Only a Liberal…

There are two types of Islamic apologists: liars and deniers. The former is less common than the latter. I will spend no time addressing the liars… they knowingly support the enemy with no remorse. This is an analysis of the deniers.

Let me be clear… I do not assume all Muslims are suicidal, homicidal religious nuts who want to kill all infidels. But the notion that there isn’t a pattern of Muslim males ages 18-39 blowing themselves up in statistically significant numbers is childish denial. I call it Battered Muslim Syndrome.

Battered Wife Syndrome:

In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.

The battered muslim “denier” constructs strange logical paths to pretend the abuse isn’t happening. The abuse they get comes from both those radicals they feel are giving their good religion a bad name, and the critics who points out the obvious. The denial takes on many forms:

• Islam=Religion of peace, ergo any non-peaceful act renders perpetrator “not Muslim”
• The “so what?” argument - other religions have produced violent radicals, therefore religion has no relation to the terrorism, therefore Islam has nothing to do with terror (Rosie O’Donnell’s attempt at violent religion “match-play”)
• Backlash against critics: instead of being mad about a Muslim radical murdering people, the denier attacks the critics

I had a discussion with a Muslim female where she said the Quran does not preach violence and the violence of Muslim terrorists was not derived from the Quran. So I quoted various passages from the Quran:

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners”

“the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”

No matter how many passages, she claimed they were “out of context.” The phrase “out of context” to a person in denial, as we learned during the Jeremiah Wright controversy, is simply the argument used by Jim Carrey’s character in the movie “Liar, Liar” when he was unable to tell a lie:

Carrey: “Your honor, I object!”

Judge: “Why?”

Carrey: “Because it’s devastating to my case!”

I asked her to explain the context… she ignored me. She loves her religion… I respect that. I have no doubt she is a peace-loving Muslim who is no direct threat to me because I don’t kiss Allah’s butt. What I don’t respect is her denial of the overwhelming evidence that her religion is responsible for a lot of cavemen type violence.

How any woman, especially an American, could be Muslim is beyond me. The violent sexism and approval of wife-beating is disgusting. Any mention of this caused this woman to tell me that the people perpetrating those atrocities are not “true Muslims” but evil people committing evil acts in the name of a non-evil religion.

The Bible and the Quran are both violent, uncivilized books. The only difference is Christians as a group have pretty much dismissed the violent nonsense and only practice the peaceful parts of the Bible. Muslims, for some reason, have decided to stick with the whole book… unabridged Islam is the choice of the Middle East. I submit that unabridged Islam is incompatible with a free society, and it must be destroyed. Abridged Islam, on the other hand, is as welcome as abridged Christianity. Welcome abridged Muslims!

The battered Muslim denier is not your enemy, per se. Sure, if there are too many of them, they enable Muslim liars and Muslim terrorists. Every day they remain in denial is another day we waste trying to reason with these psychos. I take solace in the fact that one day, most of the deniers will wake up, and wake away from their abusers. They’ll accept the advice of the critics who told them “He doesn’t love you… he is not a good person at heart.” Unabridged Islam will kill us all, or convert us all.

As Dennis Miller said, “There’s no al-Kinda.”

I recently read an article that typifies the Liberal vs Conservative media fight. While Liberals would have you believe that Fox News succeeds because there are a lot of Americans who yearn for wall-to-wall lying, the fact of the matter is in most debates, Conservatives have the facts on their side, and Liberals are simply scratching for approval (I said most debates, not all).

The article is “Dick Cheney’s lies about President Obama” by Eugene Robinson. After starting the article by comparing Cheney’s wisdom to that you would hear from homeless people sitting in bus shelters, Cheney’s big lie is “exposed” by Eugene. After the Christmas day underwear terrorist failed in his attempt, Obama’s behavior in the wake prompted Cheney to say the following:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.

And Eugene’s immediate response in his article:

Flat-out untrue.

Ok, Eugene, I’m listening.

The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists.

Obama has said many things, Eugene. That doesn’t mean he believes them. Eugene’s analysis is laughable if put in perspective. Picture his article being about the following fictitious quote from Cheney:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are broadcasting all legislation on CSPAN.

And Eugene responds with:

Flat-out untrue. The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are going to broadcast all legislation on CSPAN. See the video.

Now for those that don’t know, healthcare deliberations are NOT being broadcast on CSPAN, despite Obama promising it on at least 8 different occasions during the campaign. So we have established that Obama’s word is worthless.

The big picture

Before I continue analyzing, I want to highlight the overall issue. This is the best Liberals can do when accusing their opponents of lying. They always cite some lame, hard to pinpoint, crime that under scrutiny pales in comparison to Liberal lies. I’m not saying that Conservatives tell the truth… that’s preposterous. I’m saying Liberals are TERRIBLE at exposing it.

So is there a CSPAN-promise-like lie on the Conservative side? The CSPAN lie by Obama is a slam-dunk, so surely there is a slam dunk on the other side of the aisle. I decided to check by looking up the top-rated “lies” that Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck have reportedly told.

Dick Cheney

The Huffington post has an article about Cheney’s top 10 lies. You would figure #1 would be devastating.

Cheney’s Comments on unauthorized wire-tapping: “This was always a policy… to capture those international communications… It is legal. It was legal from the very beginning. It is constitutional, and to claim that it isn’t I think is just wrong.

Huffington Post rebuttal: “the approval for the warrantless surveillance of communications to and from the United States that followed on September 25 was neither “legal” nor “constitutional.”

There are numerous opinions on this, but in January 2009, a special-intelligence court ruled that the “government does not need a search warrant when it taps the phones or checks the e-mails of suspected terrorists who are outside the U.S., even if Americans may be overheard on the calls.” The LA Times wrote,

Although the Constitution protects the privacy rights of Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this principle does not bar U.S. spy agencies from conducting surveillance aimed at foreign targets abroad.

So the #1 lie by Dick Cheney according to the Huffington Post isn’t a lie at all. Dick Cheney has been working in the public eye for decades, and this is the number 1 lie according to his biggest critics. While I am sure Dick Cheney has lied at some point in his life, I am simply highlighting the pathetic lack of ability of Liberals to identify them.

Glenn Beck

I also searched for lies by Glenn Beck, and this page came up. The analysis is long, so I will summarize:

1. Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.
2. PolitiFact talks about how the book was written by Holdren “more than three decades ago” when he was “then a young man.”
3. PolitiFact: “Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.”
4. Excerpt from Holdren’s book: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”
5. Another excerpt: “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies.”
6. PolitiFact: “The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Again, that’s a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.”

A FAR CRY?! Holdren and his coauthors say that sterilizing water “seems to horrify” people. Well, of course it does. Then they say population control measures are “unacceptable to most societies.” PolitiFact actually ends their analysis with the following:

The authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

You have got to be kidding me. Yes, Holdren’s book says you can’t sterilize the water, not for moral reasons, but because there is no current sterilant that is “uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals.” Holdren is disappointed that sterilization cannot currently be achieved.

This is the “big lie” by Glenn Beck. PolitiFact has applied what I call courtroom logic. Since Beck cannot prove in a court of law that Holdren advocated sterilization, then Holdren does not advocate sterilization. While this certainly means Holdren shouldn’t be prosecuted for his beliefs in a court of law, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe them. The excerpts from his book clearly show he wishes these tactics were acceptable and safe.

Conservative ascendancy

So all these sources, including Eugene Robinson, act as though they have really nailed their targets without a shadow of a doubt. In less than 1000 words, I have shown their attempts to be lame at best and inaccurate at worst. In comparison, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh point out the lies of their political opponents with video and audio of outright, easily provable lies, and juxtapose direct contradictions by individuals themselves. THAT is why they are winning their media battles.

Liberals need to get better at identifying big, and important, lies by Conservatives. I have no desire for one side to win or lose. I want the right ideas to win, regardless of which party is pushing them. Conservatives are dead wrong on the government’s role in drugs and prostitution, and Liberals are dead wrong on the government’s role in redistributing wealth and “promoting the general welfare.”

So Mr. Eugene Robinson, an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post, gets paid to write articles easily refuted by little-old-me. His partisanship is an embarrassment.

The Army’s top officer, General George Casey, is such a far-cry from the likes of General George Patton that it is hard to measure.

Nidal Malik Hassan went on a shooting rampage, killing 13 and wounding many in a massacre not see in this country since 9/11.With evidence showing that Hassan is a radical Muslim, Casey made sure to celebrate diversity. That’s right. 13 military personnel were shot to death on American soil, and this General’s first concern is making sure the world is a rainbow. Last week, he said,

… As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

There are so many problems with this statement. Aside from the fact there is zero evidence diversity would ever become a casualty of anything in America, especially the military, the notion that concern for diversity is priority one at a time like this is ludicrous and insulting.

General Casey, Major Hassan fits a pattern, not of Muslim soldiers in the American military, but of religious radicals who justify killing citizens of a country they don’t like. I don’t care if he’s Muslim or Mormon. Your number one priority, NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, is to determine if this is part of a bigger plan. So far it does not appear to be, but the notion that making sure diversity is unaffected by this massacre ranks above a thorough investigation of the details of the case, and figuring out how to prevent future attacks, is preposterous. The fact that you brought it up is grounds for your ass being canned. I want your resignation yesterday.

More pressing concerns, General

General Casey, one of your main concerns should be how the hell violent Jihadism managed to kill Americans in America without foreign troops entering our borders. They didn’t even have to take a flight. They just planted the seed of hatred, and it grew in Hassan.

General Casey, another concern ranking over diversity is how everyone missed that this guy was about to go on a shooting rampage. In retrospect, the signs were fairly clear that Hassan had serious issues with our military occupation of parts of the Middle East, and he even said suicide bombers were justified in their actions. While everyone is entitled to freedom when engaging in their first amendment right to speech, they are not entitled to be active-duty military in the United States when their speech indicates they may side with our enemies.

The logic required to reach that conclusion is so basic, yet we have become such a politically correct culture that General Casey can get away with saying such tremendously stupid statements, and the country as a whole isn’t screaming for his unemployment. George Casey is a frickin General. This invertebrate joke belongs at the ACLU, not in the United States military.

Diversity of opinion on the battlefield gets people killed

American soldiers live and die based on how non-diverse their decisions are. Uniformity and obedience are essential in military training and battle tactics. I’m all for a diverse set of backgrounds in our military if the candidates are qualified. I have no beef with any race or gender. To have prejudice towards someone due to their skin pigment is stupid and accomplishes nothing. But to have prejudice towards a culture that hates us simply for existing and standing up for ourselves is sane and required. Diversity does not mean hiring anti-war activists to be soldiers. Diversity does not mean drafting midgets into the NBA. And diversity especially doesn’t mean allowing potentially violent Jihadists to remain in the United States military when they have shown signs of hatred for their employer.

Diversity as a priority is a luxury. I consider it a luxury that should exist in America, but at what cost? Again, I repeat, I have no prejudice towards any race. I only prejudge cultures that have an overwhelming tendency to be violent towards my culture, especially when my government hands them a gun and teaches them to use it. This notion that diversity is a priority… what about the safety of military Muslims? How high will General Casey rank diversity when a patriotic American Muslim gets fragged by some moron racist in our military? I am not even saying we should prejudge Muslims. Nidal Hassan should have been judged for his inflammatory speech. He wasn’t investigated BECAUSE of his “diversity.”

Making diversity the priority is exactly how this happened. You don’t throw diversity to the wind and only allow straight white males to enlist, but you surely don’t throw common sense to the wind in favor of diversity. This guy did not hide his kookiness. He wore it on his sleeve, but no one was willing to risk their military career to blow the whistle. Duty, Honor, Country is a thing of the past. Its now Career, Duty, Honor, Country.

Whoever gave Gen. Casey his talking points on the Fort Hood shooting should be ousted in the media. This kind of politically correct bullshit does nothing but embolden anyone who has a beef with America. 13 American military are killed in Texas, not Baghdad, but in Texas, and a United States General is falling over himself to make sure we don’t piss anyone off in the wake. It’s a fucking embarrassment.

We need Patton

I have only seen video of an actor playing Patton. But if the actor did an accurate portrayal, our first priority is that General Casey’s employment become a casualty of the Fort Hood incident, and we replace him with someone who has a pair. We need Patton.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Three disadvantaged Somali teenagers were executed by American military snipers after a desperate attempt to improve their lives by capturing an American sea captain just to get a little ransom. President Obama refused to exhaust all attempts at a diplomatic solution to this crisis, instead opting to brutally execute them in a surprise attack. Much like the execution of Oscar Grant on New Year’s in Oakland, Obama is continuing America’s tradition of racial crimes against minorities.
President Obama proudly took credit for the executions as a response to the “rise in privacy” in the region. He then warned Somali privates not to misunderestimate him again. As usual, the lack of diplomacy caused other Somalis to vow revenge, resulting in an American lawmaker’s helicopter being fired at. Angering these Somali minorities simply to save one white guy has only made matters worse.

In case the sarcasm hasn’t dripped sufficiently off this post, let me assure you I have not lost my mind. Framing this story with liberal pacifist insanity is perfect for illustrating the suicidal beliefs of the appeasement left wing. Picture this scenario a year ago… how would the media be treating it? Not only is Obama getting credit as though he fired the sniper rifles himself, he is also getting a pass from everyone, save Sean Hannity I’m sure, about saying “privacy” instead of “piracy.” Would you hear the end of it if Bush did this?

Since liberals say the war is illegal, it nullifies any arrest or evidence obtained in the arrest of the Gitmo detainees. Since evidence is thrown out when it is obtained from an illegal wiretap, so should all evidence obtained by our occupation of the sovereign state of Iraq. Therefore, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be released with the full apology of the Obama adminstration.

Since we have certainly ruined their lives and transported them halfway across the globe, not only should we release them, but we should provide them with free housing in Washington D.C. for at least one year. Give them citizenship immediately and give them intern jobs on the Mall. Then the world will have no reason to hate us because we will have proven we really are nice people.

Its the least we can do. After all, America is evil. The Middle East was a fair, peaceful place until we came around.

The ACLU and other want Guantanamo Bay detainees to receive their day in court, and for the detention center to be shut down. This is idiotic on two fronts.

1. The evidence for the guilt of some of the detainees cannot be revealed due to national security reasons, and therefore those detainees will get off, even if they’re guilty.
2. If you give them their day in court, some of them will be found guilty and sentenced to jail terms unrelated to our occupation of the country we arrested them in. In other words, a prisoner of war will remain in jail even if the war in question ends.

I don’t blame random Iraqi citizens for shooting at American invaders. They did what they thought they had to do, but now they have to wait for the war/occupation to end before they can go home. Sorry, but when its over, you get to go home and you won’t be charged with any domestic crimes like attempted murder. You have to distinguish between peace-time violence and war-time violence.
That would be similar to us charging Japanese POWs with murder and keeping them in American prisons for decades after World War II. That is insane. The ACLU and its liberal friends want to put these guys on trial to set them free. Some of them won’t be set free, and they will enter our penal system as though they committed a crime. POWs should go home at the end of a war, but while it is still going on, they should remain in POW camps so that they can’t re-enter the combat. We have already encountered some that were released from Guantanamo back on the battle field.

It should also be mentioned that in some cases, we have tried to send Gitmo detainees back to their country of origin, but those countries have refused to take them. Why?

Another solution the liberals give is to move the detainees to American prisons. I don’t see what the point would be, but I guess its to feel better about themselves. Unfortunately this solution wouldn’t work in reality. The “torture” that liberals so want to save Gitmo detainees from does not compare to the “death by angry American inmate” that they would encounter in the cafeterias and exercise yards of our penitentiary system.

All the liberals on all sides are 100% sure that energy independence from the Middle East is vital for national security. I completely disagree. They claim that energy dependence is bad for America, ostensibly because its bad to depend on the Middle East. That’s true, but it ignores that dependence in this instance is two-sided.

Yes, we need their oil, but they depend on our money. They can’t do without it. If you remove that relationship, they no longer have any incentive to be friendly with us at all.
We might be better off severing oil ties with the Middle East, but we need to have some sort of co-dependent relationship with them economically in order to ensure our national security. Isolationism will create an environment where our enemies have no incentive to be peaceful. If that means paying them for oil, we should do everything we can to continue doing that.

It took a racial slur against a black liberal for people to get angry. Check out the hypocrisy and absurdity on parade… al-Qaeda came out with a video a week ago referring to President-elect Obama as a house negro. al-Qaeda has finally crossed the line, in the screwed up minds of liberals. One columnist actually wrote an article explaining why Obama is not a house negro. The UK telegraph has an article titled “Al-Qaeda leader racially abuses Barack Obama.”

So why do liberals in the media and elsewhere get more worked up about a terrorist calling Barack Obama a name than they do about the terror they inflict with violence? The basic breakdown is they see America as separate from Barack Obama. In their minds, America deserves to be attacked, but Barack Obama doesn’t. They actually see the President-elect as above the status of the country he was elected to lead.

This is childish, emotional insanity.

Here’s an example to illustrate the hypocrisy of both a liberal and a black American…
Al Sharpton (Nov 2008): “to use such a derogatory, racist term against the president; I think it is an insult and something that is absolutely denigrating and racist”

Al Sharpton (Feb 2007): “I don’t know that [Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell] are viewed as “house negroes” in the term.  I believe that they are in the house and rest of us are in the field. (laughter)  So it would not be an inaccurate description”

The best analysis I found on this insanity was by Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH:  “Now, folks, is it me?  Am I so out of touch here that this sounds absurd?  Who are we talking about here?  Al-Qaeda has murdered 3,000 Americans inside of 45 minutes to an hour-and-a-half; they have beheaded American journalists; they have committed all kinds of atrocities all over the world.  And now the American left is finally upset at Al-Qaeda (and Al Sharpton particularly) ’cause how dare they say something racist!  They can kill whoever they want, whenever they want, and we’ll do our best to understand it. But when they start using racist language, why, that’s the last straw!”

The video that should eliminate Barack Obama from consideration for President.
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Hey Barack, you wouldn’t be planning to send that money to unproven alternative energy systems, would you?
“I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Aside from the fact that our ICBMs haven’t been on hair-trigger alert since the 80s, “seeking” a global ban on fissile material may prove difficult. On what planet, or in what paranormal dimension, does Barack Obama think he can convince the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and China, or any other nation to stop trying to make nukes? The only way other countries get rid of there nukes is if we get rid of ours first. Does anyone else see how insane that would be?

This guys is such a joke, I am insulted as an American that so many people not only would vote for him, but adore him as though he is the next Jesus Christ. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Now if you need a courtroom burden of proof to admit we might be in danger of an attack, you’ll remain in denial after this article. I do not have Osama on videotape standing next to a nuke. I only ask you to apply logic and common sense to this list of facts:

Every day 30,000 trucks, 6,500 rail cars, and 140 ships deliver more than 50,000 cargo containers into the United States, but only 5 percent ever get screened. But even this screening, which rarely involves physical inspection, may not detect nuclear weapons or fissile material. -Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism

Lost nukes

Experts estimate the U.S. has lost about 11 nukes over the years. This has occurred due to planes crashing over the ocean in the 50s and 60s and also at least one lost nuclear submarine. If we have lost some nukes, how many nukes could the Soviet Union have lost when it dissolved? Russia claims it has never lost any nukes, nothing to worry about. A Russian National Security Adviser claims otherwise. The “moderately” good news is these are very old suitcase nukes, 1 kiloton of power (a nuke located on the ground at detonation would have to be at least 50 kilotons to destroy most of San Francisco). Just to be clear, you don’t want to be near a 1 kiloton bomb, but its small compared to today’s hydrogen bombs. You can see effects of a nuke on multiple American cities, from 1 kiloton to 4 megatons here.

Not if, but when

There is plausible certainty that terrorists from somewhere have acquired a suitcase nuke, or multiple suitcase nukes. If I were Al Qaeda I would collect a bunch and deploy them in multiple cities throughout the U.S., targeting the economic infrastructure. These suitcase nukes cannot wipe out the nation, only hydrogen bombs can (only 5 nations have them), so the only way someone like Al Qaeda could inflict real damage on a nation as large as America is to target the economy with suitcase nukes. Yes, they can kill tens of thousands of people, which would be atrociously awful, but in a war sense, the deaths will only piss us off, and therefore strategically are not in their best interests.

I don’t know if its possible to stop all suitcase nuke attacks… its probably not. What we can stop is highly coordinated, multiple site attacks with seamless cooperation between all intelligence agencies, and by taking out the terrorist leaders. Cut the head off, and you’ll prevent the really devastating attacks. Cells can still set off one here, one there, but the true devastation can be avoided.