Democrats Signal Surrender to Islamic Fascists

By -

Monday, November 13, 2006
THE SURRENDER BEGINS

Well .. if the Islamic fascists dared to think last week that the American voters signaled surrender, they can pretty much rest assured that this is the case as we begin the week after.

If anybody thought for a second with Nancy Pelosi sitting there in the Oval Office pledging cooperation with George W. Bush that she was anything other than a Leftist radical, think again. She has already said she's supporting John Murtha for House Majority Leader. Get ready for an interesting two years...the door swings to the left on Capitol Hill.

Sure....Nancy Pelosi is doing everything she can to change her image from San Francisco Moonbat to one of a middle-of-the road moderate Democrat. But people who really know Nancy Pelosi know better. The good news for Republicans over the next two years is that she can't hide who she is. And why are all of these supposedly new moderate members of Congress going to vote for Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Who knows.

So now she's saying she supports Murtha for Majority Leader. This suddenly makes Steny Hoyer look like a conservative. So Pelosi is for Murtha....the same John Murtha that is calling for unconditional surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This is the same John Murtha that jumped to conclusions, all but accusing our troops of war crimes in Iraq. Yup...that John Murtha.

So don't let the conservative hairdo and attire fool you...Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi is a huge Leftist....as far to the Left as they come in the United States Congress.

Nancy Pelosi will also pass over Jane Harman for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman, a California Democrat, is accepted as the Democrat's most knowledgeable member of the House on Security and Intelligence issues. There's a problem though. Harman supports the war on Islamic Fascism. Pelosi wants the House Intelligence Committee to be chaired by someone who doesn't support that war. Make sense to you?

And let's not forget the actions of President Bush. The very day after the Democrat victory Bush fires Don Rumsfeld. Should Rumsfeld have gone? Perhaps so .. but could there be a worse day than the day after an election that changes the face of power in Washington? Islamic fascist leaders do not understand the nuances of power in Washington. They see Democrats (1) calling for withdrawal from the battlefield in Iraq; and (2) the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The day after the Democrats score their victory they get Rumsfeld's resignation. Then within a weak major Democrat players start their withdrawal chant again.

Considering the above, why wouldn't the Islamic terrorists believe that they have scored a major victory, and that America is weakening before their eyes?

by Neal Boortz

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anger Management

By -
Image
   Isn't it interesting that Religion and Politics are taboo topics in polite company?  These are very important to many people, but discussing them only seems to provoke anger in most people.  The exception seems to be that people of similar opinions can discuss with one another how much they hate, desipise, and laugh at those of different beliefs.   Apparently, religions and politics are not subjects that most people desire to consider in a calm, cool, rational manner.  Rather, for most people, religion and politics are emotional topics.  They are the subject of Faith.  People have faith in their religion.  More surprisingly, (at least to me) they have Faith in their politics.  Faith and Reason are like oil and water; they do not mix.   I am not restricting my comments to stupid people or any particular party.  My observation seems true to me of very intelligent members of various parties (although there does seems to be a tendency to judge members of parties to which you do not
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis
Read more

War on Terror

By -
Image
by Bob Clasen Currently, the Administration is trying to wage a War on Terror. But Terror is not an entity. It is a method of warfare, like automatic weapons, or aircraft. One cannot wage war against a technique or technology. I suggest that what is needed is not more soldiers to be sent to Iraq, but greater clarity of thought. Who, exactly, is our enemy? It would appear that one of America's enemies is Fundamentalist Islam. Why is Fundamentalist Islam our enemy? Because Fundamentalist Islam defines unbelievers as infidel and urges its members to wage war against them. This is the doctrine of jihad. The problem is not with extremisist who hijacked a peaceful religion. The problem is the doctrine of Jihad, or Holy War is found throughout the Koran. This doctrine can be re-interpreted by modern liberal types as a psychological warfare against one's own sins, but that is not how many people throughout history have interpreted it. Anyone who is given to literal interpret
Read more