Ecoterrorists Strike Again in Washington

Two Washington State radio transmission towers were destroyed in an attack credited to the ELF. This eco-leftist group has been behind major terrorist incidents up and down the West Coast, and has done millions of dollars in damage to property in the past.

A sign bearing the letters ELF was found near the towers, said Andy Skotdal, general manager of KRKO Radio in Everett, about 25 miles north of Seattle. The group is a loose collection of radical environmentalists that has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks since the 1990s.

The towers were torn down because of health and environmental concerns, according to an e-mail to The Herald of Everett from the North American ELF Press Office, which has represented the shadowy group in the past.

"We have to weigh our priorities, and the local ecosystem in Everett, along with the local residents, do not need additional sports news radio station towers that come at the expense of reduced property values and harmful radio waves," ELF press office spokesman Jason Crawford said in an e-mail.

The group's Web site featured a picture of one of the towers lying on its site with the caption "Earth Liberation Front Topples Two Radio Station Towers in Snohomish County, WA," followed by the words "Details coming soon."

Reports indicate that the terrorists used bulldozers to knock down the radio towers. The towers belonged to a radio station seeking to increase its transmission capacity. It had been fighting for more than a decade to get those towers built, and opponents threw everything and the kitchen sink to thwart them - trumpeter swan habitat was threatened to potential health hazards to humans.

"Progressive" Family Values

The idiots Daily Kos and the other insane asylums where Democratic party leaders often congregate continue attacking Gov. Sarah Palin and her decision to serve as GOP Sen. John McCain's running mate even as she has five children, including an infant, Trig, who has Down's Syndrome.

Let's just say that their arguments fall flat.

Nancy Pelosi has five children. No one claimed her family got in the way of her serving the constituents of San Francisco. She's now the House Majority Leader.

Al Gore had four children.

John Edwards, who ran as John Kerry's running mate for the same position as Gov. Palin, and who later sought to be President in the 2008 election season, had four children. One died in a car crash, and his youngest son was born in 2000.

FDR had five children (a sixth who died in the first year of life), an affair, and a dysfunctional marriage to Eleanor. He's consistently ranked as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the nation. He raised those five kids despite being bound to a wheelchair later in life and running for office for much of his adult life - as State Senator in NY, Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and finally as President.

Sen. Barack Obama has two young girls. Do those girls need their father to fawn over them and be available to them? Or do we want to perpetuate a double standard?

Well, flat out - the answer coming from the "progressives" (aka leftists) is yes, they want a double standard. No wonder feminists are caught in a bind. Their progressiveness has been shown to be nothing but empty platitudes where only their kind of woman can serve at the highest levels in government. Any woman who doesn't meet their political tests doesn't qualify.

I agree that it's hypocritical of the "traditional values" crowd to suddenly lionize Palin, when they've been arguing for years that a mother's place is with her small children. (Dr. Laura, to her credit, has been consistent on this, and is duly critical of the Palin pick.)

But for the media to claim that there's no double-standard in how they treat Palin's family obligations and how they treat Obama's (or other male politicians, for that matter) just can't withstand scrutiny. Either it's okay to delegate one's parenting responsibilities to pursue political ambitions, or it's not.

As far as the media is concerned, they clearly believe that it's okay for Democrats to pursue higher office, but that it isn't okay for Gov. Palin. In that respect, I find the media's continuing focus on this to be offensive and that reflects itself in the latest polling that shows that the McCain-Palin ticket continues to do well.

The Surge and Where Do We Go From Here

As I noted earlier today, President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq today to visit with troops in al Anbar province. President Bush's visit certainly sparked quite a bit of commentary - not all of it positive among those bloggers active this Labor Day. Some would complain about the fact that Bush was smiling. Jammie has more on the craziness.

The WaPo wonders why troop deaths are down - they can't quite figure out why and say that the causes aren't clear. Well, there are some reasons - namely that we've figured out how to kill terrorists better than they've adapted to our changed tactics. If you keep killing terrorists and there are fewer taking their place, you win the battlefield.

And we're doing this while on the offense.

This doesn't mean that everything is peachy - the Yezidi massacre of 500 Iraqis by al Qaeda shows that the terrorists can still inflict serious pain on the Iraqi people, but they can't keep that kind of tempo going - not in the face of an ongoing military effort to clear and hold areas all over Iraq. Tribes have turned against al Qaeda precisely because they've found al Qaeda's brutality repugnant and horrific.

Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, Jules Crittenden, Macranger, Neptunus Lex, Outside the Beltway,

End The War: Start Demonstrating Against the Bad Guys

It's an amazing thing watching the anti-war types and leftists continually calling for an end to the war in Iraq. Nowhere in their ongoing calls do they call on the terrorists to stop their suicide car bombings and mass murder of Iraqis and instead heap nothing but blame on the Bush Administration as if suicide bombers is something that the Bush Administration invented.

It did not. Iraq is a battlefield precisely because there are jihadis and insurgents who are causing mayhem and carnage. Why not focus the efforts on undermining the jihadis and insurgents instead of the US and Iraqi efforts to quell the violence.

After all, but for the jihadi, al Qaeda and insurgent violence, the US could begin reducing troop numbers.

But don't take my word for it, consider someone who lives in Iraq:

Even more appalling I see and hear some people who think the solution is to end the war from our end and I can't find an argument more naïve than this—I've seen enough wars in my life that I can't remember a day when there was peace and I hate wars more than they can imagine. But we didn't start his war; it's the terrorists who started this war against life.

Instead of telling us to stop fighting back, I'd like to see some people stand up and protest the crimes of the terrorists and tell them to stop the killing and destruction…turn the stop-the-war campaign against the terrorists, is that too much to ask for?

Tell the criminals to stop killing us and stop attacking the people who are risking their lives fighting for liberty and equality.

We're not asking the media and the stop-the-war crowd to carry arms and shoot the terrorists; we just want them to stop shooting at us.

It's a real simple thing really - if leftists truly abhor violence and war, demand the jihadis and insurgents stop the carnage. It is not the US that is busy killing scores of people in car bombings and suicide bombings but the jihadis and insurgents.

The problem is that the anti-war types are not interested in peace, but ensuring that the US loses. The anti-war types and leftists think that the US is the bad guys, not the jihadis and insurgents who have no problems making videos showing beheading of their victims, car bombing marketplaces, attacking police stations, blowing up mosques to incite sectarian conflict, and otherwise trying to destroy infrastructure and a nascent government's capability to govern and manage a country still trying to find its footing in a very dangerous part of the world.

HT: Michelle Malkin