 feet two in the old family black and white photos. The only images of her with him are from the early 40’s. Both have that tough as nails look of the times - farmers, raising a large family with war about them. Their second war, having lived through the first. Neither was directly involved but their daughters Gerri and Madeline married pilots in WWII, Victor winning the DFC. Bill passed before the war ended, grandma moved into town. Another war – Korea. Big changes – kerosene lamps to electricity, radio to TV, horses to autos, aircraft, spacecraft. She wanted the best for her kids and was willing to do whatever it took to make sure they had their shot. She was firm, direct, tough and loving, kind and cheerful. Everything a grandma should be. My daughter is her great granddaughter. She has seen the advent of the PC, satellite TV and radio, she’s the daughter of a Vietnam Vet, has seen the rise of terrorism, Gulf War I, 9/11 and now Gulf War II. My granddaughter, Adeline was born just a year ago, my Grandmother’s, grandson’s, granddaughter. And so 125 years of history is tied together in my memory, 57 years of which I myself have experienced.

And it happened so fast, those 125 years. Given this timeline, what will Adeline’s granddaughter’s world look like? The year would be around 2075. What would Adeline’s world look like if her great great grandmother’s world would have sat out WWI? What would it look like if D-Day casualties would have prompted the US to decide to let Europe fall to Hitler? What if the battles of Iwo Jima, Corrigadore, Midway, the Philippines would have been too much for them to bear? What if McArthur would have said “To hell with it, I’m not coming back!”? What if they would have abandoned France the way we abandoned Vietnam? There is a price that must be paid by each generation to insure that we stay free. It is not a debt that can be passed to the next generation nor is it an obligation that can be differed. If we are to survive as a free nation, we must be willing to stand against evil, fight and be willing to do so until we win – or all that was brought about on this land that is known as the United States will simply cease.

The question for the Democrat party is this – what legacy are you going to leave Adeline’s granddaughter? Will she be a free woman or a slave of the veil? Will she live in an open and vibrant society or will she be little more than an Islamofacist’s chattel? Will she look back on history and be proud her ancestors stood against an evil enemy at the gate, or will she be subjugated because they opened the gate? Will her country be strong, free and growing, or a heap of nuclear slag?

As the Democrat party marches us gleefully towards defeat, I would ask that they look beyond 2008 to 2075 and into the eyes of my Adeline’s granddaughter. What fate are you bestowing on her in your reckless quest for power?

What drives the Democrats? - The Boston Globe

What drives the Democrats? - The Boston Globe By Jeff Jacoby

Why the Democrats voted to surrender to the Islamofacists in Iraq. Not a pretty picture.

LEGISLATION passed by congressional Democrats last week would force US troops to abandon Iraq beginning Oct. 1. Though a veto was foreordained, the vote was great news for the jihadis in Iraq, their second such morale boost in a week. On April 19, Senate majority leader Harry Reid had run up a white flag, declaring that "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything" -- music to the ears of Al Qaeda and its allies .

How a British jihadi saw the light-Arts & Entertainment-Books-Book Extracts-TimesOnline

How a British jihadi saw the light-Arts & Entertainment-Books-Book Extracts-TimesOnline

An intimate look at the "Relgion of Peace" as experienced in Saudi Aribia by a former British jihadi. Sometimes you need to be careful what you pray for:

My first clash with Saudi culture came when, being driven around in a bulletproof jeep, I saw African women in black abayas tending to the rubbish bins outside restaurants, residences and other busy places.

“Why are there so many black cleaners on the streets?” I asked the driver. The driver laughed. “They’re not cleaners. They are scavengers; women who collect cardboard from all across Jeddah and then sell it. They also collect bottles, drink cans, bags.”

“You don’t find it objectionable that poor immigrant women work in such undignified and unhygienic conditions on the streets?”

“Believe me, there are worse jobs women can do.”

WorldNetDaily: Democrat debate 'victory for Iraqi insurgents'

WorldNetDaily: Democrat debate 'victory for Iraqi insurgents' By Aaron Klein

Well, the Democrats have the terrorists on their side. How proud of themselves and their party they must be!

TEL AVIV – Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power," he said.

The fruits of Speaker Pelosi's visit with our enemy - rotten to the core.

A few weeks ago Speaker Pelosi took on the mantel of Prime Minister and decided to show President Bush how real diplomacy worked. She visited one of or enemies in the Mideast - President Assad - to tell him we really, really, really wished he would stop helping kill our troops. So, how did that go?

No Results in Damascus
Having finished hosting U.S. politicians, Syria's dictator has returned to jailing dissidents and sponsoring terrorism.

Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A22 Editorial, Washington Post

THE CONGRESSIONAL leaders who visited Damascus this month to meet Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gave a practical test to the oft-stated theory that "engaging" his regime is more likely to produce results than the Bush administration's policy of isolating it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was particularly unstinting in her goodwill, declaring that she had come to see Mr. Assad "in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." In a statement, her delegation reported that it had talked to Mr. Assad about stopping the flow of foreign terrorists to Iraq and about obtaining the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It also said it had "conveyed our strong interest in the cases of [Syrian] democracy activists," such as imprisoned human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni.

Three weeks have passed, so it's fair to ask: Has there been any positive change in Syrian behavior -- any return gesture of goodwill, however slight?

Short answer - nope, things have gotten worse, not better.

How would the Democrats handle attacks on US Soil??

The South Carolina debate last night gave the first insights on just how strong the response would be from a Democrat President from the current field to a direct attack, on US soil, by terrorists. Their response should scare the hell out of you!

The Democratic Debate: What, Us Weak on Defense?
Two of the three frontrunners stumble on a very basic question.

By Byron York

During the debate, moderator Brian Williams of NBC News brought up Giuliani’s comment, and the candidates quickly pronounced it a “myth.” But Williams then turned to Sen. Barack Obama, second in the polls but gaining fast on the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists,” Williams said, “and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”

The question was specifically focused on a military response, but Obama didn’t talk about the military, or any use of force at all. “Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans,” Obama said. “And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.”

“The second thing,” Obama continued, “is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.”

It didn't get any better after that.

Thank You Senator Lieberman!

Though I take issue with many - if not most - of Senator Lieberman's domestic positions, he is a blessing to this country when it comes to his clarity of vision regarding our war with Islamofacists.

One Choice in Iraq

By Joe Lieberman
Thursday, April 26, 2007; Page A29

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs religious freedom debate - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs religious freedom debate - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

What if a Catholic priest called for the death of a member who either took exception to a specific teaching of the church or if that member left the church? There would be cries of outrage, and rightly so. Why then is it that an Imam, preaching in a Mosque in the United States can call for the death of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and nary a word is heard?

Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.

"She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

Harry's War - Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq. WSJ Editorial

Harry Reid continues the mantra of American surrender in Iraq. I find myself so angry I am speechless

We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.

--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq. Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath. As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America, the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already "lost."

Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.

Beating Freedom of Speech by Robert Spencer

Islamofacists are continually attacking the freedoms of the West. Our greatest freedoms are freedom of speech and freedom of the press. What will happen if our journalists, and those willing to take a stand against Islamofacism are afraid to write, afraid to speak? Can our fall be more than a few generations behind??

FrontPageMagazine.com | April 25, 2007 By Robert Spencer

On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television.

As they beat her, Kadra’s attackers shouted Allahu akbar – Allah is great – and recited verses from the Qur’an. “I was terrified,” she said. “While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran.”

The Democratic Party surrenders to the terrorists in Iraq

I keep expecting the Dems will hit bottom - silly me!

Today's editorial from the New York Post

April 20, 2007 -- With enemies like Democratic Senate Majority Harry Reid, the terrorists don't need friends.

Yesterday, all by his lonesome, Reid ran up the white flag in the War on Terror - at least in the Iraqi theater.

"This war is lost," he said. "[The troop] surge is not accomplishing anything."

And in the dark recesses of some damp cave, Osama bin Laden broke into a wide grin - even as Tehran's mullahs swapped high-fives.

‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’ by Melanie Phillips

Could it be?? WMDs were actually found?? What a shock! I wonder why the MSM aren't jumping all over this guy!

It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.

Read the whole thing, pretty interesting!

The right decision on Partial Birth Abortion

The SCOTUS, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority decision, delivered the right decision upholding that Partial Birth Abortion is illegal. I hear the cries of the defenders of "womens rights" but I take issue with how they frame the question. It is not a matter of a woman's right to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. It is a question of whether a woman's rights extend to a woman's right to kill an unborn child.

From Kennedy's opionion - how this procedure is done and its effect on the unborn child:

Kennedy cites a 1992 presentation by a Dr. Martin Haskell describing the method of "intact D&E" ("dilation and evacuation"):

The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.


After quoting this clinical description, Justice Kennedy goes on to relate the eyewitness testimony of a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-and-a-half-week fetus:

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.


Kennedy notes that Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of "killing" (Kennedy's word) the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix. The procedures have evolved. He recites the gruesome litany of alternative ways of accomplishing the same end. Again, relying on Haskell, Kennedy says:

Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." [citations omitted] Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. [citation omitted] Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. [citations omitted]


Kennedy provides much more detail, but I will spare you, gentle reader, from the gory details. You get the idea.

This is what the women's rights groups are fighting for? This saddens be beyond words.

Can you support the troops and be against the war? No.

I suppose we can all massage our view of Iraq to meet our own individual take on what needs to be done to confront the danger of Islamofacism. We can believe that we are taking the high road, declare our invasion of Iraq as doomed and hide behind our borders, praying that a second or third or fourth 9/11 does not happen all the while patting ourselves on the back for supporting the troops by pulling them out of an unwinnable war.

It should be no secret I choose the opposite argument – unless we take these animals on in their own back yard, they will certainly take us on in ours.

But, in under this all, the ones who bear the brunt of our national debate are our troops. They strap up every day, enter the streets of Iraq and do their best to bring a peaceful life to these people. They don’t kill in anger, they don’t use their military skills to plant bombs to kill women and children, and they don’t load up trucks with chlorine gas and detonate them in public squares. They take up arms to protect the weakest, the most defenseless and they follow the warrior tradition doing so. This has been the tradition of the US military. You can see thousands of photos of children running up to GIs asking for food, water, candy – and see the GIs giving out their last bottle of water, their last c-rat or MRE, or their favorite candy bar.

We have seen photos of GIs protecting women with their own bodies during the invasion, cradling the lifeless body of a dead infant and struggling to save the lives of wounded civilians. This is the American GI.

You can read account after account of GIs volunteering for 2^nd and 3^rd tours because they believe the fight is honorable and worthy of their skill, energy and if need be, their life. Ours is a volunteer military, and no where are re-enlistments greater than within Iraq. Think about that. These are the men and women who face the dangers of Iraq daily and they see the value of re-enlisting while still in Iraq. This is the soul of the American GI.

We took very deliberate steps prior to our invasion of Iraq. At the insistence of a Democrat Congress, in the fall of 2002 President Bush went before the UN and asked for one final resolution giving Saddam one last chance (after no fewer than 17 ignored resolutions over the preceding 10 years) to permit free and unfettered access to all suspected WMD sites – 1441 passed unanimously.

There is the ever-present Democrat mantra – “ there were no WMDs”. However, a cursory reading of the reports to the UN by Hans Blix in December 2002 and March 2003 clearly indicate that substantial stores of various WMDs including VX and assorted biological agents had not been accounted for that were clearly on the inventory of the Iraqi military, easily put this argument to rest. A more appropriate question might be: “Where did Saddam send them?” Additionally, over 500 tons of yellowcake and 2 tons of enriched uranium have also been removed by US troops. Interviews with Iraqi scientists clearly show Saddam had little intent of discarding his goal of becoming a regional nuclear power.

Also in the fall of 2002 the Democrat Congress demanded that the President come before Congress and ask for permission to use any and all means necessary to remove Saddam if he did not submit to the conditions of 1441 – he was granted this power with a healthy margin.

In March 2003, with the conditions of 1441 unmet, we asked our military to do just that. At this point, in my view, we were committed until Iraq can defend itself, govern itself and provide a safe environment for their children to grow up in. We have signed this agreement with the blood of 3,200 GIs. We owe these fallen GIs a blood debt.

In January of this year, President Bush announced a significant change in strategy, developed by General David H. Petraeus, and proceeded to ask that General Petraeus be appointed as the Commanding General in Iraq. The Senate overwhelmingly approved his appointment after he clearly detailed his plan and his needs. His reward? A determined effort by the Democrat party to declare defeat and prevent the funding he needs to carry out his plan.

This approach is not supporting our troops – it is a betrayal. This approach will not make us safer – it will encourage our enemy, prolong the battle and cost more American and Iraqi lives. Speaker Pelosi’s visit to our enemies while refusing to speak to President Bush about troop funding dishonors our troops and the memories those who have given their last full measure. Abandoning the Iraqi people because we are weary shames our military and shames our country. We are a stronger people than that. We have a long road in this fight and our survival and that of western culture depend on our willingness to carry this burden and see the fight through.

There are no half measures – no fall back position. We are either victorious or we are defeated. A person either supports our troops and their efforts in our war against Islamofacism – or they do not.

For those interested in continued discussion of this topic, you can find this post, and others, at my blog: http://conservativeoutlook.blogspot.com. Please, keep the discussion civil.

Bill Keller