Death by a thousand cuts

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected "public servants" (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln -- still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn't violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America's own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush's perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush's continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush's reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend's home?

Well, I couldn't help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush's chilling answer to that question.

"How will I know if it's unconstitutional?" he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans' throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I'm no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I'm no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I'm reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

Americans make themselves slaves.

9/11 conspiracy theorists blame Bush and the U.S. because they, like OBL, hate professing Christians more than practicing genocidal monsters

How can anyone be so perverse, so hateful, so full of self-loathing that they would blame without evidence any American president for an attack as purely evil as that carried out on September 11th?

Despite Osama bin Laden's videotaped confession and celebration of the crime (transcribed and published by Al Jazeera, which is well-known for its pro-Bush, pro-American, and pro-Conservative Christian biases), some Americans still support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

Was President Clinton in on the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in '95, the Khobar Towers in '96, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in '98, or the U.S.S. Cole in 2000?

How can Muslims celebrate bin Laden's Allah-pleasing victory against the Great Satan if he were not involved?

Why has Osama never said, "Hey, wait a minute! I had nothing to do with 9/11, but even if I did, Bush was in on it!"?

Wouldn't that one declaration have ended the current Crusader/Zionist War Against Islam?

If President Bush really did plan and execute -- or even know of and allow -- the foul deed, why did not John Kerry call him on it during the 2004 campaign? He'd be President Kerry now (and unlike our current Economist-In-Chief, getting credit for "keeping the nation strong in tough economic times").

Senator Kerry didn't mind slandering his fellow servicemen in harm's way during the Vietnam War to advance his own career then; I doubt he'd mind exposing the truth about the worst mass-murderer in American history now. (And a Republican one at that, though for those twisted enough to believe the President had something to do with 9/11, the difference is one of semantics only.)

Here's John Kerry vowing to "destroy" OBL. Why bin Laden, if Bush is guilty of the blood of those three thousand?

According to Al Jazeera:

In a statement, Kerry said he will do whatever it takes to capture or kill "terrorists".

"In response to this tape of Usama bin Ladin, let me just make it clear, crystal clear, as Americans we are united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Usama bin Ladin and the terrorists," Kerry said.

If President Bush really had something to do with 9/11, why has not the Democrat-controlled House impeached him? Why does no rational human being -- even liberal Democrat politicians -- make that argument?

The best that the Rabid Socialist and her (now overtly) Racist Rabid Socialist opponent can come up with is criticism of the War in Iraq, but the Administration has always denied a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th.

After 9/11, everyone -- even the most hateful, liberal bigots, and then out of fear -- united behind President Bush. After a year or two of no other major attacks, many of those worms crawled out from under their rocks and attacked the President for political gain and out of malice. Of those, not a few wrote books to cash in on their treasonous derangement. Who among them ever said, "By the way, this is what I did to carry out 9/11, and I did it at the President's request"?

The truth is, everyone without an overwhelming compulsion to lie (and even many with one, like Democratic presidential candidates) finds it impossible to advance the absurd notion that President Bush had anything to do with 9/11.

Of course, irrefutable evidence of responsibility for the single greatest slaughter of American civilians (to date) comes directly from bin Laden himself. Just like his "Ideal Man" and prophet, OBL can't help but brag about that of which he should be utterly ashamed, that which makes him uniquely depraved and vile.

Here is the Caliph-In-Waiting in his own words, translated from the original Black Speech of Mordor into English.

(Has anyone else noticed that Arabic is starting to sound a lot like German? Every time I hear the latter spoken I can't help but think of Life is Beautiful, Schindler's List, or The Sound of Music -- and I don't mean the happy parts. I suppose that genocidal, anti-Semitic, totalitarian ideologies do that to the languages in which they are expressed. Two perfectly-good tongues with historic ties to Christianity ruined now.)

Notice he casts his terrorism in terms of defense of Islam and its adherents (I suppose the only people who can kill innocent women and children are Muslims. Selfish!). Note also that he plagiarizes Michael Moore, which is both poetic justice and a warning to the Blame America Firsters: You're in harmony with a monster:

But I am amazed at you [the American people]. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. . . . .

[. . .]

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

[. . .]

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

. . . for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

[. . .]

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

My help is in YHWH, Who made heaven and earth.

Lies the only way to hurt President Bush

I happened to be perusing a few articles at The Guardian, a UK news site.

The ultra-liberal bent obvious in just the first two articles I saw was nauseating. Because it was so blatantly dependent on outright lies, one article in particular deserves comment:

The author claims that both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair lied their nations into war. One must conclude this author is either intellectually-deficient or a liar.

If President Bush lied us into war in Iraq, he wasn't the only one (and I'm not referring to the esteemed Prime Minister) ...

-President Clinton in 1998 repeatedly referred to Saddam's nuclear threat and other WMD; indeed, he believed the threat so credible that he bombed Saddam.

-The United Nations also lied us into war by reporting that a large number of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction were missing.

-The Democrats of the United States Congress, who voted to give President Bush the power to go to war against Iraq months before the president gave his State of the Union Address, also warned of the danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons.

-It was apparently France's intelligence regarding Iraq's attempts to acquire African uranium which became a part of the British intelligence to which Mr. Bush referred in the State of the Union.

Those who are actually lying regarding the war in Iraq are those gutless, self-serving wretches whose political success depends on President Bush's failure (and, therefore, our enemies' success).

After 9/11, the realization of their own mortality caused sane people to support President Bush's actions against the jihadists.

Once enough time passed and people saw it was safe again to be liberal (read: "weak, appeasing, and treacherously self-serving") -- and that a Presidential Election was coming up -- they crawled out from under their rocks.

We are at war, and those elected to defend our lives and liberties lie about the Commander-in-Chief in order to harm him politically.

That's Treason.