George al Bush - Death To America!

Why is an employee of a "charity" that finances terrorism serving on a U.S. bipartisan panel on Religious Freedom?

When is a moderate Muslim not a moderate Muslim? How about if he is an employee of a Saudi Wahhabi organization that has been identified by the Senate Finance Committee as one of a long list of Islamic charities that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence”?

Last month, the White House appointed Talal Eid, an imam from Quincy, Massachusetts, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan panel that, according to the Boston Globe, “monitors religious freedom in countries around the world and recommends policies to the president, State Department, and Congress.” Eid is also participating in goodwill missions overseas for the State Department. Ishan Bagby, a University of Kentucky professor and member of the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America, was pleased with the appointment: “It’s a very good sign that a mainstream, moderate Muslim leader like Imam Eid can be appointed to such a position.” Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations was pleased also, saying that Eid would bring “valuable perspective” to the Commission.

Eid was forced out of his position as imam of the Islamic Center of New England’s mosque in Quincy in July 2005, some said because he was too moderate. The Bush Administration has been determined since September 11, 2001 to find moderate Muslims with whom it could work and to whom it could show public support; unfortunately, however, in this quest it has sometimes been less discriminating than it should have been, and the case of Talal Eid is a prime example of this.

... al Bush the Traitor, read the whole story

Garner Cartoon - Washington Times

Our Government Finances Terrorists - The State Dept. And Hamas University

How We Fund Hamas University

... where are the politicians asking Roberto Gonzales to investigate this?

By Joel MowbrayFrontPageMagazine.com March 27, 2007

How could the U.S. government be funding Hamas’s university in Gaza? It’s the question that has been asked often since my front-page story in the Washington Times earlier this month, from Capitol Hill to the State Department’s daily press briefing.

No good answer was provided—but in fairness, no good answer exists for supporting a college controlled by Hamas. The alternatives, though, aren’t much better. The sad reality of Palestinian society is that almost any university the U.S. might choose to support at a minimum has student chapters of terrorist organizations on campus.

Bush Enables Terrorism - C.A.I.R. To Meet At White House

What would you say if you knew your President supported groups linked to Terrorism? Well, it's true; and it's been happening for years!

... CAIR officials have been charged with -- and some convicted of -- offenses related to the support of terrorism, including CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad, founding board member Ghassan Elashi and former CAIR civil rights coordinator Randall Royer.

"We know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and vice chairman of the party's Senate conference. He also criticized the group for having "intimate links with Hamas."

CAIR also was named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit relating to the September 11 attacks.

Prominent lawmakers, watchdog organizations and law-enforcement authorities insist CAIR has terrorist ties, despite the group's endorsement by Republican and Democratic leaders, including President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. (also supported by Jeb Bush)

... in a related story, U.S. Visa policy welcomes British homegrown Jihadists!

Back Stabbers - Democrats Hating Our Troops

The Assault on the Grunts

The antiwar left -- especially those in the mainstream media and Congress -- always try to mask their intent to cut and run from Iraq by pretending to “support the troops”, whatever that means. But the increasingly visceral debate about Iraq, ever accelerating from the vote to use military force in Iraq to the “non-binding” resolutions now being debated on Capitol Hill doesn’t affect most Americans. But, then again, most Americans aren’t on the front lines getting shot at. The lefties’ assault on the president may leave him weaker politically. But it leaves our troops wondering.

Immediately attacked as an “escalation of the war in Iraq,” the troop surge became a hot-button issue from the moment that it was announced, and, under the new Democratic leadership has worsened considerably. The House and Senate have both been increasingly vocal about their desire to derail the U.S. efforts in Iraq. Whether out of the desire to “save the lives of future American soldiers,” or simply out of the long-held yearning defeat and disgrace the hated President Bush, attempts to hamstring current operations, and to prevent flexibility and adjustment in strategy going forward, have moved to front and center on congressional Democrats’ agenda.

They are correct on only one count: the resolutions do, in fact, send a message -- but it’s not to the White House: the message is directed to our troops and our enemies, letting the former know that the vital backing from their homeland -- both in will and in finances -- is on life-support, and telling the latter that the American front in this war is so fractured that our determination to keep fighting could evaporate at any time. Said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.” The troops aren’t fools: they hear, they understand.

... and those Republicans that joined the Dems? There's a plane (full of snakes) leaving for Iran today! Be on it!

Republican Traitors:

Mike Castle (Del.)

Howard Coble (N.C.)

Tom Davis (Va.)

John Duncan (Tenn.)

Phil English (Pa.)

Wayne Gilchrest (Md.)

Bob Inglis (S.C.)

Timothy Johnson (Ill.)

Walter Jones (N.C.)

Ric Keller (Fla.)

Mark Kirk (Ill.)

Steven LaTourette (Ohio)

Ron Paul (Texas)

Tom Petri (Wis.)

Jim Ramstad (Minn.)

Fred Upton (Mich.)

Jim Walsh (N.Y.)

Deserter Trial Begins

FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- A U.S. Army officer who refused an order to deploy to Iraq, pleaded not guilty on Monday to several charges at a court-martial that calls into question the right of officers to speak out against the war.

First Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, faces a charge of missing movements when he refused to ship out to Iraq with his brigade last summer, and two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements criticizing the war as illegal and immoral.

Watada, whose supporters say he is the first Army officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq, could face up to four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if he is convicted on all charges.

... 4 years would be going easy on him! This will be a great test case to see how far Left the military has gone.