Radio Show
      Listen Host Guests Archive
On The Side

View the Latest Action Alerts and Stay informed!

Read our current Commentaries for indepth analysis into hot issues!

 

 

 




July 2005   stang
 
Who Did It? The Battle For Britain By Alan Stang

WHO DID IT? THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN

By: Alan Stang

We have Nine Eleven. Spain has Three Eleven. Now the English have Seven Seven. It sounds like something happening on the craps table at Vegas, doesn’t it? It happened while U.S. President Smirk and U.K. Prime Pimp Blair were in Scotland at Gee Eight, where they decided to transfer another $50 billion of your money to various African dictators and forgive their debts.

I am told that both these feckless factotums of the Conspiracy for World Government were bedecked in blue UN ties, demonstrating their primary allegiance to that Communist government, which is working to destroy ours. Blair hurried back to London when the news arrived. One wonders what value such a simpering popinjay would be in an emergency.

Meanwhile, President Smirk announced, as he has so many times, that the perpetrators of this new horror will be "brought to justice." You bring free-lance criminals to justice, embezzlers, bank robbers, murderers, etc. When those criminals act on behalf of a government, you have an act of war, not of mere crime. You don’t bring the perpetrators of acts of war to justice; you kill them. You exterminate them.

So, how does Smirk know—before any investigation—that the perpetrators of Seven Seven are free-lance criminals? How does he know that no government, foreign or domestic, is involved? Is he typically doing whatever he can to conceal the facts, as he did in Nine Eleven?

Remember that the Red Chinese committed an act of war against the United States early in Smirk’s first term when they attacked a U.S. Navy plane over international waters. Smirk ignored it. The first reason he gave for invading Iraq was essentially that Rumsfeld’s old pal, Saddam Hussein, had not attacked us, but could, using the devastating arsenal of WMDs he had cobbled together with equipment we had sold him.

What is the context of this latest attack? We know that the federal government was involved in some way in the 1995 terror attack on its own building in Oklahoma City. Notice, I said "in some way." I don’t know how for sure, but the facts indicate that the horror could not have been perpetrated without federal collusion.

We know that the federal government was involved in some way with the shoot-down of Flight 800. Again, I don’t know how, but the facts prove the District of Criminals was involved, if only to cover up what really happened. The lawyers call that misprision of felony. The District arrested reporters who tried to report the truth and utterly ignored the testimony of dozens of expert witnesses. And we know that the District of Criminals had something to do with Nine Eleven, because that horror could not have been committed without federal collusion. There are just too many coincidences to be governed by the law of probability (no fighter planes scrambled, the destruction of the target scene, Smirk’s attempt to prevent an investigation, etc., etc. and et cetera). Remember, I’m not saying I know the details of that collusion; I am saying I know it was there.

Now here comes Seven Seven. The experts tell us the bombs were very powerful, so powerful that none of the corpses can be identified. They were detonated within a few seconds of each other. The experts say all this is proof of "considerable expertise." Could free-lance criminals have done it? Yes, an Islamo-communist nemesis like one of Batman’s enemies could certainly have pulled it off, but the context tells me to withhold judgment, because a government could have done it more easily.

Which government? Of course I don’t know. But I do know that everything the Smirk Administration has told us about this war is a lie. I do know that Smirk tricked us into the war to advance his own Communist world government purposes. I do know that he is lying about how it is conducted. I do know that he is lying about our casualties. I do know that silly, little Socialist pimp Tony Blair is nothing but his lap dog. I wouldn’t believe either of them if they told me the time.

Indeed, now comes word that Blair will prevent an investigation into the bombings. Remember that Smirk at first tried to prevent an investigation of Nine Eleven, until public outrage forced him to back up; which made no difference because he named Soviet spy Heinrich Kissinger to run it. Remember that the stink was so putrid Kissinger had to withdraw, which made no difference because Smirk replaced him with another member of the Family.

And remember that the purpose of a federal "investigation" is to conceal the facts it is allegedly "investigating." So it looks as if we have déjà vu all over again. Will the English force Blair to back up? It will make no difference, as in Nine Eleven, because any "investigation" will conceal the truth.

Why might either of these Socialist pukes be behind an attack like Seven Seven? For the same reason Bill Drop Your Pants and Inhale My Cigar Clinton could have been behind Oklahoma City. Clinton couldn’t get his gun control legislation through Congress that year until one of the bombs planted in the federal building killed 168 people. In the wake of that event, the legislation sailed through.

Just as Nine Eleven solidified public support for Smirk, so Seven Seven will solidify public support for Titmouse Tony, who can take up cigars—Clinton may have a few he didn’t use on Monica—and recite Churchill’s speeches. A bomb does a wonderful job of concentrating attention. Don’t be surprised if we start to hear about a new Battle of Britain Blair will fight to the last limey.

This latest horror recalls Smirk’s conduct of the war. Remember Stang’s Codified Rules of Warfare. Rule One says that if you don’t know you are in a war, then—however strong you are and however weak your enemy is—you will lose, you will lose, you will lose. Smirk has utterly neutralized any mainstream opposition with the brilliant remark that we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.

The effect is that few Americans realize we are fighting them here, and that in fact the main theater of operations is here. That is, if the enemy we are fighting is really Islamo-communist terrorists. Is it? Or is it deep cover black ops boys in the pay of the District of Criminals? Could that be the reason we have not been hit again, thank God, since Nine Eleven? If we are hit again, the fact that we are fighting "them" here would become as obvious as it should be.

Rule Two of Stang’s Codified Rules of Warfare states that if you are in a war, but do not use everything you have and do everything you can to win, you will lose, you will lose, you will lose. Remember, I was among those who argued long and loudly that we should not invade Vietnam and should not invade Iraq. Smirk and his Trotskyites did not agree. And sure enough, as in London, we are seeing déjà Vietnam all over again.

In Vietnam there were the "privileged sanctuaries." There was the Ho Chi Minh Trail we couldn’t bomb. In Iraq, there are the mosques and there is the "religion of peace." There is the deathly fear of offense. There are the rules of engagement, in which grunts on the line must worry about Islamo-communist crazies in front, and brainwashed zombie officers behind. There was Lieutenant Ilario Pantano. There was Col. Allen West. Could they be part of the reason even Marine Corps enlistment is down?

Smirk & Company have told our military men—the best of the best—that just about the worst thing they could do is offend anyone, especially a practitioner of the "religion of peace." The effect of that brainwashing technique is to give the edge to the enemy, not to our own. Isn’t that what house-to-house fighting amounts to? We should not have had to do that.

The edge in combat is often no more than a second, but it is long enough to kill and maim. Shouldn’t we give the edge to our own? Isn’t giving the edge to the enemy treason? A couple of Associate Injustices of the Extreme Court have announced that they are including foreign law in their rulings because we must defer to other countries. Name one other country that gives the edge to the enemy in combat.

It is much easier to get in to one of these things than it is to get out. Indeed, the reason the Smirks got us in without an "exit strategy" is that they do not mean to leave. Why would you leave after building the biggest U.S. Embassy in the world, capacity 3,000? Now that Smirk & Company have run into trouble, they tell us in effect, "If you’re so smart, what would you do?"

I would invoke Rule Two. I would use whatever we have—we have much more than enough—and do whatever we can to win. I would do that were the enemy we fight really Islamo-communism. Is it? Or is it the black ops boys in the Western governments, applying traditional dialectical materialism to trick us into conflict? We need to keep all these musings in mind as we consider this latest horror in the London tube.

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books. Go to www.stangbooks.com to read about Alan Stang's blockbuster new novel, He, about the greatest hero of all time, Jesus Christ.

If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Alan Stang can be reached at: feedback@stangbooks.com

We invite you to visit his website at: www.stangbooks.com