Disgusting Rhetoric from "Azzam the (un)American" Gadahn

In a video message released earlier today, Adam Gadahn (or Adam Pearlman, if you want his birth name) threatened the life of our President. President Bush will be going to the Middle East very soon. To endear himself to us even more, he also has renounced his American citizenship as of today, which actually means nothing until he becomes a recognized citizen of another nation. "Azzam the American" has been "indicted in the Central District of California for treason and material support to Al Qaeda. The charges are related to Gadahn's alleged involvement in a number of terrorist activities, including providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and services for Al Qaeda." (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm)

Now why would I consider this important? Number one, I'd love to read of his capture and trial. He is an American citizen and, unlike my feelings for the Guantanamo detainees, I cannot wait to here about his trial. I will camp out in front of my television like I used to when O.J. and the Menendez brothers had their respective days in the California courts, oddly enough where "Gadahn" is headed. But this time, it's not just my California cousins and friends who are in on the deal; it's the entire United States. The reason I want this to happen is so that we can show the world that we will abide by our Constitution and adhere to the rule of law. And I hope that he is sentenced to death (as should have happened to John Walker Lindh, regardless of the fact that his parents think that he's still a good person). He has called for our deaths if we, as a country, do not turn to Islam. (Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/02/convert-or-die/)

Further, "Azzam" is now making theological pronouncements: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God and came with the revealed book, the Koran, which abrogates all previous revelations, like the Torah and Evangel… God recognizes no separation between religion and state…" As a Christian, I take a great deal of offense at his words, but he is free to say that, even on American soil. What he is not free to do is this: "To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [(your)] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next…" (Source: Ibid.) He is threatening Christians -- and specifically those who happen to Americans -- with punishment if they do not accept the faith of Islam. Now, I've never been to law school, but I do believe that he is now guilty of terroristic threatening. Just a suggestion to the U.S. Attorney handling this case: Could we add that to his charges? I mean, you do have him on tape here -- twice. And a note to Ramsey Clark: You have a new client and I bet he'll remind you of your late buddy Saddam!

The reason I bring all of this up is that several people -- even among the GOP -- seem to be overly concerned with how Guantanamo makes us as Americans look to the rest of the world. Here's a hint as to my feelings on this issue: I will lose more sleep over my beloved Statler Brothers' decision to retire (albeit five years ago) than over how the rest of the world views America. There are groups who are going to hate us no matter what we do, for whatever reason they choose. Guantanamo does little to influence that sort of thing. Do we really think that closing Guantanamo will suddenly cause some people to love us or revive a long-dormant -- even secret -- love for the United States? If you do think that, you might want to seek professional help. And, besides, hating America is chic! It's the new "in" thing, even amongst the people who make their money here. Just ask George Soros or Mark Cuban or Michael Moore, if you can understand him with his mouth full. (Hey, I'm fat, so I can make fat jokes! Live with it.)

To all of those who claim that Guantanamo causes our soldiers to be tortured, do you really believe that they'll stop if we close Guantanamo? I can see the headline now, and in the New York Times, no less: "Al Qaeda Announces Moratorium on Torture in Response to Gitmo Closure." That sounds more like something Oliver Stone might have in a movie one day when we get his version of history. And Aaron Sorkin gets to write it, of course. According to those two, Republicans had some dark connection to the many assassinations in the 1960s and they didn't actually win the Cold War, either. I wonder what color the sky is in their world. I'm betting on the same shade of blue as Monica Lewinsky's dress.

What will change the way the world sees us is what real conservatives like Barry Goldwater (circa 1964, not his later years) and Ronald Reagan always said: "peace through strength." That includes our being strong enough to resist and even fight people who want to harm us, regardless of their motive. Another important part of that is being strong enough to mean what we say and to back up what we say. The reason the Russians backed down on several issues is that they knew that Ronald Reagan would stand up to them and so would George H. W. Bush. We should never take the "one-more-chance" route as the United Nations did with Saddam. Time after time, he ignored the sanctions and, time after time, the U.N. gave him "one more chance." The result was that he soon learned that the U.N. was a paper tiger. We should never wind up in that role. America also needs to show that we will defend ourselves, even if it means trying one of our own citizens for treason and executing him if he is guilty. The world will lose respect for us if we do not live up to our word and cannot defend ourselves.

We have to choose the next president carefully. People like those in Al Qaeda want us dead. Those who want peace at any price will give away things we cannot afford to lose: our faith, our sovereignty, and our commitment to a democratic way of life. For those of you who still suffer from some sort of brain-killing liberalism or just are really stubborn in your willful oblivion, do yourself a favor and go to this site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html. Yes, I know that it's from the White House, but it's fully documented and other sources have reported the same thing. These people are committed to our defeat and we cannot afford to lose this battle. The future is up to how we vote and I hope the future is with a true conservative in the White House.

Technorati : Adam Gadahn, Adam Pearlman, Azzam the American, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Islam, Ronald Reagan, terrorist, treason

Charlie Wilson did what?

My friends, we are now witnessing the re-writing of history(again) by Hollywood (again). It seems that somehow we all got things mixed up and accidentally gave someone else the credit for our side winning the Cold War. And, of course, the guy who got ripped off was a Democrat. He was Charlie Wilson, a Representative from the Second Congressional District of the great state of Texas. According to Mike Nichols, the film's director, it was Wilson who won us such a great victory.

Please allow me to tell you why he had to be Hollywood's choice to lead us to victory. First and foremost, he was a Democrat. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin. You know, the guy who sanitized the Clinton White House and turned it into a little program called The West Wing. This was Sorkin's re-writing of history as it was happening. Since we all seem to have forgotten the 1980's, I guess they figured that they were safe. If you ever watch his TV show, you soon realize that Sorkin has very little regard for the Grand Old Party and its members. That is the overwhelming attitude of Hollywood.

The second reason they like Representative Wilson is that he is their kind of guy. He is a "good ol' boy who liked company in a hot tub and was rarely found without a drink in his hand," according to Roger Ebert. (Source: Winston-Salem Journal, Relish [Entertainment Insert], Thursday, December 20, 2007, p. 8) Clint O'Connor adds the following: "a rootin'-tootin', hard-drinking, excessive womanizer, helped funnel vast sums of money and arms to Afghan fighters in the 1980s, thus helping defeat the Soviet army." (Source:

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2007/12/swagger_and_bravado_aside_a_gr.html )

Now isn't that the picture of a leader who inspires confidence. Of course, these Hollywood types are the same ones who were oddly silent about the whole Stained Blue Dress Incident of the Clinton years. Of course, Bill was just another "lovable good ol' boy," so like Wilson, all would eventually be forgiven, including his perjury to a federal grand jury. But when Reagan was accused of doing what Wilson did actually do, according to the film, he was the one of the worst men on the planet, regardless that the President can write foreign policy and Congressmen can't. But why quibble over what the Constitution says about the system of checks and balances? If a Democrat wants to ignore them, it's fine, but only when a Democrat does it. Republicans don't get those kind of passes in Hollywood.

The third reason is that Charlie is, according to A. O. Scott, "a liberal as well as a libertine." Also according to Scott, his choice of lady friends is their kind of girl, too: "Joanne Herring, a right-wing Houston socialite who loves Jesus and martinis and hates Communism. She is a splendid American contradiction, standing up for liberty and godliness while getting into bed (literally) with a bachelor congressman and (metaphorically) with President Zia ([played by] Om Puri), the military ruler of Pakistan." She says she loves Jesus, but she loves Charlie, too, so that seems to make everything all right with the Hollywood crowd. Aside from her questionable political leanings, she loves sex, alcohol, and Jesus, but I'm sure not in that order and she has, I'm sure, a well-developed sense of her moral foundation as well. And, being a good friend of the hero of a liberal, quasi-historical piece, she gets the rewards of notoriety and Julia Roberts portraying her in the film. The late, great Ronald Reagan just gets his rightful legacy stolen, but he's one of the bad Republicans, so Hollywood approves.

I guess the worst part of this for me were the following parting shots at the fortieth President. A. O. Scott commented, “The good guys are the ones who know how to have a good time, and who counter the somber certainties of totalitarianism with the conviction that fun is woven into the fabric of freedom.” So if Reagan had only had the Soviets over for a dinner party -- with the emphasis on party -- then we all would have had a rollicking good time as we won the Cold War. Don't you just hope that all the public servants have fun when going off to do the things they have no authority to be doing in the first place? As long as they have fun, that's all that matters. Then came Clint O'Connor again: "Charlie Wilson's War is the most American of movies, brimming with a can-do swagger that we could only hope for from our politicians.” Umm... Clint... we had that when Reagan gave us something that Barry Goldwater used to say: "peace through strength." Ronald Reagan did have a can-do attitude, but was modest enough not to swagger. And, by the way, when American Republican presidents do swagger, they get accused of having an "arrogant bunker mentality." But the one that made me mad was Roger Ebert: "The next time you hear about Reagan ending [the Cold War], ask yourself if he ever heard of Charlie Wilson."

Ah... Roger, we won the Cold War not because the Russians lost in Afghanistan, though it did help, but because Ronald Reagan scared the crap out of them. After four years of Carter's inept, mamby-pamby tenderfoot approach to foreign relations, along came a man who would not back down because he believed in America and her strength. They knew that Reagan would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them to the very end. They were afraid of him and were forced to respect him. So, Roger, I think you know that I'm giving you a "thumb's down." Comment on the movies, the acting, directing, and lighting, and whatnot and whether or not you like them. Some of us already know that you dislike Republicans. And I'm sure that Reagan had heard of Charlie Wilson just like I'm sure that you would love, like the vast majority of the entertainment world, to take this away from Reagan, but you can't.