The State of Nevada v. Daryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner Id 24347

Before I go on to current events, I'm wrapping up (for now) my abortion rants. I often hear how abortion should remain legal for rape and incest victims. This is one such TRUE story (and can be investigated through the State of Nevada) and illustrates why I don't believe it should be legal even in situations such as rape and incest. I stand firmly behind my conviction abortion in any form is murder.

Read on dear readers.

In the State of Nevada, there exists a division of the Division of Parole and Probation that writes Pre-Sentence Investigation ("PSI's") reports once a defendant has been adjudicated guilty and prior to sentencing. These reports encapsulate the defendant's prior criminal history, familial background, "instant" offense and sentencing recommendations to the judge based on all of those factors.

According to Daryl O. Clark's PSI, he had a criminal history of 2 prior Breaking and Entering an Occupied dwelling (convicted on both), 1 prior Unlawful Driving Away of Motor Vehicle (convicted) and the instant offense was 1) Burglar; 2) Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon; 3) Sexual Assault with Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime (8 counts) (instant offenst).

In the State of Nevada, use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime is an automatic enhancement with a sentence equal and consecutive to the actual crime. So, in this case, he committed and was convicted of Sexual Assault, with an equal and consecutive enhancement for Use of a Deadly Weapon.

The offense report reads as follows:

"Records of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Clark County District Attorney's Office reflect that the instant offense occurred substantially as follows:

On March 3, 1987, between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., the defendant entered the residence of the victim, a 25-year-old female. This residence was also occupied by her 5-year-old daughter. The suspect entered by lifting out the kitchen window. The victim woke up in her bedroom and observed a male adult, subsequently identified as the defendant, wearing a brown and black ski mask with holes cut out over his face and also wearing a blue nylon windbreakertype jacket and high top tennis shoes that wrapped around the ankle area with red shoe laces. The suspect was pointing a small snub-nosed, blue steel revolver at her head threatened to kill her and her daughter if she did not submit to his demands.

The suspect forced her to perform oral sex on him. After this was completed, he got into bed and performed normal vaginal sex on her, then turned her over and sodomized her. After this, he got up and ransacked her entire house and took several pieces of jewelry, $6 in cash, and two cartons of Benson & Hedges cigarettes. The suspect then left by the front door and stated that he would kill her and her daughter if she reported the crime to the police. She immediately reported the crime.

On 3-4-87, the victim, while walking to her apartment, saw a suspect whom she believed to be the perpetrator, standing in the same apartment complex near her apartment. She telephoned the police, who responded to apartment #280, which the victim saw the suspect enter. The officers questioned a female, who stated that Darryl clark was her cousin and had been living with her for several months.

She advised that Clark was not in the apartment. While this investigation was going on, security advised the officers that they had located the suspect and had him in custody. He was advised of his rights and questioned by the officers. At this point, Clark began smoking a Benson & Hedges cigarette. He extinguished the butt and placed it in his right jacket pocket. This cigarette butt was retrieved at booking and placed into evidence.

Clark was further asked if he had any prior arrests in the United States, and he stated that he had an arrest for Breaking and Entering in St.Louis, Missouri. After several attempts to gain information from the suspect, he was questioned as to where he had obtained the cigarettes, and he stated that he had bought them at the Green Valley Grocery. This was determined to be false information.

Thereafter, the officers obtained consent to search the apartment being occupied by the defendant's cousin, Terrie Jones. The search revealed: One unopened carton of Benson & Hedges cogarettes, one Smith & Wesson .38 caliber blue steel revolver with a 2 inch barrel, bearing serial no. D32219. The gun was loaded with five rounds of .38 special wadcutters. Also found was a blue cloth jacket, one pair of Adidas blue high top sneakers with red shoelaces. Also found was one gray and blue ski cap. All of these items were impounded into evidence.

As Clark matched the general height and build of the described suspect, he was arrested for Sexual Assault, Burglary, and Robbery With Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. He was also booked for False Information to a police officer. Clark was transported to the Clark County Detention Center, where a blood kit was obtained from him as well as hair samples.

Clark made no admissions and claimed no knowledge of any sexual assault. The victim positively identified the defendant through the sound of his voice and his physical description. She had remembered that his penis was uncircumcised. This characteristic was also noted of the defendant.

Victim Information:

According to the victim, she is afraid that the defendant will be released from custody and will come and get her and her daughter. She wants him to go to prison for as long as possible. She further revealed that she became pregnant as a result of the repeated assaults and had to have an abortion. She indicated that she has had law enforcement training and can identify suspects through voice and physical description.

In her written statement, the victim indicates that he left, but returned again and took her purse and other personal property. She indicates that her pride, her self-confidence, and her security has been threatened. She indicates that she has been threatened by the defendant's friends since he has been in custody. She lives in constant fear. She and her daughter are seeking counseling, but this cannot erase the trauma that they both suffer.

Those two sections were taken directly from the PSI regarding this defendant. Unfortunately, victims aren't allowed to see a PSI before it's submitted to the Court and there were errors in both sections.

In the "OFFENSE REPORT" section, it neglected to mention that Clark had actually broken in two months prior and stolen all the jewelry and the victim's purse. It also failed to mention how Clark had forced the daughter into bed with the mother, covered both their heads with a pillow and then left, with the mother fearing the gun would be firing any second.

In the "VICTIM INFORMATION" section, the pregnancy was misreported. The victim was not pregnant; however, due to the extreme stress of the situation had missed periods and thought she was. She did not obtain an abortion, but had prepared for one. She had even asked her father for the money for one, after agonizing over whether she should raise the child herself (would she be able to divorce the child from his/her father's actions) or put the child up for adoption (did she want to inflict another couple with this child's aberrant genetic anomalies).

As stated, she did not, in fact, obtain an abortion.

This was also in the early days of AIDS--for the next 10 years, the victim had to be tested every six months to see if she had contracted AIDS from the rape. This added to the anger and frustration the victim suffered and, had she tested positive at any given time, it would have been possible to re-try Clark for attempted murder. Fortunately the victim tested negative at all times.

Clark was sentenced to four consecutive life terms--two terms for sexual assault and two equal and consecutive terms for Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. At the time, he was eligible to attempt parole after serving 5 years on one sentence, and roll-over to the next term. Optimally, he would have been out in 20 years (the 20th anniversary just passed). At this time, he is still on term 3 and has yet to "roll over" to term 4. He will not be eligible to apply until June, 2009.

Now, with all the talk about abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Unless you have been there, done that--as in this victim's case--you don't have a leg to stand on.

To indulge yourself in such rhetoric sounds good, makes it look as if you are an "informed" person with an "informed" opinion--however, it's nothing more than mental masturbation, designed to make you look good, sympathetic to the victim, up to date and "hip" to the rhetoric currently raging. You are, however, ignorant of the true facts surrounding such circumstances.

You cannot possibly understand what goes through a rape victim's mind. The victim has the initial trauma; the skipped periods, the "Oh my GOD what if...." to deal with, the possibility of AIDS, the investigation, the trial and the sentencing. The victim has it resurrected repeatedly when the defendant comes up for parole and the nightmares start again. The victim has gone through counseling and still the anger and rage return.

This victim was "lucky" in that she WAS NOT pregnant. She agonized; as she grew older and learned more about the issues of abortion, she realized under no circumstances would that child (had there been one) have deserved a death sentence for what its father did. Even though it would have been difficult to carry a child conceived in these circumstances, she could have given that child a chance with a loving family.

Yes, it WOULD be difficult to carry a child to term under these circumstances; however, knowing the child would be given life, knowing the child would have a loving home, would make it easier than living with a murder for the rest of the victim's life. It would also, ultimately, make it easier on the victim as the victim grew and matured, to know in her heart she hadn't compounded the crime with another, more heinous crime.

Now, Miss Beth, how did you get access to this information? How do you know so much about this crime and this rapist? How do you know so much about the whole subject? What makes YOU the reigning opinion-maker on this subject?

It's quite simple, really. I AM THIS victim and this is MY story.

I now KNOW, deep in my heart, that had I been pregnant and gone through with the abortion, I would be in deep mourning for murdering my child. I have had the advantage of age and wisdom, as well as hindsight, to mature and to know the facts.

The very simple fact is this: NO CHILD, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS OR HER CONCEPTION, DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.

Sphere: Related Content

SAD NEWS IN MISS BETH'S FAMILY--MISS BETH'S BROTHER SUPPORTS HILLARY!

Yes...I confess it's true--I just found out today, my brother has signed onto the campaign to elect Hillary. I love my brother dearly, but alas, he's always been easily infected by contagious diseases--in this case, rampant BDS.

When I asked my brother why he supported a woman who was for partial birth abortion, he said it came across on the news as she was "concerned for a woman's health". I explained the facts of life to him, particularly the fact that BJ himself was responsible for vetoing the ban during his tenure which led to this current Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Earl (Miss Beth's brother) wasn't aware of the ruling. Methinks Mr. Earl has been living in a cave the past week (not really, he has a nice home). He also suffers from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) and we had a little tussle over that one.

Back to the issue at hand. PBA--in fact NO ABORTION PROCEDURE--has anything, I repeat ANYTHING to do with "the woman's health". None. Roe v. Wade wasn't even brought for that purpose. But it's been the best lie ever told to the American public to justify state sanctioned murder. Like P.T. Barnum said--"There's a sucker born every minute".

Too bad all those suckers have cost 48,000,000+ DEATHS since 1973.

Here is a VERY SMALL SYNOPSIS of Roe v. Wade. All emphasis is mine.

United States Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade (1973):

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1

1). a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
2). state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.
3). abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman ("Roe") who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman's life. A married couple (the "Does") separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife's health. The Does' appeal was rejected as being too speculative.

The Supreme court found that: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here..... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy...

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Subsequent court decisions defined the term "preservation of health" very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant.

Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas."

Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: "While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others." Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is "not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution." He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied "to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole."

"Roe" never did obtain an abortion.

(Above information obtained from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm).

So, you see, Roe v. Wade was--in REALITY--about personal freedoms, not issues of maternal health.

********************

Now, how does Hillary view PBA? How do any of our crop of Presidential candidates view this form of murder?

Each in their own words, their reaction after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg writing the dissenting opinion, April 18, 2007.

First, the Republicans:

Mitt Romney:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Kevin Madden
(857) 288-6390
Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us." [Emphasis added]

Rudy Guiliani:
"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion," Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. "I agree with it." [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Sam Brownbeck:
"I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

John McCain:
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

"Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:" Statement By Senator McCain

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following statement:"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life." [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don't think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term en utero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA "seems" more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother's body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

Tom Tancredo:
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions
4/17/2007
Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.)

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Now, the Democrats:

Barak Obama:
'I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women." [Emphasis added]

John Edwards:
John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban."I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman's right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

In their own words courtesy of Pardon the Interruption, here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/18-presidential-candidates-speak.html


And on to Hillary. BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Let's see what BJ did while in office!

This is HIS-STORY:

On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother - even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton's veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton's veto by a vote of 296-132.

Ban Passed into Law

On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.

The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy -- often to six months, seven months, and even later.

Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. "You wouldn't treat an animal this way," Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House's foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill's chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide.

"The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches," said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. "Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers."

The "Health" Exception

The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women's life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for "health" abortions - a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for "emotional well-being" or "depression."

The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved "maternal health" [the most common being "depression"]. Another 56% were for "fetal flaws," ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial - in other words, "elective". [Emphasis mine]

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them "routinely" for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are "purely elective." Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been allmost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother. The American Medical Association's board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which "intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." [Emphasis mine].

"Lied through my teeth"
In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America's National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth" in the ABC "Nightline" program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons' statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) - almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!

Above articles provided by The Jeremiah Project here: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partialbirthabortion.html

And Hillary? Her words:
From the Senate:
Statement on Supreme Court's
Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
4/18/2007
Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we're talking about a live baby that has its head all the way outside the mother's body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of its body save its head outside the mother's body. ]

Again, from Pardon My Interruption here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/08-presidential-candidates-speak.html

So--HORRORS!--Mr. Earl is working to get Hillary elected and by doing so, fully supports a woman's right to choose murder--and get away with it. Mr. Earl did not like this expose of Billary.

I don't care--I don't like murderers or their accomplices (Although I will still love Mr. Earl, even for making this horrific choice)

Sphere: Related Content

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER--YESTERDAY AND TODAY

This came to my email courtesy of Cyper Pastor at Do the RIGHT Thing (here: http://dotherightthing.townhall.com/). Humorous, but unfortunately way too true.


OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

********************

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall Overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote

Sphere: Related Content

AMERICAN CONGRESS FOR TRUTH

Early this morning, I decided to email several of the sites I read daily. One of those is American Congress for Truth (here: http://americancongressfortruth.com/). I've heard Ms. Gabriel speak on several talk shows and this woman KNOWS what she's talking about and is trying to spread the word the MSM doesn't want people to know about the "religion of peace".

The reason I was emailing these sites was I was wondering if I could link with them, using the source code such as we have for the "direct line" to Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com).

Here is my email and the response I received, as well as my answer back to American Congress for Truth:

Original email:

Dear Ms. Gabriel:

I am a blogger (Miss Beth's Victory Dance; http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/) and would like to link my site to you, with the source code for your logo so people can click directly on your logo and go to your site.

Would that be possible and how would I do that?

Thank you,
[Redacted]
aka Miss Beth

The response:

[Redacted],

I forwarded your request to Brigitte and we would love to be linked with your web site/blog. Nice job! As to the "how to"; I will look into that. I have an intern who does our computer work and will ask him for assistance. You have any pointers on blogging? We are working on a blog; matter of fact it is my top project for the week.

Regards,
[Redacted]
American Congress for Truth

And my return response:

Hi [Redacted]!

Thank you so much for the kind words! I've actually only been blogging since March 14, 2007. I was "challenged" by someone on the Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com) to start my blog and join the Victory Blogroll. She suggested I use the Google blogspot as it's free and the "widgets" are very easy to use. Widgets are the sections where you can put all the goodies, links, etc., and you can choose where and how to put them--it's a very versatile service.

One of the Governors on the Board of Governors on the Victory Caucus is Hugh Hewitt from TownHall.com and I spend a lot of time on the TownHall website. Briefly, the Victory Caucus came about from the people who signed the NRSC Pledge against the members of Congress who "sold us out" during the non-binding resolution debates and the goal is complete and unmitigated Victory for our troops overseas, and ultimately, here at home, to keep us safe from the jihadists. I know they also offer blogsites but am not sure how versatile they are. Several on our blogroll coalition are TownHall bloggers.

I've heard Brigitte on Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved (I think--sometimes my office gets a bit crazed--in real life I'm a paralegal) and Hugh Hewitt. Her story is amazing, so filled with courage, and yet also hope--I turn to her as an expert on what is really going on in the "religion of peace" the main stream media tries to snow us with. I've got her book on order as well. Anyone with that much passion about her subject is definitely someone I want to learn more about! I know I sound like a gushing groupie, but please understand--it is true admiration for her, what she's lived through and the fact she doesn't appear to be embittered--simply more giving of her knowledge, her personal experience and her true desire to educate people to keep them from becoming victims.

Whew! Just get me going on a topic and I ramble forever! I hope to hear from you soon, and quite frankly, I KNOW TownHall would welcome all of you as bloggers. You would be great!

Sincerely,
[Redacted]

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you haven't already done so, I encourage you to visit Ms. Gabriel's site, read her story, order her book. This woman has TRULY been there, done that and has SEVERAL tshirts!

Sphere: Related Content

JIHADIST TROLLS PART TWO

As I mentioned in Part One, this part will illustrate a troll attack on a fellow VICTORY blogger yesterday and how he completely degenerated. He was later traced to Prince Edward Island, Canada--which leads one to believe he is indeed one of these "planted jihadist trolls". This belief is also based on his subtle but obvious syntax and sentence structure errors, and the fact he became completely enraged over my attacks upon his masculinity.

His name is "Gil" and I will edit enough of the posting for you to get a true idea of what he was up to. If, by some chance, he is NOT a "jihadist troll" and has been educated in America, take a look at his deplorable education in reasoned writing, grammar, spelling, etc. A definite by-product of the liberal public school system our children are subjected to.

ALL GRAMMATICAL, SPELLING, SYNTAX, SENTENCE STRUCTURE, IN SHORT, ALL ERRORS HAVE BEEN "LEFT" INTACT TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT.

Wake Up America! published a post on Harry Reid--"Harry Reid Once Again Mimics Al Qaeda's Words".

Gil didn't like it. Gil tried to use the liberal/defeatist talking points and rhetoric used by the "cut and run" crowd repeatedly, obviously thinking (as they all do) that by repeating something over and over again, it becomes true. Several commentors are either Veterans, parents of service men and women or both. Gil also tried to demand we answer questions from him (which we did, repeatedly) while completely ignoring our questions. Below I will post a list of those questions as well as his incoherent, rambling, answers. Further, he did everything he could to divert--typical tactics for the losing defeatists.

It started getting interesting here:

1). Why don't you support our troops by demanding that our Army get's a larger share of the Pentagon's budget??Reason I ask is because the only way I see you "supporting our troops" is by attacking Democrats that are trying to help them.

If empty slogans make you feel like you are "supporting our troops" fine.... Just let's not pretend that you Republicans actually "Support" any troops..... No dear Republicans, what you do is you USE OUR TROOPS as cover for a failed policy.

Please do the descent thing and defend your ideas without hiding behind the troops. Please stop pretending that to disagree with Bush's failures in Iraq is some how not supporting the troops. We are all adults here, so let's start acting like we are OK?
gil Homepage 04.20.07 - 11:29 pm #

2). I know that there is nothing Bush can say or do that will make you Republicans loose faith in him.... But for the rest of us Americans, and for the entire world... That point was reached a long time ago and for darn good reasons. If you want to continue to support an moron is your right, just don't be surprised if in the next elections your party is sent into a dead spiral.

God knows you Republicans are asking for it.... And you know what they say... Be careful what you ask because you might get it. You want this war to continue? OK !! give your support to Bush right up to election time in 08 ... Let's find out if the people considered you supported Bush or the troops. Let's see how much the American people appreciates the fact that in "supporting our troops" you Republicans put our Army on the ropes,and spent hundreds of billions of Dollars to "buy" us a Civil War at best and a quagmire from hell at worst.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 12:00 am #

3). Today, I can see this mom. We stay we loose, and we live we loose. Now congratulations Republicans !!! What a great way of conducting foreign policy!! We stay until "victory" goes the party line.... What victory? The Shiite victory? So that the Shiite in Iraq can ally themselves to Iran??? Is that your victory Republicans??? OH but as long as we have a talking point, and a slogan we "win" is that it Republicans? I don't know at what point you Republicans left hearth and went to live in the twilight zone, but this "Republican patriotic party" thing does not work any more. Look at the polls and tell me if you see any one other that the usual 30% buying your B.S. anymore.

Republicans are basically telling Americans that they don't support the troops because we are against a policy that ask us to spend hundreds of billioms of Dollars more, with no strings attached on top of the hundreds of billions already spent because a "Leader" that has not been correct about anithing once, ask us to?

What on hearth do you people take us for, fools?
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 1:36 am #

4). One of the most incredibly idiotic lines from the Republicans is the "We fight them there so that we don't fight them here" .

Is there a terrorist contract I don't know about? Did Osama sign a contract limiting himself to fight us in Iraq and Afghanistan I missed?

Is there a logical reason why can't terrorist fight us there and here?In short Republicans please stop insulting our intelligence will you?

As for the training of Iraqi troops ... Dear, I hate to brake the news to you but 350,000 Iraqi troops are already trained, and "ready" to fight... Too bad is not for us, or for their "Democracy".And even if by some miracle they were, the Shiite are the ones that win, the Iranians are the ones that win, not us.... Bush made sure with his incredible stupidity that we had no way of winning period.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 2:02 am #

5). Answer to Beth.

You know Beth since you pay so much attention to the soldiers on the grownd let me remind you of what the soldiers on the grownd were saying before they got fired by the "Decider" for saying the wrong thing.

Gen. Shenseky. We will need over 200,000 troops and years to secure Iraq. Dismissed.

Gen. Abizaid. We need more troops and new strategies. Wrong timing. Dismissed.

Gen. Casey and Obierno. We need more troops, Iraq is moving to a Civil War statement. Dismissed.

Your new hero Gen. Petraeus. Lost command of the training of Iraqi security forces when he voiced his frustration with operational matters.

So dear Beth the last thing you are going to make me buy, is your theory that the boots on the grownd are telling us anithing other than what this administration whant us to hear. To do otherwise is to invite immediate dismissal. Bush and Rumsfeld were for less troops not more and several Generals lost their jobs over that.... And now the "Desider" has had a change of hearth three years too late and we have ourslves a "surge" . Go figure ... the guy is slow I guess... 4 years ago Shenseky was telling him just that.

Now the surge dear Beth is designed to buy time for political progress... You see any political progress in Iraq????? Or do you think we need not put to much preassure on Mr. Al Malaki to PRODUCE... Hey, let's not bother the man, we can keep on spending hundreds of billions that we never planned to spend, and continue to send back our troops for fourth and fifth tours (You really support the troops indeed... To get killed that is)into eternity .

The "defeatists" are telling you dear Beth that your victory parade needs to start producing something other than saliva, and empty adjetives. As I pointed out already .... The "defeatist" around the world warned you people of what mess you were about to start.... You know Beth you are like the crazy man that continues to reject help while drowning in a pool because " The people trowing me the life saver don't believe I can swim ... Bunch of defeatist"

Fact is Beth you don't know how to swim, and you are going to drown in the pool calling your would be saviors "defeatists". Your side already ignored the same "defeatist" telling you not to invade Iraq in the first place .... And look where you are!!! But some people just never learn.

I challenged the likes of you already to tell me how do you win in Iraq Beth. If the Shiite take unchallenged control they will ally themselves to Iran ... THAT IS A FACT. How is that victory Beth??? Care to explain that one to us "defeatists"?
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 11:18 am #

That was a long one, I know. Suffice it to say, I burst his little bubble about my swimming abilities and started going for blood. NO ONE CALLS ME "DEAR", "DARLING" OR ANYTHING ELSE IN SUCH A CONDESCENDING MANNER UNLESS THEY ARE SOMEONE NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. TRAITORS AREN'T.

My Responses that finally drove him over the edge:

1). There are several fallacies in your argument gil, along with several grammatical and spelling mistakes--thereby making you look even sillier and more wild eyed than usual. Most people that think intelligently bother to use proper grammar in stating an argument and try to catch their spelling errors. Otherwise they appear as rabid as they sound.

I noticed you blatantly ignored the challenge I threw down--show me a perfectly prosecuted war with no mistakes. You have, once again, failed to do so, as have all the defeatists--and I reiterate ALL--since I began throwing that challenge down.

I also suppose more of your "inconvenient truth" revolves around you defeatists have forgotten your leaders--Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Pelosi and Bubba--were fully supportive of the war effort when it started and have forgotten the truth of the video running around youtube showing their support. So your strawman argument about the warnings not to go in are not relevant. New media keeps things like that around forever.

Why don't you and others of your ilk admit that in your blindy rabid BDS, none of you can face the fact that Bush has kept his promises--he said the war would not be short-term and we had to plan for the long-term. He didn't say it once, but several times. The ultimate fact is those who suffer from BDS don't have the guts to do what needs to be done, take the time to do it properly (had the UN not tied Bush I's hands, it would have been finished in 1991--tied his hands like y'all are trying to do again thereby insuring we will have to go back yet again if we don't finish this here and now and do it properly), you are all a bunch of spineless, gutless, yellow-bellied wimps, and Bush is the only one with the cajones to stand firm and get the job done. Because he's not saying what you want to hear in your "rosie" colored world, you tune out.

So, ultimately, it comes down to spinelessness on the part of the defeatists, distraction attempts from things actually said and by whom, blind BDS because you can't control Bush, and the fact you want nothing more than to be the weaklings of the world rather than the strong nation we are.

If you're so enamored with being spineless, gutless, yellow-bellied wimps, go to France.
Miss Beth 04.21.07 - 2:44 pm #

2). Oh and let's see--you also forgot to address the oil issue (why we aren't at war with Canada when they are the major importers of our foreign oil)as well as the fact the billions spent on defense are only 3% of the national budget while the majority of the rest of the spending is for defeatists pet pork projects such as welfare and affirmative action (allegedly humanitarian projects but simply racism in disguise) and the fact that those billions spent are on the technology that has contributed the greatly reduced troop casualties. I'll see if you'll dodge this question as well--would you rather not spend those billions on technology that significantly cuts troop casualties and go back to the way the casualty rosters used to read? Technology is expensive and I'm happy to pay for that technology for the lives it has and continues to save.

The assumptions so blindly accepted that our troops are mere grunts is an insult to any true patriot. We have the smartest, best trained, most versatile military there is, but people such as yourself and Kerry seem intractable in putting out there our troops are nothing more than dumb people too stupid to do anything more than be trained to blindly kill.

You assume each and every soldier kills, in fact, gleefully and joyfully and for that you are indeed very sick. Not one of the men and women I've met that has had to kill has been joyful or gleeful about it--they mourn those they are forced to kill.

You also avoided the issue of differentiating between those trained to kill as soldiers and those trained to kill as law enforcement officers. Tell me, what is the difference? BOTH the soldier and the officer is there to protect YOU--but you'd rather spit on them and call them names. Do you think, deep down, after all the hate you and those of your ilk have thrown at them, they wouldn't rather just turn their backs on you? But they DON'T--not like you and your ilk REPEATEDLY turn YOUR backs on those that protect you.

And tell me how pulling out now and surrendering makes us safer from Iran--go ahead, this should be great comedy!
Miss Beth 04.21.07 - 3:00 pm #

He really starts losing it here:

1). Answer to Betsy.

Betsy, I could care less if Clinton supported the war.... I am not a Democrat dear, and you are wrong the war is a mistake it always was..... And the Democrats unlike people like you, are recognizing they made a mistake in supporting the war (does that did). Specking of mistakes Beth I would much rather make grammatical mistakes than make the tragic mistake to follow an idiot that has cost thousands of lives and huindreds of Billions of Dollars.... Any "victory" in the horizon Beth???? OH, Don't tell me.... Is coming right??? Is just us the "defeatist" that are stopping you... If we only would stop you heroes will have this mess already solved!! I am holding you Beth!!! Is me that keeps this war going !!! OH and the soldiers on their third tour, are not demoralised by their repeated tours but by people like me trying to keep them home.. Because you see we don't support the troops, you do!! by sending them back again, and again, and again and giving Iraq corrupt politicians every brake as the years go by and none to our soldiers. I just have a question Beth.... What's your adress in the twilight Zone?

By the way Beth, since you are telling me that I loose credibility because of my Grammer .... Have you checked your God Bush's "Bushisms"? ... The man has created a multi million Dollar industry dedicated entirely to call on his incoherence's, distortion of the English language, and creation of new words. Oddly enoug that does not affect Bush's credibility in your eyes... Only mine. How nice Beth.

Beth please educate yourself in more than Grammer.BUSH NEVER SAID THE WAR IN IRAK WAS GOING TO LAST A LONG TIME. He said the War on terrorism was going to last a long time. No one dear Beth even remotely planned for this war in Iraq.... Please stop LYING BETH will you?

Another thing Beth... Who the hell is assuming that our soldiers are not smart or mere grunts as you put it???? I gave you a list of Generals that disagreed with Bush and lost their jobs... So stop hiding behind our troops to justify your policies Beth. You can understand the difference of not supporting a policy and not supporting the troops can you???? .... Or can't you? Because if you can't you are not an American any longer Beth... You are a Republican partisan Hack.

I assume that "soldiers kill in fact gleefully and joyfully and for that I m very sick" ... Beth maibe you know how to spell but I recomend you learn how to read... Or consult a DOctor... When did I ever said that? or assumed that? What in hell are you talking about?

Finally let me repeat my challange Beth.... How agin do we "win" Beth? If the Shiite is the product of our "Victory" how is that a victory Beth... Do you even know what I am talking about dear? No war is perfect you said... No and this one specially is not... In fact is so imperfect that we can't win even if we win .. How is that for imprefect?

Like I said Beth... You don't know how to swim and think yo
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 4:06 pm #

2). Beth.

Dear like I said the loosers here so far is your kind.

You lost Congress did you not?

Bush sits today as one of the worst presidents in history. Polls don't lie dear.

70% of Americans believe the war is going badly.

67% of Americans want to end the war.

Every poll comes out with Iraq beeing a big problem for the Republican party and will cause them to loose big in 08.

You see Beth at the end of the day you guys are the real loosers for your ideas Iraq in particular will not ever be the victory you claim it to be. The war in the end will be finished by an exhausted country while you loosers continue to waste saliva and insults in rage at the defeatists that did not let you win.

Problem with you Beth is that you and the Republicans are all talk and no results. You think you fool any one with your "we are just getting started in Iraq" thing, or the "nano- second" B.S. ? Please Lady !!! Grow up that's why your party lost in 06 and will loose even more in 08. NO ONE BUYS YOUR BULL ANY MORE OTHER THAN YOU AND YOUR KIND 30% OF POLITICAL MANIACS.

Since this is a Democracy Beth you loose, and we "defeatists" get to tell you loosers to go fly a kite. One way or another the war ends after 08 Beth mark my words. What can I say, we defeatists get to end a war you only won in the saliva industrial contest.

And Beth... Again so that you understand ; A person is "defeated" is he/she partisipates in a decision, a game, or in general comits to defend something. I and millions like me NEVER agreed to your idiotic policies in the Middle East so I don't see how can I be "defeated" or be a "defeatist" No dear the only one defeated is you, your kind, and the poor Iraqies that will suffer the consecuences of your invasion for generations to come. Your kind Beth, are the ones that invested in this idea that went wrong not me. So as defeated people go Beth... Look at yourself in the mirror darling.

Me... I am like millions of Americans, I see you with amusement and feel sorrow for the pain you caused to my country.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 6:16 pm #

As you can see, this troll has no concept of American politics nor even an inkling we are a Constitutional Republic. I have purposely not printed other poster's comments. If you would like to read the whole thing, I've trackbacked the article this happened on.

Now for the attacks on his masculinity.

This one from Spree, owner of Wake Up America!

1). Ok, Beth, in lil gil's defense, I have to say this:

How can he grow a set when you have CUT THEM OFF?

(Throw that knife away, I will buy you a new one, blood is getting everywhere!!!!)

More popcorn?
spree Homepage 04.21.07 - 7:42 pm #

2) HEY BETH

Let's do this pose your questions clearly and I answer them how is that?

Let's stop pretending that you have anithing on me will you?

Now after I do answer your so called questions.... I do expect you cowards do answer my only one question you keep on dancing around

You stick to the subject, you don't use talking points (defeatists, supporting the troops, etc, etc) and you don't invent, or use personal opinions (like with Sun Tzu). You want a debate dear? Then let's debate, but stop dancing because you don't do it very well.

DEAL??
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 8:10 pm #

3). It's also showing ITS inherent laziness in not wanting to read back over the posts to find the questions asked of IT, wants us to do the research IT'S too lazy to do. Plus, IT can't seem to find the repeated answer to ITS own question!

Just like trolls that expect everyone to do the work for them while denigrating and insulting them for doing it.

Not this time--gil, go find the questions yourself, do your own work. You can also find the answer yourself. I'm not doing your legwork for you because you're too lazy to do anything except spout nonsense.
Miss Beth 04.21.07 - 8:14 pm #

4). (This one is intended to be diversionary rather than look up the questions).

Spree.

Only the very ignorant call our country a Democracy.... Really?

And Bush ???? and all our Republican politicians???

Spree you are really trying too hard, and frankly you sound like you live your life in a blog.... Me I do go out for some fresh air and stumbled in a nut cage with chimps talking to each other.

OK Spree please tell Bush your ideas OK ... Be preapred to be kicked out of the WHite House tough. Like I said Bush has his mouth full with the word "Democracy" for you now to ask him to be "Correct" and say Constitutional Republic, or Federal Republic or why not Constitutional Federal Republic... Even snooper now changed from Constitutional Republic to Federal Republic so if he can so can I .... Now since Snoop here thinks he is right and Spree here thinks he is right then it most be a Constitutional Federal Republic .... So who is right people??

I am starting to sound like you... This is bad news ... So I'll just say...... As far as I am concerned I could care less how you people dedide to call it here at the twilight zone.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 8:23 pm #

5). Beth if you were a man you know what I would be thinking right? And Hawk Let's not get too personal here will you... Did you see my answer? did you like it ? Is that debate? NO right ? So let's just come down will you.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 9:24 pm #

6). Here he tries to write a letter from Harry Reid's perspective

I read your open letter to the Democratic leadership.... Very, very touching how we are trying to help the Iraqi Government stay on its feet and how our soldiers are gettin killed by his and her words!!! OH my God I almost cried....

Here's Reid answers if he could answer .

Dear Sir.

As the Leader of the Senate it is my resonsibilty to give the American people a voice. The President of our great Nation is not a king or a Dictator. The President has the responsibility to account for progress in order to validate his policies. For too long this President answered to no one as if he was a King. That stops now.

Progess not words will be demanded. We can not continue to ask our brave soldiers to sacrifice for much longer. At some point in time the Iraqi people and it's elected Government has to stend up to the plate and take control of their country. That time is fast approaching.

If I have my opinion about Iraq, so does Bush and he and I have every right to express it. If you don't like my opinion that is your right, but really Sir, stop pretending that I am harming the troops that your side keeps on sending back again and again in deed not in words like mine.After all Sir words in this case will not kill our troops, but our troops beeing there for the fourth tour with hardly any rest will.

In the end Sir, you and I as good Americans will have the time and place to decide with our votes if and when we live Iraq. At such time I will expect you accept the will of the people and cooperate in healing the great divide that our Leaders created among our people.

Once that everithing is said and done we in Congress and the President in the White House, had the responsibility to keep us united and on that we failed misserably. Four years of insults and recreminations, and failure, and rubber stamping failure, has come to this.

Made God forgive us for so many lives have been lost.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 9:44 pm #

7). Beth.

You are getting on my nerves.

I ask you to give me your questions and I answer them.... Are you a getting this or are you dumb????

In turn I ask you to answer mine .

Still dancing.... Beth you jut don't have it OK?

Here it is again simple.

Give me your questions ..I'll answer them. I give you my questions (now there is more than one) and you do the same.

Stop running Beth it looks bad. You look like.... "You are cutting and running" like the talking point ? You are an expert at them so maibe that will work.

Forget it Beth YOU ARE A COWARD.

When confronted with pull up or shut up.... You ran... Why should I answer your questions you ask? and why should I confront you on a debate you say.... Because you were asking for one last I checked so I accept. So you run.

Simple because you were demanding me to do it...until I called your bluff. You are an ignorant individual that hides behind talking points Beth. So much for your ideas Lady to this day I don't even know what were your stupid questions.

I have better thing s to do that continue to be with you people. Beth you are the worst of all a coward with no convictions.
gil Homepage 04.21.07 - 9:53 pm #

8). You have nerves? Didn't think amoebas had nerves, being the one-celled creatures they are. And if I am getting on your nerves, GOOD.

You are an ignorant, backwater, piece of filth that refuses to do anything but talk on point from the mothership. You have no education, you have no skills and you have no capability of answering anything intelligently because you have no intelligence. You obviously cannot read, and the fact you started in with the "if you were a man" garbage shows just how lacking you are in all areas. You are not a man, you don't even qualify as a mouse. You are the ultimate coward, pissing yourself in the face of reality.
Miss Beth 04.21.07 - 9:59 pm #

After repeated attempts from Gil to have us do his work for him, I rounded up the questions and posted in another comment section of Spree's. She was kind enough to post them. Below are the questions.

1). Only 5% of our oil comes from Iraq, 0% from Iran; 12% from the Middle East overall; 48% from Canada yet we're not at war with Canada so how is this a war for oil?

2). Show me a perfectly prosecuted war that DIDN'T contain numerous mistakes

3). Why don't you and others of your ilk admit that in your blindy rabid BDS, none of you can face the fact that Bush has kept his promises--he said the war would not be short-term and we had to plan for the long-term. He didn't say it once, but several times. The ultimate fact is those who suffer from BDS don't have the guts to do what needs to be done, take the time to do it properly (had the UN not tied Bush I's hands, it would have been finished in 1991--tied his hands like y'all are trying to do again thereby insuring we will have to go back yet again if we don't finish this here and now and do it properly), you are all a bunch of spineless, gutless, yellow-bellied wimps, and Bush is the only one with the cajones to stand firm and get the job done. Because he's not saying what you want to hear in your "Rosie" colored world, you tune out.

4). You cowards who think skewed polls, worded in a way guaranteed to give you the answers you so desparately want to hear, are going to impress ME?

5). Do you honestly think the American public is happy with the way your beloved democrats have turned congress into the circus it is today?

6). Do you honestly think a difference of only 100,000 votes was a major win for you? (in a country of 298,444,215?)

7). Do you honestly think the majority of TRUE Americans want to see the images from the 60's repeated with your so-called peace protests in which you support Nazi-ism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, burning troops in effigy and supporting those who slice off innocents heads for sport and disagreement (think Nick Berg if your brain cells aren't too fried from the drugs you're obviously on)?

8). And are you so filled with overconfidence and self importance you KNOW you're going to win in 08 after the democrats have made a complete mockery of this country?
Miss Beth 04.21.07 - 10:01 pm #

Here are Gil's answers:

Here are your answers.

1) First of all I did not say this war was over oil ... But if you ask me this war has become over oil. You know Geography Spree? Iraq is right in the middle of the largest reserves of oil in the world. What happens in Iraq affects the world economy and the world economy affects us. In invading Iraq we went to war in the oil fields of the Middle East Saudi Arabia, Iran, Irak Kuwait, etc. You want to play with matches in a powder cage people ? You got your wish. You have us suffering the consecuences. Truth is we can't get out of Iraq now nut we can "win" aither. We are in fact trapped thnaks to your idiotic policies.

2) There are no perfect wars ... But then again the most imperfect ones are the ones we or others loose.... Show me a war that some one has not lost Spree. And why do you think that staying will make us "win" ... If it was a contest of who can stay the longest we would still be fighting the British in America pal.

3) Because in fact he never said prior to selling the war that the invasion and subsecuent occupation was going to be long. Show me a speach BEFORE THE WAR where he stated that we were going to stay in Iraq for years, spend hundred of billions of Dollars, and strand our Militatu for years .... Or please shut up and stop making things up will you? As for the "cajones" thing pal, fact is that if Bush had any he would send his daughters and put his blood where his mouth is.. Is easy to have cajones when THEY ARE NOT YOURS.... That is for cowards... You like Patton right?... The guy was at the front with his troops, and even then he got the now infamous quote from one of his soldiers "There goes old guts and blood"... "Yes, His guts, our blood" responded the other soldier. You people RENT the balls you say you have, and then act like you have done something. Pathetic.

4) I don't give a rat's ass if you are impressed or not. Polls are there to educate you moron. Is kind of a window of where we are. You don't like the answers you are getting from the polls you can always come hide in blogs like this and make pretend with your fellow idiots. You can create a world all of your own here.

5) OH, I don't know why don't we say that Democrats will get better and that they are "turning the corner"... I am sure you will understand. Patience people after all we have to have patience with the Iraqi Government ... And with Bush's so called surge so why not with the Democratic Congress? Ot is the patience flowing one way in your eyes. Is it do as I say buy not as I do with you hipocrites?

6) Your ass hole President won by a few votes in Florida so I say a win has consecuences if is 1 vote or 1 million votes. Bush is living proof of it. So yes pal 100,000 votes represent your defeat, and in 08 even by one vote your party is going down. We Americans are too tired of loosers pretending they can lead.

7) Yu know spree you are out of it. No one is protesting for the simple Continue. simple reason that we have ourselves an rent-a- balls program so that rich republican kids can be heroes from the comfort of their homes. A voluntary Army fits perfect on your crowd... You "support" them by sending them back again, and again. And you borrow from the Chinese to finance the war so that the war does not cut in your manicure budget. Lovely.

I answered your questions... And that makes Beth a BULL SHITTER by saing I ignore questions... ANd you.... Where is your answer to my question??????

Again. If we give Iraq to the Shiite then al Sistani and al Malaki get the power . They are fully allied to Iran. In fact al Sadar is reported to be living in Iran. So that's how you "win"? By handing Iraq to Iran in a silver platter while the Iranians are embarqued with a REAL nuclear program in fron of your "tough guy" noses?Is that your victory... Or do you think you give Iraq the means to protect and defend themselves in a vacum?

Where are Bush's "cajones" with the Iranians pal? Where is Bush's pre-emptive policies now? For how long can any one resonably ask the voluntary Army to return to Iraq Spree?... How many tours of duty is enough for you? How many billions before America says ENOUGH.?

Simple questions care to answer?
gil Homepage 04.22.07 - 12:03 am #

By the end of this tirade, he had also called Spree a man and started a comment to me like this: "Beth. Bitch". Spree deleted the comment (and it was filthy).

While this has been a long post, I hope it illustrates a few things: 1). The rampant BDS infecting the liberal defeatists; 2) What the left really feels regarding the troops; 3) our public schools SUCK (if in fact he was educated in a public school in AMERICA) and 4). What a jihadist troll sounds like and how easy it is to get them to "LOSE IT" and degenerate into total incoherence.

Sphere: Related Content