And Another Liberal Slogan Bites The Dust

From none other than the Bush hating NY Times on employment data for the United States:

Late in 1999, hiring slowed so sharply that it reversed almost five years of gains in two years, according to the data released yesterday. And although hiring rose for a few months after the recession of 2001 ended, it soon began falling again - hence, the so-called jobless recovery.

This quote is in regard to the most recent Labor Department report on job growth.

It's funny that this showed up in the NY Times, which has covered their front page with negative economic news and spewed editorial after editorial about the lack of job growth under Bush. In fact, that was one of the slogans repeated by the mindless left during the Kerry campaign. So look at the quote above and think hard about it, my dear little leftist tools...

Hiring slowed in 1999. CLINTOON. It "...Reversed five years of gains in two years...." Two years from 1999? 2001. Clinton was in office until 2001. What does that mean? It means that not only was the recession Clintoon's, the hit to the job market was Clintoon's too! So, libtards, since you were so vocal in insisting that Bush had to be replaced because of his performance with creating jobs, will you now say "Mea Culpa, it was actually our hero, Bill Clintoon, the man who coddled terror and allowed 9/11 to be planned, the man who caused the stock market crash, the man who ushered in the recession, who also was responsible for the horrid job statistics?"

Of course not. But there it is, you little left wing bitches, the facts from your own Grey Lady. Clintoon was the one to blame for the horrid job market.

Taking the gloves off

Ok, as you see below, I deleted a post about Cindy Sheehan after getting some feedback from my brother and affepundit. I talked to my brother about this yesterday and he has changed his mind after seeing some of the things Cindy Sheehan said in a speech in support of the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 earlier this year at the disgusting left wing shithole breeding ground of traitors, San Francisco State University. Among the things that Sin-dy Sheehan said was

What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's yeah and it's okay for Iraq to occupy I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let's just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter.

So in light of my brother's change of heart, I will try to recreate what I said about that fucking ignorant cunt, Cindy Sheehan...


Cindy Sheehan is the epitome of the San Francisco Bay Area, the home of America hating terror sympathizers. She is nothing more than another whore of Islam, supporting the very people who killed her son. This is the nature of Bay Area leftists, willing to stab their country and people in the back to further their agenda of self loathing. I am sure that Casey Sheehan would love to see some brave American put a bullet in Cindy's head, as would I. Actually, I'd rather see someone put a bullet in Cindy's gut so she has a slow death. Then, that leftist maggot could be reuninted with her patriotic son, where he could spit in her filthy face and tell her how, through her support of terror, she has killed her own son a second time.

Cindy Sheehan, you disgraceful cunt, I hope you suffer for eternity.

Eat shit, NY Times

I don't expect much from the left wing NY Times editorial board, but today's editorial on Israel's withdrawal from Arab occupied Gaza was below my lowest expectations for these scumbags. I've pasted the editorial below and ask you to notice what they don't say.

Rather than applaud Israel's risky decision to hand Gaza over to the Palestinian Arabs and put out a public challenge to the Palestinian Arab leadership to use this opportunity to reverse a history of terrorism and hate, the NY Times takes Israel to task for not handing over even more territory. Chutzpah? That's not even close. You'd think that the onus should now be on the Palestinian Arabs to prove that they can live in peace alongside Israel, that they should go to extremes to stop all terrorism, that they should focus on teaching their children to seek peace rather than death and hate...alas, no.

It's attitudes like the Times' that make me believe there's no benefit to taking a risk for peace. They prefer to reward violence and terror.

Prime Minister Sharon, I hope you litter the streets of Gaza with Palestinian Arab corpses.

And FUCK YOU, NY Times.

August 15, 2005
Only the Beginning
This morning Israel finally began withdrawing from the teeming, thirsty strip of land where it settled nearly 9,000 Jews in the middle of more than a million Arabs. Gaza has always been the ultimate example of the bankruptcy of Israel's settlement policy, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be congratulated for finally doing what he and his predecessors should have done years ago. Now we must hope fervently that the withdrawal proceeds peacefully, without unnecessary provocation from troublemakers among militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

While the withdrawal from Gaza has long been demanded by Palestinians, it is in Israel's interest as well. It will free up Israeli soldiers who have been devoted to the defense of far-flung clusters of Jewish housing surrounded by hostile Palestinians. It is a rational response to the demographic challenges that threaten to leave Jews a minority unless Israel loosens its hold on the West Bank.

Unfortunately, Mr. Sharon seems to think that withdrawing from Gaza will buy Israel time to spend to consolidate in the West Bank. Even the pro-withdrawal officials in Mr. Sharon's hard-line Likud Party maintain that Gaza is not the beginning, but rather the end. Mr. Sharon's own chief political strategist has said that a central purpose of the Gaza withdrawal plan was to take Palestinian statehood off the table indefinitely. The belief appears to be that by "giving" President Bush Gaza, Israel will have bought for itself at least a lack of American pressure so that it can remain in the West Bank.

The Bush administration cannot buy into that line of thinking.

The so-called road map for peace calls for Israel to work with elected Palestinian officials to create a plan for a negotiated Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The responsibility of the Palestinians is to clamp down on terrorist activity against Israelis. Clearly, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, must demonstrate he can stop extremists from Hamas who labor under the mistaken belief that they will one day destroy the Israeli state.

But Mr. Bush must make clear to Mr. Sharon that the Gaza withdrawal is a first step. He must not allow Mr. Sharon to maneuver him into blessing an indefinite Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

Mr. Sharon, the architect of Israel's settlement policy, might have imagined a different legacy, but he will go down in history as the man who rammed the plan to dismantle the Gaza settlements through Parliament, taking on, and defeating, extreme right-wing members of his own Likud Party. Mr. Sharon should be cheered for taking this step. But he must also be forewarned: if there is to be any chance for peace, there are many more steps that must be taken.

Move Over, Dianne Feinstein, There's A New Ignorant Cunt In Town...

Updated post: I normally don't listen to what others have to say about my posts, but in this case, two people told me that I had crossed a line. Both my brother and Affepundit told me that I was being unduly harsh on Cindy Sheehan. While I don't think I was, I do take into consideration what my brother says about this, as he is a soldier and speaks with more authority about matters of fallen soldiers than most people. He told me that while he didn't agree with Cindy Sheehan, he understood her grief and she deserved some slack. Affepundit, on the other hand, is a man who has no taboo subjects. Nonetheless, he said that my post had probably set a new standard for crossing the line, and he didn't say it with a tone of admiration.

So, with that in mind, I have deleted the post. I still despise Cindy Sheehan.

Leaving Khan Younis...

August 15, 2005: the day Gaza will once again be Judenrein. Benjamin Netanyahu, a man I admire on many levels, resigned from his Finance Minister position in Ariel Sharon's government today, saying "I can't stop it, but I can be at peace with myself" with regard to the Gaza pullout. While I generally agree with Netanyahu and I don't like the idea of Israel withdrawing from any land, in particular a land with such clear historical ties to Judaism and the history of the Jewish people, I don't agree with him on this one.

Gaza is an odd bit of land and the demographics tend to complicate even the most logical of arguments. The one reason that I think leaving Gaza is a good idea is the geography and demographics and what they mean for the inevitable war that will break out with the Palestinian Arabs who occupy Gaza. Once Israel leaves Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs, there is sure to be a massive mobilization of terrorist groups within Gaza, free to organize and train for attacks on Israel.

Currently, Israel does have bases within Gaza along with a number of Israeli citizens who live near those bases. The Israeli military presence in Gaza is a bit misleading, as they are, for a number of reasons, not able to strike offensively. They are more of a police force and an intelligence unit than an army. And, because the "settlements" are spread throughout Gaza, it complicates what I think is the only proper response to any terror attacks on Israel.

At present, because of the presence of the Israeli military and citizens in Gaza, any military operation has to be precise and limited in scope, else damage be inflicted on friendly forces. Once Israel is out of Gaza, that limitation ceases to exist.

Gaza has the ocean on one side, unpopulated areas of Israel on two other sides and the Sinai desert on the third side. There really isn't anywhere to run from Gaza and there's very little to harm if devastating military action is employed in an indiscriminate fashion.

In case it isn't clear by now, what I imagine Gaza becoming is a killing field. Once all Israeli interests are out of Gaza, Israel will be free (subject, of course, to diplomatic issues) to use the exact opposite of a surgical strike on Gaza. Rather than have to send in men, Israel will be able to employ artillery and air and sea based munitions. I don't think this is going to happen upon harassing action by Palestinian Arab terrorists (e.g., a few mortars lobbed over the border), but it will happen when the Palestinian Arabs mount a serious attack on Israel from Gaza.

While this is a simplistic version of what I expect, it will go something like this...Israeli tanks and artillery will be moved into position outside of the borders of Gaza, in the area west of Ofaqim and south of Ashkelon. Israeli naval forces will be positioned off the coast of Gaza. Fixed and rotary wing aircraft will be sent to cover Gaza's airspace. And at that right time, the entirety of Gaza will be the focus of an awe inspiring bombardment. It will be similar in effect to the bombing of Dresden.

The world will howl, the Arab states will threaten retaliation, the UN will go into overdrive with condemnations. If Israel has the right leader at the time, it will all fall upon deaf ears.

I hate to quote pop music in such grave matters, but there's a line from Sheryl Crow's song "Leaving Las Vegas" that really applies to Gaza:

I'm standing in the middle of the desert
Waiting for my ship to come in
But now no joker, no jack, no king
Can take this loser hand
And make it win