THIS would make me proud of my candidate

... NOT!

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.

I just don't understand why Lib-ruhls and Demorats and the MSM don't get the threat. Now, admittedly, the WaPo wasn't impressed with her shenanigans, either -

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

- but this sort of slap on the wrist is the exception rather than the rule in the MSM.

Our elected leadership has become a joke, and seems desperate to sacrifice America's strength, safety, and autonomy for "peace." They proclaim that America is at fault, they insist that if we bow to the demands of the terrorists in Iran and Palestine and Syria and elsewhere, the terrorists will leave us alone. The Dhimmis are certain that, if America abandons her call to uphold the light of democracy and liberty throughout the world, the terrorists will subside and vanish back into their "peaceful" culture.

Pffft! Listen to what God says about this (it's not completely analogous, but it is pertinent):

Thus says the Lord GOD: "Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! O [America], your prophets are like foxes in the deserts. You have not gone up into the gaps to build a wall for the house of [America] to stand in battle on the day of the LORD. They have envisioned futility and false divination, saying, 'Thus says the LORD!' But the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope that the word may be confirmed. Have you not seen a futile vision, and have you not spoken false divination? You say, 'The LORD says,' but I have not spoken."

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Because you have spoken nonsense and envisioned lies, therefore I am indeed against you," says the Lord GOD. "My hand will be against the prophets who envision futility and who divine lies; they shall not be in the assembly of My people, nor be written in the record of the house of [America], nor shall they enter into the land of [America]. Then you shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

"Because, indeed, because they have seduced My people, saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace--and one builds a wall, and they plaster it with untempered mortar-- say to those who plaster it with untempered mortar, that it will fall. There will be flooding rain, and you, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall tear it down. Surely, when the wall has fallen, will it not be said to you, 'Where is the mortar with which you plastered it?'" [emphasis and substitutions mine, of course]

False prophets, indeed. What do we care about global warming when, if the Dhimmis in America have their way, my daughter or granddaughter may be forced to wear the burka and pray to Mecca? What do I care about being inclusive and tolerant, when I see the swords of Islam poised to destroy my Constitutional and God-given rights?

Why should I care about bi-partisanship when, under the "leadership" of appeasers, America is bending over, spreading her cheeks, and begging: BOMB ME NOW!!???

UPDATE: Oh, I forgot: the Emperor swiped this from one of his Loyal Citizens. Well, since I, too, am a Loyal Citizen, I'm swiping it as well!

Technorati Tags: Pelosi, terrorists

Comments

[Billy Joe]

1.

Bush holding hands (!) with Saudi King:
http://boortz.com/images/bush_abdullah.jpg

Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein (see why he was meeting him below link and you can even read the article at the National Security archives, if you want):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

"U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

"Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam"

Can you explain these treasonous photos?

[Raven]

2.

BillieJoe, dear yes we can explain these things: Donald Rumsfeld was asked to go meet with Saddam during the crisis between the US and Iran. Rumsfeld WAS ASKED BY THE PRESIDENT to do this. He did not go on his own, against the President, in an act of near treason. Big difference. Yes, Saddam was an evil bastard back then too but Iran was worse...and we didn't have a State Dept list of Terrorist Nations back then.

What's the issue with Bush holding the Saudi's hand? The old Saudi was having trouble walking and Bush was helping him. Gotta problem with that??

[Sonnabend]

3.

Okay, explain this, then