Joseph Stack Wasn’t a “Tea Bagger”…

February 19, 2010 By

…He was an angry, sui­ci­dal maniac.  Noth­ing more.  And for the record, I do believe what he did an act of domes­tic terrorism.

The fringe left, demon­strated on sites like Daily Kos (read the arti­cle and com­ments!) and the Huff­in­g­ton Post, would have you believe that since Joseph Andrew Stack III — the soft­ware engi­neer from Austin, Texas, who flew his pri­vate plane into an IRS office build­ing yes­ter­day — ranted against the tax code and the gov­ern­ment, he was a “tea bag­ger”.  This is disin­gen­u­ous and libelous.  (Michelle Malkin also has a “nice” list of the “kind” words from our lefty friends.)

First, you must under­stand their ter­mi­nol­ogy.  “Tea Bag­ger” refers to one who espouses the “Tea Party Move­ment”, and is meant to be deroga­tory and con­de­scend­ing.  The term was ascribed to those by none other than David Shus­ter on MSNBC.  It also has a rather hideous sex­ual con­no­ta­tion, which I will not repeat here.  (Go here if you want to read about it.)

The pas­sage they want to point to is from Stack’s sui­cide note that he posted on his website:

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a ter­ri­fy­ing start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ con­tract soft­ware engi­neer… and two years later, thanks to the fine back­room, mid­night effort by the sleazy exec­u­tives of Arthur Ander­sen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calami­ties) and an equally sleazy New York Sen­a­tor (Patrick Moyni­han), we saw the pas­sage of 1986 tax reform act with its sec­tion 1706.

Ear­lier in his let­ter, he admit­ted that he engaged in an exer­cise to prac­tice “what the big boys were doing”:  i.e., cheat­ing on their taxes.  He said in his note, “The intent of this exer­cise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the mon­sters of orga­nized reli­gion to make such a mock­ery of peo­ple who earn an hon­est liv­ing”.  Appar­ently it didn’t work, because in a cou­ple of sen­tences down he says, “That lit­tle les­son in patri­o­tism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retire­ment plans back to 0″.

Stack railed against pretty much every­one in his let­ter, against those he per­ceived were “cheat­ing” him.  The list includes, but not lim­ited to, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, George W. Bush, the Catholic church, and even his wife.  Busi­ness after busi­ness he started, failed, and he kept mov­ing around the coun­try until he set­tled in Austin.

No, Joe Stack wasn’t a mem­ber of the Tea Party move­ment.  He was just an angry, lit­tle old man who failed at try­ing to cheat the sys­tem.  And in that real­iza­tion, he took a cow­ardly way out by try­ing to kill those who he per­ceived wronged him.  No one wronged Joe Stack but himself.

And for those on the Daily Kos and the Huff­in­g­ton Post, take a look in the mir­ror.  Some of the things Stack said in his let­ter are exactly what some of your mem­bers believe.  Be care­ful when you try to pigeon-hole some­one — it may come back to bite you.

(To read Joe Stack’s screed, go here.)

Filed Under: Terrorism Tagged With: , , ,

Obama to finally make Afghanistan decision

November 24, 2009 By
2009-0922-actnow-chris

Obama_1We’ve been wait­ing for quite a while now for our Dear Leader to make a deci­sion, yea or nay, to send more troops to Afghanistan.  It appears next Tues­day an announce­ment on that deci­sion will be made:

Mil­i­tary offi­cials and oth­ers expect Obama to set­tle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an even­tual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces. That rough fig­ure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama’s last large war coun­cil meet­ing ear­lier this month, when he tasked mil­i­tary plan­ners with rear­rang­ing the tim­ing and makeup of some of the deployments.

Well, it’s about time.  Since August 30, when Gen­eral Stan­ley McChrystal’s report was deliv­ered to the Depart­ment of Defense, 115 U.S. sol­diers have died in Afghanistan.  (Click here to read the report.)  Octo­ber was by far the dead­liest month, with 59 casu­al­ties.  If you look at the trend for the year, it appears that the insur­gency in Afghanistan has been embold­ened — but by what?

In my opin­ion, the insur­gents have taken the hint from Obama that he’s not that seri­ous in tak­ing Al-Qaeda head-on.  They’ve taken advan­tage of his dither­ing and stepped up the attacks on our sol­diers.  This deci­sion to send more troops should have been made months ago.

Filed Under: Terrorism, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , ,

Word of the Day v. 2.0: Travesty

November 23, 2009 By

This is sort of related to last Thursday’s word of the day:

trav — es — ty [trav–uh-stee], n., any grotesque or debased like­ness or imitation.

This is exactly what the 9/11 con­spir­a­tor trial will be.  The lawyer for one of the ‘jihadists’ said over the week­end that the five on trial will plead not guilty, but will explain “why they did it.”  So, this will be a trav­esty of jus­tice — a trav­esty of a trial.  Every­one knows — well, let me rephrase…Every­one but the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion  knows that it will be a show trial.  Michelle Malkin wrote a very nice arti­cle on the sub­ject, includ­ing a snip­pet of what Obama pre­vi­ously said about the 9/11 attacks.  Let me repost what he said here, just eight days after the attacks:

We must also engage, how­ever, in the more dif­fi­cult task of under­stand­ing the sources of such mad­ness. [Editor’s note:  The ter­ror­ists are mis­un­der­stood.] The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fun­da­men­tal absence of empa­thy on the part of the attack­ers: an inabil­ity to imag­ine, or con­nect with, the human­ity and suf­fer­ing of oth­ers. Such a fail­ure of empa­thy, such numb­ness to the pain of a child or the des­per­a­tion of a par­ent, is not innate; nor, his­tory tells us, is it unique to a par­tic­u­lar cul­ture, reli­gion, or eth­nic­ity. [It wasn’t the ter­ror­ists’ fault — it was society’s.] It may find expres­sion in a par­tic­u­lar brand of vio­lence, and may be chan­neled by par­tic­u­lar dem­a­gogues or fanat­ics.  Most often, though, it grows out of a cli­mate of poverty and igno­rance, help­less­ness and despair. [Give the ter­ror­ists more money, and they’ll leave us alone.]

Are you freakin’ kid­ding me??  And this man now holds the most pow­er­ful posi­tion in the world now?  Gimme a break.  So it is appar­ent that the rea­son Obama and Holder want to give these guys a “fair trial” in our civil­ian court sys­tem is because they feel sorry for them — they were mis­treated by society…Well, I say “wah, wah, wah”.

Maybe we need a reminder of what these guys have done, specif­i­cally à la Daniel Pearl.  Also, don’t for­get the threat against Deb­bie Schus­sel, a con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist.  (Warn­ing:  graphic pho­tos in the link.)  Like I said last week:  This is not a trial of the ter­ror­ists.  It is a trial of the Bush Admin­stra­tion, the CIA, and our national secu­rity.  Obama has failed in his oath to pro­tect and defend the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Amer­i­can peo­ple.  He has made us less safe, and I hope this is the prover­bial nail in the cof­fin to his re-election in 2012.  In fact, I hope that this solid­i­fies the GOP win next year.  Most Amer­i­cans (around 80–90%) oppose this trial.  I just hope that per­cent­age trans­lates into oppo­si­tion to his stupidity.

Filed Under: Politics, Terrorism Tagged With: , ,

Eric’s Word of the Day v 1.0: Obfuscate

November 19, 2009 By

I used to include a word of the day on my old blog, but it kind of fell by the way­side.  I have decided to start it back up; but this time, it will be polit­i­cally– and current-event-oriented.   And coin­ci­den­tally, Dictionary.com’s Word of the Day fits right in with what I was thinking.

Obfus­cate \OB-fuh-skayt\ , tran­si­tive verb;

  1. To darken or ren­der indis­tinct or dim.
  2. To make obscure or dif­fi­cult to under­stand or make sense of.

  3. To con­fuse or bewilder.

Eric Holder, Dear Leader O-bow-ma’s illus­tri­ous Attor­ney Gen­eral, has man­aged to define this word recently using all three def­i­n­i­tions.  I’ll give you some examples:

1.  Holder obfus­cated the future of the War on Ter­ror by allow­ing the 9/11 mas­ter­mind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his cohorts to have a “fair trial” in civil­ian courts, even though Holder admit­ted we’re at war and these guys were caught on a bat­tle­field in a for­eign coun­try by our troops.

2.  Holder man­aged to obfus­cate his deci­sion by giv­ing dodgy answers in the Con­gres­sional hear­ing yesterday.

When he was asked what would hap­pen if the ter­ror­ists were acquit­ted, he replied:  “Fail­ure is not an option.  These are cases that have to be won.  I don’t expect we’ll have a con­trary result.”   Wait…what??  I thought the whole rea­son for our court sys­tem — a civil­ian jus­tice sys­tem — was to pro­vide those on trial with a fair one, where they are inno­cent until proven guilty?!  And yet both he and Dear Leader Obama have already given the ver­dict of guilty to these ter­ror­ists even before the trial has started!  If that is the case, then these guys can never receive a fair trial in a civil­ian court — which leaves only one con­clu­sion:  This will be a show trial (i.e. cir­cus) in which our inter­ro­ga­tion meth­ods, the CIA, and our national secu­rity will be judged and not these ter­ror­ists.  This will directly result in a weaker national defense, and we’ll be less safe than we were before 9/11, if we’re not already.

3.  And with his deci­sion, Holder has man­aged to obfus­cate the pub­lic and no doubt the fam­i­lies of all the 9/11 vic­tims.  All we can ask is, “Why?”

Filed Under: 9/11, Politics, Terrorism Tagged With: , ,

Fort Hood — an Act of Treason

November 12, 2009 By

I was dri­ving home from work when I first heard of the shoot­ings at Fort Hood.  I was lis­ten­ing to the Schnitt Show when the name of the shooter was announced.  Before Schnitt announced the name, I was think­ing to myself, “Who would shoot his fel­low sol­diers?   Could this be a ter­ror­ist attack?  Could it be an Islamic extrem­ist?”  Then I heard Schnitt say, “The shooter’s name was…Oh wow…just wow.  His name was Major Nidal Malik Hasan.”

I nearly drove off the side of the road.  For some rea­son I had a gut feel­ing that it was a Mus­lim.  That may be a bad thing to say or think, but I believe it is a result of all of the ter­ror­ist attacks against this coun­try, with 99% of them being car­ried out by Islamist extrem­ists.  Recently I’ve been think­ing a lot about this hor­rific act, and how it will define us from now on.  This was an act of ter­ror­ism and trea­son, with­out a doubt.  For any­one to say oth­er­wise is to capit­u­late to the enemy.  Then I remem­bered this quote:

A nation can sur­vive its fools, and even the ambi­tious. But it can­not sur­vive trea­son from within. An enemy at the gates is less for­mi­da­ble, for he is known and car­ries his ban­ner openly. But the trai­tor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whis­pers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of gov­ern­ment itself. For the trai­tor appears not a trai­tor; he speaks in accents famil­iar to his vic­tims, and he wears their face and their argu­ments, he appeals to the base­ness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.  He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to under­mine the pil­lars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A mur­derer is less to fear. The trai­tor is the plague.

– Mar­cus Tul­lius Cicero

Nidal Hasan is no mur­derer.  He is a trai­tor and a ter­ror­ist.  As such, he should be tried and con­victed to the fullest extent of the Uni­form Code of Mil­i­tary Jus­tice and the United States Con­sti­tu­tion.  We are at war.   And accord­ing to the UCMJ, he should be dis­hon­or­ably dis­charged from the U.S. Armed Forces and tried for the fol­low­ing offenses:

Sub­chap­ter X — Puni­tive Articles:

  • 894.94 — Mutiny, pun­ish­able by death
  • 904.104 - Aid­ing the Enemy, pun­ish­able by death
  • 918.118 — Mur­der, pun­ish­able by death
  • 924.124 — Maiming
  • 928.128 — Assault
  • 933.133 — Con­duct Unbe­com­ing an Officer

Any­thing less than this would be itself trea­so­nous and impeachable.

Filed Under: Terrorism Tagged With: , , ,

Muhammad’s Judgement Day

November 10, 2009 By

Today is Judge­ment Day for John Allen Muham­mad, the ring­leader of the D.C. sniper shoot­ings.  The United States Supreme Court refused to halt the exe­cu­tion yes­ter­day, which only leaves the Gov­er­nor of Vir­ginia as the last resort — he could grant clemency to Muham­mad, and sev­eral anti-death-penalty groups are urg­ing him to.

How­ever, I think it would be appro­pri­ate to remem­ber the vic­tims of this ter­ror­ist attack — to honor the mem­ory of those who had no choice…those who will never be com­ing back home:

Feb­ru­ary 16, 2002:  Keenya Cook, 21, Tacoma, Washington.

March 19, 2002:  Jerry Ray Tay­lor, 60, Tuc­son, Arizona.

Sep­tem­ber 5, 2002:  Paul J. LaRuffa, 55, Clin­ton, Maryland

Sep­tem­ber 14, 2002:  Rupin­der “Benny” Oberoi, 22, Sil­ver Spring, Maryland.

Sep­tem­ber 15, 2002:  Muham­mad Rashid, 32, Brandy­wine, Maryland.

Sep­tem­ber 21, 2002:  Mil­lion A. Wolde­mariam, 41, Atlanta, Geor­gia; Clau­dine Lee Parker, 52, Mont­gomery, Alabama.

Sep­tem­ber 23, 2002:  Hong Im Ballinger, 45, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Octo­ber 2, 2002:  James D. Mar­tin, 55, Wheaton, Maryland.

Octo­ber 3, 2002: 

James L. “Sonny” Buchanan, 39, White Flint, Maryland

Premka­mur A. Walekar, 54, Aspen Hill, Maryland

Sarah Ramos, 34, Sil­ver Spring, Maryland

Lori Lewis Rivera, 25, Kens­ing­ton, Maryland

Pas­cal  Char­lot, 72, NW Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

Octo­ber 4, 2002:  Car­o­line Sea­well, 43, Fred­er­icks­burg, Maryland.

Octo­ber 7, 2002:  Iran Brown, 13, Bowie, Maryland.

Octo­ber 9, 2002:  Dean H. Mey­ers, 53, Man­as­sas, Virginia.

Octo­ber 11, 2002:  Ken­neth H. Bridges, 53, Mas­s­aponax, Virginia.

Octo­ber 14, 2002:  Linda Franklin, 47, Falls Church, Virginia.

Octo­ber 22, 2002:  Con­rad E. John­son, 35, Aspen Hill, Maryland.

My thoughts and prayers are with these fam­i­lies, as they will no doubt be reliv­ing the hor­ror of those ter­ri­ble days.

As for John Allen Muham­mad, I have no sym­pa­thy for you.  You showed no remorse, and you were hell­bent on caus­ing pain, suf­fer­ing, and ter­ror.  I just wish they would stick you with a rusted, dull nee­dle with no anes­thetic, just so you could feel some pain before you die.  If it were up to me, you would die a slow, tor­tu­ous death and it would be car­ried out in the pub­lic square as a deter­rent.  You deserve noth­ing less.

Filed Under: Terrorism Tagged With: ,

Why Did We Forget?

November 9, 2009 By

Today is Novem­ber 9, 2009.  I’m sit­ting here try­ing to fig­ure out how our coun­try has got­ten to this point.  The tragedies on Thurs­day at Fort Hood, Texas, should remind all Amer­i­cans what we’re up against.

There are peo­ple out there that want all of us dead.  Make no mis­take about it.  Let me just refresh your memory:

[Read more…]

Filed Under: 9/11, Terrorism

Pan Am 103 Bomber Released to Libya

August 20, 2009 By

Today is a sad day.  My heart is heavy for the fam­i­lies of all the vic­tims aboard Pan Am Flight 103 — the worst ter­ror­ism dis­as­ter our nation ever faced prior to 9/11.  Abdel­baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan ter­ror­ist who brought down the Pan Am flight enroute to the United States from Heathrow in Lon­don, gets to go home to his fam­ily to die “with dig­nity” from ter­mi­nal prostate cancer.

When he arrives in Tripoli, he will be hailed as a “hero” by his fel­low Islamists.  They will raise a statue in the town square in his honor.  That is how those wackos oper­ate and believe.  Who’s to say that he won’t strap on a bomb and tar­get a U.S. entity in Libya??  What’s to stop him from killing more Americans?? 

I keep hear­ing peo­ple say that it’s the “Chris­t­ian” thing to do…Well, there is a time for com­pas­sion and there is a time for jus­tice — read your Bible.  This is not the time for com­pas­sion.  He never showed remorse for what he did.  Proverbs 18:5 says, “It is not good to be par­tial to the wicked or to deprive the right­eous of jus­tice.”  This man is the epit­ome of the wicked.  Let­ting this man go is depriv­ing the fam­i­lies of the vic­tims of the jus­tice they deserve.

I have a per­sonal mes­sage to the Scot­tish Judge, Kenny MacAskill,  who approved his release on “com­pas­sion­ate grounds”:  You just betrayed the mem­o­ries of the fol­low­ing peo­ple who died on that flight…270 of them.  (Names are after the fold).  You also put the world at more risk by releas­ing a known ter­ror­ist.  May their blood now be on your hands as well.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Pan Am 103 Tagged With: , ,

Terrorist Kills U.S. Soldier, wounds another

June 2, 2009 By

I haven’t seen much report­ing on this story on the major news net­works (except for Fox News this morn­ing) — see­ing as the mur­der of a promi­nent abor­tion doc­tor by a nutjob seemed more “juicy”.     Here’s a sum­mary of what happened:

A man with “polit­i­cal and reli­gious motives” killed a sol­dier just out of basic train­ing and wounded another Mon­day in a tar­geted attack on a mil­i­tary recruit­ing cen­ter in Arkansas, police said.

Appar­ently the loon — Adbul­hakim Mujahid Muham­mad — was under inves­ti­ga­tion by the FBI Ter­ror­ism Task Force for trav­el­ing to Yemen and get­ting arrested there for using a Somali pass­port.   He had stud­ied jihad under an Islamic scholar.  He told police that he observed two sol­diers, drove up to the recruit­ing cen­ter in Lit­tle Rock, Arkansas, and opened fire.

Ah, the “Reli­gion of Peace” is at it again.  Muham­mad (not the “Prophet”) will be charged with one count of first-degree mur­der and six­teen counts of com­mit­ting a ter­ror­ist act.

Full Story @ Fox News

Filed Under: Terrorism Tagged With: , , ,

Could Mexico be next?

February 3, 2009 By

In case you haven’t seen this list, for­mer CIA chief Michael Hay­den left a “list” of the United States’ top con­cerns for 2009 for his suc­ces­sor, new CIA chief Leon Panetta.  The list is as following:

  1. Al Qaeda
  2. Vio­lence in Mexico
  3. Iran’s Nuclear Program
  4. Europe and the War on Terror
  5. Insta­bil­ity caused by the low price of oil
  6. Pak­istan
  7. Afghanistan
  8. North Korea
  9. China
  10. The Mid­dle East

Now this list sur­prised me.  I hon­estly thought Pak­istan and/or the Mid­dle East would have been in the top five.  I knew Mex­ico was dire, but I didn’t think it would be num­ber two.  This tells me one thing:  We (the United States) could have to step in to help Mex­ico fight the drug car­tels before year’s end.  We cer­tainly can­not afford to let their cen­tral gov­ern­ment fall.  Then noth­ing would stop the drug run­ners from com­ing into Texas or Cal­i­for­nia, if they’re not already here.

This just makes secur­ing the bor­der all the more cru­cial.  We must increase the num­ber of bor­der patrol agents and increase the length of the fence.  I know we can’t real­is­ti­cally do this by the end of the year, but I also know that 700 miles of fence won’t pro­tect us, either.  I know, I know…we can’t afford it.  We’re hav­ing a finan­cial melt­down.  But it would be absolutely dev­as­tat­ing to our econ­omy if Mex­ico fails.  We would have mil­lions, MILLIONS of refugees flee­ing if the Mex­i­can gov­ern­ment col­lapses.  Let’s just pray that doesn’t happen.

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, Terrorism Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts