Great News!! According to Birmingham's (the UK, not Alabama) most senior, respected and "moderate" Muslim cleric there comes the comforting statement that Muslims "all over the world have never heard of an organization called al-Qa'eda". Oh, yeah...he also pointed out that "the process of law" in the UK is "not open." As compared to the process in Iran or Saudi Arabia?
The ability of Democrats to look you in the eye and flat out lie is absolutely amazing. Howard Dean proclaims that the Kelo decision allowing the state of Connecticut to take a homeowner's property to allow for private development was the result of: "The President and his Right-wing Supreme Court think[ing] it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is." Problem is Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (the Court's most conservative justices) dissented from the majority decision.
Take the time to read Youssef M. Ibrahim's "The Muslim Mind is in Fire".
Our lovable kooks in Berkeley held a "Breasts Not Bombs" rally. The pictures tell the story. [Click to enlarge] Note the right hand photo. Not certain what the second person from the right is supposed to be.
Al Qaeda abducts and kills Algerian diplomats to Iraq. Don't you naive, pollyanish, "war is not the answer" types get it yet? Arab-Muslim diplomats from and Arab-Muslim country that did not, I repeat, DID NOT, support the U.S. invasion of Iraq are butchered. Why? Because they are lending legitimacy to the new government of Iraq which is...all together now...a budding democracy and not an Islamic state (at least for now). There are many who believe that traditional Islam (note my choice of adjective) is simply not compatible with the notion of equality which undergirds a democratic society. That is obviously the viewpoint of the terrorists who are attempting to destabilize Iraq and plunge it into civil war. Any country that embraces democracy by definition cannot be governed by Sharia. It's that simple.
The AFL-CIO has called for the end of the "occupation" of Iraq by U.S. forces and "for full respect for the right of Iraqi workers to freely organize and bargain in unions of their choice..." Pray tell, who will be guaranteeing those rights if we leave now? [Note: please refer to the "They Just Don't Get It" post below]
The terrorist who was convicted in the plot to blow up most of LAX ("The Millennium Bomber") has received a sentence of 22 years, with credit for the 5.5 already served and the potential for a further reduction for good behavior. He could therefore be out of jail by 2020. Lynndie England, of Abu Gharib fame, was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years. So being caught on your way to the "departing flights" ramp with a truckload of explosives designed to destroy most of an international airport and kill hundreds of innocent civilians gets you only six more years of incarceration than a person who is guilty of humiliating terrorists with fraternity hazing pranks. What is worse are the comments of the sentencing judge and his not so veiled criticism of the treatment of Gitmo detainees. Hugh Hewitt is all over this one. What I reference by the title of this post is the liberal desire to treat the war on terror as a law enforcement matter culminating in criminal trials before state court judges. Check out John Kerry's statements about wanting to try Osama bin Laden in NY, Virginia and Pennsylvania for murder. Yeah, great idea. That's what we need here. Another two year media circus that would only serve as Al Jazeera cannon fodder, not to mention requiring the disclosure of confidential national security information.
Great piece from The Australian and another in what seems to be an increasing number of commentators shining a light on what our multicultural ethic has wrought. There are certain core values that form the backbone of any stable society. If there are persons who do not share those values then they should be made to leave, or not allowed entry in the first instance. It's that simple. Of course, today's multiculturalists cannot reach this point because to them, by definition, no one culture's standards can be deemed superior to that of any other.
Let me get this straight. Muslim religious leaders are bent out of shape because of the use of the word "jihad" by a lobbyist perpetuates negative stereotypes about Muslims. However, the use of the term by every last suicide bombing terrorist from Osama to al-Zarqawi, to each and every spokesperson from Hamas and Hezbollah projects the image Muslims want portrayed? I guess so.
Pay a visit to StopTheACLU to stay abreast of what a once proud and essential organization is up to these days. If you're uncertain what we regular folk are up against, pay a visit to this thread from The Democratic Underground. These people (the DU) are truly unhinged from the moorings of reality...i.e. nutso, whacked out, fried, etc. It's one thing to have a legitimate difference of opinion whether the Boy Scouts should be entitled to use public property for its events. It's entirely foolish to debate whether the Boy Scouts of America are a "paramilitary" organization or analogous to the Hitler Youth. But these lunatics make up a good percentage of the Democratic party that apparently must be served.
Not really. It's a walrus. If you're interested, go to this link for "Walrus Cam" at Round Island in the Bering Sea maintained by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. There are bandwidth problems so you may not be able to access the cams immediately but it's pretty neat when you do.
Pope Benedict seems like a stand up guy... The ACLU protecting the rights of all Americans and promoting the further unification of our nation... And one wonders why we have such problems with many of our minority youth...I can't believe we didn't have an organ-grinder contest when growing up in my Italian-American neighborhood... Very interesting column by Gordon Dillow about the Minuteman Project...the reaction to these civilians by those on the south side of the border should be enough to tell us that our borders need more protection... Perhaps suicide bombing is the way for the socially inept man to get women he could never dream of in this life... A truly idiotic piece by Bill Johnson...my question to him is: What do you propose we do? Former New York mayor Ed Koch is fast becoming one of my faves...when it comes to national security matters, he demonstrates a very refreshing candor and common sense... Compare him to current London mayor Ken Livingstone...
Because it cannot secure a resolution to condemn killing in the name of religion. [Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch]
Pay a visit to Tran Sient's Watch for some interesting reading.
It is amazing the disconnect between reality and the liberal mind. The Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania shows up, uninvited, at a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq and tells the widow that the state government is against the war. Great timing.
Here's an interesting opinion piece from the NY Post addressing the necessity of profiling to counteract terrorism. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately and it seems that there is no particularly good reason to oppose profiling, at least from a common-sense basis. Think of it this way. If the KKK was going through a resurgence in the deep South and began setting off bombs carried in backpacks onto buses and trains in Montgomery, Alabama, who should the law enforcement authorities "randomly" search? Black males? Asian females? Old Jewish grandmothers? Of course not. If the terrorism is being perpetrated by a white supremacist organization, it is counterproductive and a waste of limited resources to search an elderly black woman's handbag. If the terrorism is being perpetrated by a Muslim supremacist organization (which, quite frankly is an apt description of al Qaeda), why should we search an obvious non-Muslim?
Here's a sampling of Sean Paul's recent hip hop hit, "Damn!": They callin' me to came back to tha streets who, Sean b A.K.A or a sharp crease said it was necessary these sucka nigga out here very scary they cuffin hole they livin' in tha month of February ok den put a sense a nigga on display den kick in ya door and have my folks to bring them K's in I'm still added A double T.I.C it ain't no hoe out there foreal who don't know bout me bitch I'm foshow wit it don't make me pop that trunk to tha lack bitch I will go get it and I ain't selfish I will let you and yo folk feel it wont catch me sippin' on no cris and got a cold belly its Youngbloodz A-TOWN malt liqua sippin comin' straight from tha gutta toe taggin a mutha fucka leave him unda a cova lil john he drop them beats and make them bounce like rubba Sean Paul he toat tha heat that will make u mug then slugga. I'm not sure what it means, but it's one of the reasons my car stereo has become a hip-hop free zone.
This is the kind of liberal Dem claptrap (with some "moderate" Republican vote chasing support) that will be the downfall of this country. Yes, I mean literal downfall of the type of society we have constructed which sought commonalities among its diverse peoples, not highlighting of differences. The illogic of fashioning a supposedly "separate but equal" co-legislature for native Hawaiians after what was done for native Americans should be evident. Just look how much it helped our native American population to move forward.
How can we expect to ever "win hearts and minds" when state controlled media blames everything on Israel and/ or America? Forget about trying to communicate directly with someone who, quite frankly, still governs himself by way of medieval edicts...
Fareed Zakaria actually brightens my spirits a bit with his recent piece...I don't recall my facts on this quite well, but there was a time when we would not simply accept anyone who wished to immigrate into this country. That certainly lead to many deserving, law-abiding, hard working types to be denied entry visas, but life isn't always fair. Now Britain is realizing (at least in some quarters) that you can't allow every hate-filled imam expelled from his land of origin to settle in London under a claim of asylum without some ill effect. America needs to learn a lesson here.
This is absolutely priceless! Who else but Mark Steyn could write these words:"The meeting got off to a rocky start when Atta refused to deal with Bryant because she was but a woman. But, after this unpleasantness had been smoothed out, things went swimmingly. When it was explained to him that, alas, he wouldn't get the 650 grand in cash that day, Atta threatened to cut Bryant's throat. He then pointed to a picture behind her desk showing an aerial view of downtown Washington - the White House, the Pentagon et al - and asked: "How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it?""Fortunately, Bryant's been on the training course and knows an opportunity for multicultural outreach when she sees one. "I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from," she recalled. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could."Please read the entire column.
I believe I'm destined to repeat the following in one form or another until at least a significant majority of our countrymen ("countrypersons"? "people of country"?) get it:"But we should at least recall history accurately. Al-Qaeda set off a truck bomb in the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, almost a decade before George Bush invaded Iraq. President Clinton, the darling of the left, had been inaugurated a month before. It would be difficult to blame US foreign policy for the attack. America had gone to the aid of Muslim Kuwait and freed it from Iraqi occupation. Observing the letter of its United Nations mandate, it withdrew from Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in place (although it kept forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the agreement of those governments). ""A few months later Clinton withdrew American forces from Somalia following the Black Hawk Down incident, in which 18 soldiers died. Osama Bin Laden commented that the decision demonstrated the weakness, feebleness and cowardliness of the US soldier who had fled in the dark of night."During the Clinton presidency, as American forces went to the rescue of Muslims in Bosnia and as the president toiled alongside Ehud Barak, Israel's prime minister, to bring peace to Palestine, Al-Qaeda escalated its attacks on the United States, bombing its embassies in east Africa and attacking the warship USS Cole. Clinton's response of firing a few cruise missiles into supposed terrorist camps was feeble. ""Long before George W Bush became president a policy of turning the other cheek was met by a sharp intensification of the terrorist onslaught on America, culminating in the September 11 attacks." This was from a Michael Portillo article in the London Times
Maybe there is change in the wind. I'm seeing more and more of this sentiment being expressed in "regular" media...it is only logical to conclude (which will rule out the Michael Moore/ MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party and hard left liberals of all stripes) that when those born and raised in a relatively comfortable life in your own country strap bombs to their chests and massacre scores of innocents, you have a much bigger problem than having sent soldiers to Iraq. The time has come to question not yourself, but what is going on with the aspects of Islam that feed this beast and realize that the hate that can motivate such an act is being bred from within the religion, not without.
Jane Fonda is back at it again...this time on a bus touring against the Iraq war. I have to say I am little surprised that she would come down either way on the war. From what I remember reading, she became a Christian several years back which is the reason for her break up with Ted Turner...who thinks Christianity is a total waste of time...which is fine. However for Jane, I remember she apologized for her actions in the Vietnam War and I thought maybe she apologized because she had realized that Christians ultimately believe that our job is not to be against war...or for war...or for a certain politician...or for this party, etc...but to be AGAINST INJUSTICE in whatever form it comes...and when the only human antidote to that injustice is war...than God's will be done...
This is an absolutely disgusting example of the difference between liberals and conservatives...and yes I'm am generalizing but you see far, far more of this from the left...when it comes to debate and free speech. To be so grotesquely insensitive to a new widow in the manner described in this story is beyond contempt. This is what happens when you consider your ideological opponents to be not just wrong, but evil. [Hat tip: Eric's Grumbles]
Babs Streisand calls the Bush Administration "witches"...Daily Kos is debating whether Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is gay...teacher reprimanded and fired for having picture of President Bush in her classroom...according to the NY Times, the Hamas terror attacks clearly hurt the Palestinians more than the Israelis... In no more time than is necessary, incisive responses: Babs is an idiot so who cares what she thinks anyway (unless you're Sean Penn who sees in her the serenity and steadfastness of Ghandi, and the strength of character of Mother Teresa)...yep, those liberals are certainly tolerant and accepting...I remember there being a picture of whoever was our current president hanging on the wall of my elementary school classrooms (it's a civics lesson for chrissakes!)...except as compared to those Israelis who were blown apart in those terror attacks...
Remember when the GI posed critical questions to Donald Rumsfeld regarding Humvee armament? The MSM and pundits kept that story alive for weeks. The issue was debated ad nauseum. There were calls for Congressional hearings, et cetera...et cetera. Well, have you seen this story prominently displayed anywhere about Ted Kennedy and his "Gitmo as Gulag" bunch getting bitched at by our service personnel stationed at Guantanamo Bay? I guess it's only newsworthy when Republicans get criticized.
Read here and here for reports re three coordinated explosions in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheik. My sympathies go out to the families and friends of those killed and injured (mostly Egyptian) in what is being reported as an al-Qaeda linked suicide attack. Remind me again how America and Britain's presence in Iraq has lead to this bombing of other Muslims in an Arab country not supporting the war.
Sean Penn sends a nasty note to Trey Parker and Matt Stone ("South Park" and "Team America").
Read this article about "fiery" Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad who resides in London after having been expelled from Saudi Arabia, and note the following: 1. He wants Britain to become a Muslim state and calls for a worldwide Muslim caliphate; 2. He describes the motivation for the suicide bomber/terrorists as the killing of Muslims in Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN; 3. Oh, yeah...did I mention he was he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia?
Here's the first (that I've seen) criticism of President Bush's selection of John Roberts on the basis of turning back the diversity clock. I didn't know that Sandra Day O'Connor occupied one of the "female" chairs on the Supreme Court.
Bombs stuffed into backpacks go off in London underground killing many. Attacks connected to Al Qaeda. New York City institutes policy of randomly checking backpacks of subway travelers. ACLU goes apoplectic. Here's another great piece by Victor Davis Hanson making the point, among others, that the terrorists rant about both Iraq and Afghanistan as justification for the London bombings. However, you never hear Bush, Blair or John Howard asked whether the "occupation" of Afghanistan is the motivation for these murderers. Just Iraq. Wonder why that is? [Not really.]
Here is a great contrast set. First, the standard leftwing, head in the sand, apologia for the London bombings pointing the finger at the Brits themselves as part of the problem and handwringing about "racism." The other, from Australia, also looking inward but reaching the correct conclusions. Question: why is it that whenever there is an horrific act perpetrated by, for example, an Islamic terrorist against perfectly innocent people in a subway car, a large percentage of the legacy media goes into overdrive describing "their rage" as an explanation and, dare say, justification. On the other hand, when some regular blokes direct a bit of harsh language at a guy in a turban or gal in a hajib, this same media spends exactly zero time trying to understand their rage?
When do the Congressional hearings start? Gitmos detainees are on a hunger strike over...the quality of their drinking water.
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia is a "MAN". That's the best I can put it. It has nothing to do with sex or gender and all to do with the traditional attributes typically associated with, but not limited to, the male of the human species. A "MAN" like Eisenhower...or Reagan...or Giuliani...or Dubya. Or, like Margaret Thatcher and perhaps Condi Rice. People who were not afraid to tell it like it is whether it was popular to say or not. Truth always trumps politics. Here's what Howard had to say in response to a question from a reporter regarding whether Britain's presence in Iraq had made London a terrorist target: "The first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the vernacular, and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? And can I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people by implication suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio DeMillo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMillo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the minds of the terrorist. By definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts. And the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective fact is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct from the suppositions suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder." This is so succinctly put and so clear and so obvious and so logical that I cannot fathom how anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty could disagree. If more western leaders would speak bluntly and unequivocally in these terms, we would likely be much better off. [Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt]
Muslim groups in the UK have been threatening gay leaders (Note: not only the religion of peace, but tolerance as well). Since all violent actions, or threats thereof, made by oppressed minority groups are justified on the basis of mistreatment or historical injustices by the dominant culture, will someone connect the dots for me on this one.
Expect to hear the Barbara Boxers of the Senate to bring up the "french fry" case when looking to criticize SCOTUS nominee John Roberts. Well, the criticism is right on...if you want an activist judge who will legislate from the bench and not respect the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of government and who will substitute his notions of how our society should be organized rather than leave it up to the will of the people as expressed through their legislators. [Whew!] The bottom line is if you want a Supreme Court justice that will decide what is, or is not, Constitutional rather than what is, or is not, consistent with his personal opinions, taste or morality...then Roberts is your kind of guy. The "french fry" case is actually titled Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro and involved the very straightforward question whether it was unconstitutional for the Metro police to arrest a 12 year old girl for eating (french fries) on the subway in contravention of the law. Judge Roberts very clearly made the distinction between his personal concerns over the good sense of the law versus whether it was unconstitutional. He wrote: "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later Â all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish" and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm." This is precisely what conservatives want judges to do, and leave it up to the legislature to repeal foolish laws.
For those of you interested in what exactly is the appropriate nature and scope of questioning of a SCOTUS nominee, go to this link for an excellent description by Jay Jorgensen. Remember, the issue is not what does the nominee have to answer (since he/she need not answer ANY questions) but rather what questions can and should be asked. Jorgensen deals with the precedents set by the questioning of, and answers given by, Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was quizzed by Pat Leahy and others who will be interrogating Roberts. [Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt]
Here is a perfect example of why anyone steeped in the patois of 60's radicalism cannot be taken seriously. Peter Yarrow of "Peter Paul and Mary" explains why he believes his anti-bullying campaign called "Operation Respect" has global significance: The premise of the organization is that by working to eliminate the childhood teasing, physical abuse and lack of respect he believes have become pervasive in society, we can create a new generation of adults less inclined to make war. I guess if Hitler and Saddam, to name but a few, had not been bullied as kids 7 million or so folks would not have had their lives cut short. It is truly sad that adults can actually be this foolish and morally obtuse.
This story about the Northwestern University lacrosse team's visit to the White House jumped out at me because of the debate over the appropriateness of wearing "flip-flops" to a formal event such as an appearance with the President. I have always marveled at how standards of decorum have inexorably been decreasing in my adult life. In my office, I try to gently make the point that shoes you can wear at the beach, or poolside, are not appropriate business attire (even under the new "business casual" standards of Southern California) at a lawfirm. ( Neither are the classic "f### me pumps" but that's a story for another time.) I can't imagine visiting the White House as a guest of the President and wearing sandals, even if it's de rigeur in today's world of fashion. It shows either a lack of good sense or lack of respect for the office and occasion, although not done intentionally. Like I've pointed out to my kids, you need to dress in the manner that your hosts are dressed, otherwise you are not showing the appropriate level of respect. That's why I would never allow anyone under my control to wear jeans and a T-shirt to a wedding if the bride, groom and attendants are all dressed formally. If they can do it, you should also.
A quick primer on why the Democrats, despite the non-controversial nature of this nominee, will nevertheless go after him like hungry mutts after kibble. Roberts will be replacing Sandra Day O'Connor who clearly was a "centrist" often siding with what most conservatives would deem the liberal position on certain issues. The effect on the court of replacing a centrist with a more solidly conservative jurist such as Roberts appears to be could be profound. Just consider the 5-4 votes that could now swing the other way. If Rehnquist had retired first, and been replaced by a John Roberts, the ideological composition and balance of the Supreme Court would not have changed. Here it has and it will. That's what the Pat Leahys and Charles Schumers and Barbara Boxers are fearful about. Here are a few more quotes from the beginning to bubble fever-swampers: "John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." - Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way. [Note: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!] "The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. [Note: If that were only the case.] "The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. [Note: Code for "we're going to get into a pubic hair on the Coke can debate."] P.S. Expect complaints about retreating "diversity" on the Supreme Court soon. UPDATE: MoveOn.org has commenced its petition drive against "right-wing corporate lawyer" John Roberts. [Note: Remind me...was there a petition against left-wing personal injury lawyer John Edwards?]
The panicked press releases start: "Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." People for the American Way "Given the administration's track record of selecting ideologically driven, divisive candidates for the bench, it would be unsurprising if Judge Roberts embraces a judicial philosophy that is insensitive to the rights and protections that ... have brought us closer to realizing the twin ideals of freedom and equality" Nan Aron, Alliance of Justice "At first blush, John Roberts may not appear to be an ultra right judicial activist, but his approach to issues of protecting the rights and freedoms of individual Americans are, at best, unclear and, in some instances, deeply troubling." Leadership Conference On Civil Rights For a more reasoned and less hyperbolic reaction, read here, here and here.
President Bush has chosen John Roberts as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Go to this link for a brief biography and here as well. He was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 and has probably been through about half a dozen full background investigations by the FBI. Good choice.
The Human Rights Tribunal of British Columbia will be deciding if a 14 year old girl's human rights are violated if she is denied the opportunity to change in the same locker room, and at the same time, as her male teammates. Mom aptly, but inadvertently, makes the point: "If [girls] can play hockey then they should be exposed to all the opportunities that minor hockey players have." Apparently, such as being naked in front of a dozen or so horny teenage boys.
Another voice emerging from the wilderness to state the heretofore unmentionable? The Minneapolis Star-Tribune can't handle the almost $100 billion reduction in the federal deficit. It's editorial piece is so disingenuous, I don't know where to begin, but I'm sure you do... Why do our universities continue to hire people like this? I know, I know...the radical Islamists are only a tiny fraction of all Muslims...but they sure are literate...almost News Alert!! Jesse Jackson is still an idiot (recent comment: on Fox News's ''Hannity & Colmes," the Rev. Jesse Jackson is asked whether the evil of terrorism can be fought by other than military means, and gives this reply: ''Well, you know, we found an end to slavery, which is evil, without killing the slave masters.") Except for the ones killed in that little skirmish we fondly refer to as The Civil War. Read Cathy Young's entire piece. Now I definitely won't be paying to see "War of the Worlds"...
Some cowardly terrorist snipers in Iraq videotaped themselves shooting at one of our soldiers. After taking him down and chanting a few Allah Akhbars, they were quite surprised. Replay this over and over, and send it to as many as you can, until you truly understand the nature of this enemy. They believe they are doing their god's work, and have been believing so since well before 9/11, so don't give me any of that crap that our presence in Iraq is the cause of Islamic terrorism. What about our presence in Afghanistan? Why isn't that causing these lunatics to take up arms in the name of Allah? Perhaps because our left wing-nuts know that they can't justify criticism for us having taken down the Taliban. I suppose these terrorists had a sit down and decided they would not kill infidels for Afghanistan since they logically could see our point in light of 9/11, but Iraq...now that's a totally unjustified invasion so let's get busy. By the way, what Muslim land were we defiling prior to 9/11? I forget. [Hat tip: LGF]
I may be wrong, or simply pollyanish, but is there a subtle aroma or realism in the air regarding Islamic terror? Perhaps, an emerging consciousness that multiculturalism, and the lack of insistence and incentives towards assimilation, and knee-jerk apologies in the form of root cause arguments have enabled us to avoid the real issue...which is the obvious incompatibility of Islam with Western values? Read Kenan Malik about the failures of multicultural Britain, and and Leon de Winter about the same failures in Holland. Also, Diane West writes about what many think but are too cowed by political correctness to say publicly...the danger to our way of life posed by Islam...as evidenced by this story.
"Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade. " "Iraqi intelligence was involved with the first World Trade Center bombing, and its operatives met on occasion with those who were involved in al Qaeda operations. Every terrorist from Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal to Abdul Yasin and Abu al-Zarqawi found Baghdad the most hospitable place in the Middle East, which explains why a plan to assassinate George Bush Sr. was hatched from such a miasma." "Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants are poor, but like the Hamas suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, or the murderer of Daniel Pearl they are usually middle class and educated...The poor in South America or Africa are not murdering civilians in North America or Europe. The jihadists are not bombing Chinese for either their godless secularism or suppression of Muslim minorities." "We forget now the furor over hitting back in Afghanistan — a quagmire in the words of New York Times columnists R. W. Apple and Maureen Dowd; a “terrorist campaign” against Muslims according to Representative Cynthia McKinney; “a silent genocide” in Noam Chomsky’s ranting." "The Patriot Act was far less intrusive than what Abraham Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), Woodrow Wilson (cf. the Espionage and Sedition Acts), or Franklin Roosevelt (forced internment) resorted to during past wars. " Why then are the appeasement canards of the left continually advanced as legitimate? VDH explains: "Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power. " "Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant." "The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy?" "If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge. " [Editorial note to dear readers: It has been said that "When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing...they believe in everything."] Take a moment to read it in its entirety.
Read this story about a former Sudanese "lost boy" (grammar police: although he remains Sudanese) learning English while now living in the Denver area. He left his village when Muslim militias were approaching, intent on killing all the men and boys and burning the wood structures, and was hunted for months. He, and many others like him who found their way to the Denver area, are thankful to this country. These are the types of stories that reflect the predominant nature of America. A country of people compassionate enough to do what most others won't or can't. And another example of the misery caused under the banner of Islam but so under-reported to be almost nonexistent in the minds of the MSM because, of course, it's difficult to blame America or the UK for the situation in the Sudan.
Somehow I found myself watching the reply of the 2003 World Series of Poker on ESPN2. That was the year unknown, but aptly named, Chris Moneymaker took the whole shootin' match, so to speak...and found myself strangely drawn in. I've never been much of a card player but it's actually a pretty interesting game if you spend the time to learn the basics. Since I'm one knee surgery (with one pending) and one Achilles tendon repair distanced from my athletic career, as it were, I may need to add this to my golf regimen.
Iraqis, over 1000 of them, marched to protest against terrorism. No, I'm not suffering from an attack of wishful thinking. This actually happened on 7/5/05. To my knowledge, there has not been any report of it in the MSM. Must have been an oversight...or perhaps a reporting malfunction. [Hat tip: BlackFive]
It is beyond comprehension to me that members of Congress sonorously pontificate with concern before the cameras about prisoners being told they are homosexual and their wives and mothers are whores. And let's not forget the truly horrific fact that someone was forced to wear a bra on his head. This calls for hearings in hushed tones of concern and (mock) seriousness? My gosh. What has happened to us that we have hearings at the highest level of our government to discuss incidents that are mostly the equivalent of college hazing. Real "abuse" or "torture"of prisoners is bamboo under the fingernails, or the rack, or being drawn and quartered, or being marched until exhaustion and then shot, or being beaten with rubber hoses. Have we become such effete sissies that we are truly outraged by these sorts of reports...or is it purely political?
Can I be any clearer? A suicide bomber drives his explosives-laden car into a group of Iraqi children in order to kill a US soldiers distributing candy to them. I am quite certain that this killer had no reluctance to murder children in the name of Allah, and equally disgusting is the fact that many will justify his actions, both Arab and from the West. Are we getting it yet that these people are not fighting the "occupation" but are determined to bring down any form of non-Islamic state that is beginning to bloom. If it was Kuwaiti forces handing out the candy the result would have been the same if Kuwait was assisting Iraq in moving towards democracy. If you can't see this clearly, you are either intellectually challenged or have an anti-American agenda. Please go to the Big Pharoah's site for his excellent analysis of this latest barbarity and a bit of insight into what actually goes on in the middle east that I'm certain Al Franken, Sean Penn and the rest of the left wing morons are clueless about.
Great litmus test for supposedly "moderate" Muslims: do you, while criticizing the "Satanic Verses", at the same time accept Rushdie's right to have published his novel? If the answer is not an unequivocal affirmative, you are not yet ready to enjoy the freedoms of the west. [Hat tip: David Frum]... The financial markets are certainly bullish regarding the war on terror... Gotta love the Aussies... What to make of the fact the the London terrorists (I won't simply call them "bombers") appear to have been British born? OK..I'll tell you...is there any doubt that the multicultural ethic has brought about an entire generation of non-assimilated, non-citizens who give not a whit about the society that they have chosen to live within to the point of despising it? Can we end this experiment and require that certain commonalities be insisted upon otherwise don't let the door hit you on the way out? "...government that's big enough to tell you what to eat . . . is government big enough to tell you with whom you can have sex." John Stossel writing about the illiberal liberals.... Give credit where credit is due, or perhaps the law of unintended (positive) consequences...and at the same time reinforce the point above...the love of their own culture and preservation of identity that we often chide the French about is not all bad, especially if the alternative is the abandoning of your own in order to "accommodate" all others. In order to protect its ways and language, France is much less willing than the UK, for example, to accommodate "differences" which lead to the French banning the hijab in public schools while the English (much more in the throes of multiculti, as Mark Steyn would say) now by law must allow public school girls to wear the jibab (covers all except face and hands). Pride in shared heritage is not necessarily a bad thing. It's the glue that holds societies and civilizations together over the long haul. As some wise man has remarked: Societies are usually not destroyed...they commit suicide.
According to one of its senior leaders, Hamas is unwilling to coexist with Israel irrespective of what Israel does. Note the code phrase "Greater Palestine" which has always meant Gaza, the West Bank and the remainder of Israel. The only solution is a civil war between moderate Palestinians (how many in fact are there?) and the Hamas-wing, with the latter being defeated. Otherwise, what hope is there for an end to the violence?
Hamas has decided that suicide bombings may not be the way to go...to ultimately push all the Jews into the Red Sea...so they have turned to aiming Qassam bombs at choice targets. It is nice to know like money and wealth, technology knows no respect of persons.
So says the head of the London Center for Islamic History. Is this guy also just one of the "small minority" of Muslims who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion? By the way, he also said: "If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud." [Hat tip: MEMRI]
My broadband is working far from home, so here are a few must reads: Dennis Prager exposes the liberal myth of "support the troops" while opposing the war... James Pinkerton hits the nail on the head when discussing our failure to call a spade a spade... Mark Steyn is at his usual best in analyzing some of the UK's pols playing of the multicultural game... We are not fighting generic "terrorism". We are fighting "Islamic terrorism". There is no war going on against the IRA or the narco-terrorists in Columbia or the Tamils. We are engaged in a struggle against terrorists born (or incubated) and raised in Muslim societies fed hate pulled from verses of the Koran and the Haddith. These terrorists (no, not "insurgents" or "bombers" or "freedom fighters") are 99% Arab Muslims and the sooner we spend more time focused on that fact and less time worried about offending those Muslims who wholeheartedly, both publicly and privately, denounce this barbarism, all the better.
I can't believe I just read in today's Drudge Report, the BBC told journalists to use the word "terrorist" sparingly and not refer to the Muslims who planted the bombs on the subways and buses as such...but instead refer to them as "bombers." Now there is a distinction without a difference. As if "one who bombs" and "one who terrorizes" are not synonymous in most contexts. Apparently, the word "terrorist" can be a "barrier," not an "aid" in "understanding." I hadn't realized until now that, had these "bombers" not been mislabeled, and so misunderstood as "terrorists," they would not have felt the need to blow up trapped people on a subway.
Dennis Prager has said repeatedly that the Palestinians are not seeking, nor would be content with, merely "peace" with Israel and has offered the following as proof: If the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis were to stop, Israel would be willing to coexist with a Palestinian state, but if Israel agreed to Palestinian demands would the bombings stop? His answer was absolutely not because a large segment of Palestinian Arabs want nothing less than the total destruction of Israel and Jews. Well, it certainly looks as though he's right on with Hamas refusing to back down even when Israel pulls back from Gaza. Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of their ilk are not fighting "occupation". They are in a death struggle with Israel and Jews worldwide. Why do you think the violence is ratcheted up whenever there is any semblance of progress?
According to the London Times...the bombs were likely orchestrated by their own British Muslim population.
1979 US Embassy in Iran attacked...hostages held for 444 days 1983 US Embassy bombed in Beirut...63 dead 1983 Marines barracks bombed in Beirut...241 dead 1983 US Embassy bombed in Kuwait 1984 US Embassy bombed in Lebanon...24 dead 1985 Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked...wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer thrown overboard 1986 TWA flight 840 hijacked...4 dead 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombed over Scotland...259 dead 1993 World Trade Center bombed...6 dead...1000 wounded 1995 Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia bombed...19 dead...372 wounded 1998 US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed...258 dead...5000 wounded 2000 USS Cole attacked...17 dead 2001 September 11...3000 dead All by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Does anyone really think that there would be no more terrorist attacks if we simply abandoned Iraq?
I had to find a moment to post in light of the London attacks. Winston Churchill said: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." What we need to understand is that the root cause of Islamic terror is the desire to eliminate western culture and society, to be replaced with Islamic states. Nothing more...nothing less. Zarqawi would not be peacefully tending his garden in suburban Beirut had we not invaded Iraq. He'd be off elsewhere killing infidels. The hope here is that the UK and its people respond like Sir Winston would undoubtedly have and not today's Spain.
Hillary Clinton is beyond contempt. Read this piece she authored jointly with Sen. Carl Levin regarding North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The expected smack down of the Bush Administration is there. However, this quote really woke me up (and it's about 4:20 am!): Why is it that a war to address a nuclear weapons program that we now know had been dismantled can be pursued with great urgency by this administration while diplomacy to eliminate a growing arsenal in North Korea is carried on in an almost lackadaisical fashion, captive to pride and preconditions? Give me a break. It was the Clinton Administration, with the help of uber-negotiator Jimmy Carter, that created the "Agreed Framework" which North Korea admitting violating almost immediately. Which was no mean feat inasmuch as North Korea refused to allow inspectors into the country to verify compliance. (Again, what a shocker) That's where "diplomacy" gets you when dealing with sociopath dictators. She has the gall to suggest that this agreement, not worth the parchment it was written on, had kept Kim Jong Il in check until President Bush was elected and apparently began to ignore poor Mr. Kim (or is it Mr. Il?).
In a few hours I'll be heading to LAX to board a flight to JFK for a week of visiting with family (not at the airport but in NJ and NY). So here are a few interesting tidbits inasmuch as I will be posting very infrequently over the next seven days. Thomas Sowell writes about "black rednecks"... Great piece by, who else, Mark Steyn on "Live8" and makes a similar point to one yours truly made the other day... "Thus, they await death with happiness and joy. In their view, martyrdom for the sake of Allah is the sweetest thing." Islam has cultivated a culture of death and the sooner we in the West admit that, the sooner we will see the problems looming on the horizon more clearly... The fact that it wasn't a hate crime is irrelevant...The fact that we thought it was a hate crime speaks volumes about the bigoted society we live in...did I get that right? Michelle Malkin points out how a crucifix dunked in urine is "art" but a burnt Koran is a hate crime...good point... Who are Kirsten and Jake and why do we care? And people wonder why the French are considered arrogant... I just don't read Dennis Prager enough. Great piece on the impending battle over President Bush's Supreme Court nominee... Lastly, great satirical piece about reparations...and who should really be paying them... OK...gotta go...fuggheddaboutit!
I wasn't aware that Bernie Goldberg, the author of the bestseller, "Bias:" has come out with a new book. Just the title makes it worth paging through: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America : (and Al Franken Is #37)
I had earlier posted about the distinction between moral relativism ands situational ethics. Here's a story that starkly defines what is meant by "moral relativism" and is a perfect example of the moral confusion that results whenever it is applied. Hint: the stoning to death of homosexuals is either morally repugnant or it is not. It is not dependent upon what 21st century "society" is advocating it.
A definition of insanity is what? To continually repeat the same act expecting to achieve a different result...or something like that. Well, the "Live 8" concerts certainly then qualify. Forget the number of forgettable acts that took part: Bjork, Madonna, Def Leppard, Deep Purple and Duran Duran. There still was the likes of Sir Paul, Pink Floyd, Dave Matthews, Stevie Wonder, Annie Lennox, Coldplay and REM. Simon Jenkins of The Times (UK) describes the hubris of those involved with typically droll British wit. My point is, haven't we done this before with "Live Aid"? And where did that get Ethiopia and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa? After pumping over $500 billion (that's with a "b") into that continent can anyone say things are measurably better now than before? I think not, but it makes certain segments feel better about themselves and their enormous wealth by raising our collective "consciousness" about the plight of the people there. What actually might help turn things around in that basket-case of a continent is for Bob Geldof to raise the consciousness of his minions to the fact that pretty much every government there is a corrupt tinhorn dictatorship hell bent on staying in power and, for political gain, not adverse to denying the "aid" sent by the West to its own people. Instead of calling for more money and aid from the West, they should be calling for the goons running these countries to deliver the money, food and assistance they are getting to their citizens. Don't confuse movement with progress.
Here's a very appropriate column by Gordon Dillow about the significance of tomorrow's holiday.
The AP is reporting, and most of the main stream press is burying at page 12 on a Saturday, a report of the type of abuse being handed out by the detainees at Gitmo to their guards. It is instructive to note that none of the stories I have read or seen about abuse has cared to mention the manner in which the detainees conduct themselves. The best part of this AP story is the following quote: A Department of Defense investigative memo written six months later concluded the soldier had mistreated detainees twice - the second offense involved cursing at inmates - and that his superiors failed to report either episode. I had earlier posted that the only coercive methods that apparently are not illegal in the eyes of liberals would be harsh language. Well, it seems we can't even do that. I'm starting to believe that the detainees at Gitmo would be faring a whole lot worse if they were held at San Quentin.
I ask you...is there any other country in the world where self-loathing has been elevated to such a shrill art form? If I detested my country and society as much as these asswipes, I'd do one thing and one thing only...move out to one of those many utopias dotting the globe and live happily ever after. Wonder why they don't.
"Dozens of militants linked to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah group raided a government building in Gaza on Saturday, demanding he make good on a deal to recruit them into his security forces. About 40 armed men from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, some masked, stormed the Legislative Council building in the town of Rafah and occupied it for four hours. They said they had not used violence or held anyone hostage." No comment necessary. [Hat tip: LGF]
Two interesting pieces, one a column by John Podhoretz, the other a report of the comments by Woody Allen, that together explain why we may never see a Hollywood production concerning 9/11. Or at least one that doesn't feel obliged to "understand" the terrorists' motives and explain how America in large part brought it upon itself.
North Carolina judges are being urged to use the Quran ("Koran"? how the heck should this be spelled anyway?) to administer courtroom oaths. Well, why not? Inasmuch as there are many who seek to deny the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country anyway, what difference should it make what you swear an oath upon.
I have mentioned this before and will mention it again. Why, when there is another clear example of the Palestinian Authority's inability to provide security in the West Bank or Gaza and police their own, there is no crescendo of opinion coming out of the MSM or the Democrats that there is little hope of peace because there is no reason to believe the Palestinians will ever be able to control the "militants" within their midst. However, that is one of the talking points when it comes to Iraq and its fledgling military and security forces.
This, on the surface, is just a funny story. However, in microcosm it defines the essential conflict gripping what many have called a clash of civilizations. We have developed (indeed, overdeveloped) in most western societies an ethos of tolerance and acceptance of cultures and customs alien to our own. Not a bad concept so long as it is not carried to the extreme of denying your own culture and customs in an effort to "accommodate." Unfortunately, there is absolutely no effort at reciprocity coming from the cultures of the Middle East where the superiority of "their way" is taught as an immutable fact. All else is an annoyance that must, and will, in time be dealt with. Maybe insisting on a cold beer is a start.
It's easy to get caught up in the tempo of our everyday lives and just give a passing nod to those who make it possible, like our men and women in uniform. I'm referring to not only our military but our law enforcement professionals as well. Two stories got me to thinking about how we as civilians do very little to support those that have chosen to take on the heavy lifting. The first is the downing of the chopper in Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of 16 of our service personnel. The other has to do with a funeral Mrs RTH! attended yesterday for a murdered LA County Deputy Sheriff (she had worked with him) who was shot by a gang-banger several months after getting married. Please dig into your pockets and contribute to the families of these brave and essential men and women who have been left behind. Go to United Warrior Survivor Foundation and/or SoldiersAngels.