It's understood that America's Leftists crave big government. More government control, more speech codes, more redistribution of wealth. In fact, they think America is great because of its government, not because of any accomplishments of the individual. The government doesn't protect your natural inalienable rights, the government grants them to you.
But Republicans have overseen the largest expansion of government power and control in our nation's history. More programs, more earmarks, more bureaucracy...all in direct contradiction of their principles. Principles which may have changed for them, but which haven't for the Americans who put them in power. Take a look at the following Gallup poll:
I know John McCain is supposedly the earmark's worst nightmare, but he just doesn't sell me on the whole "limited government conservative" package. I have yet to hear him acknowledge that we have the largest and most intrusive government (and taxation system) we have ever had in our history, and that just limiting its expansion is not enough.
I have yet to hear him tell Americans to get ready for the greatest government roll-back in history; the greatest budget cutting, entitlement obliterating, foreign-aid dissolving, illegal-immigrant deporting administration the people have ever seen.
But sadly, if McCain is elected, I fear we'll be in for 4 years of Bush III, with a man who reeks less of true conservative principles and more of Old Spice and pancakes. Even more saddening is the fact that Bush III is infinitely better than Marx II. If this poll proves anything, it's that 36% of Democrats don't know why they are Democrats, other than "it feels better."
In an eerie story today, the Hitler of our time is overseeing the digging of 320,000 graves in border districtions, some of them mass graves, to "allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory."
Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday.
"In implementation of the Geneva Conventions... the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers," the Mehr news agency quoted General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh as saying.
"We have plans to dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves in each of the border provinces or a total of 320,000," the general said, some of them mass graves if necessary.
They're going to need them for their own people, assuming World War III is ignited before Obama is in office.
Israel, not the United States, will be the one to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and the timing of this attack depends heavily on the U.S. presidential election. Israel knows that an attack before November would have an unforseeable effect on the American vote, but compliance with an attack would be questionable after January, especially if Obama is elected.
So, since this chess game will most likely take a significant turn sometime between November and January, Iran had better get started on those graves. Because when the Persian menace retaliates (and it will), the Iranian people will be the ones to suffer under the apocalyptic zeal of their leaders.
Obama's aides should remind him that he is running for president in the year 2008, not 1908. William Taft would have been able to make contradictory policy statements within months and never lose a night's sleep. The national media would rarely double or triple-check records, and the millions of bloggers, pundits, and fact-checkers furiously digging up incriminating "flip-flop" evidence were simply not a problem.
Barack does not have that luxury. Today, the scrutiny is never-ending, and rightfully so. Where suspicion abounds, one need only consult the tapes. Obama has pulled a complete 180 on the constitutionality of gun bans, specifically the D.C. gun ban which was recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Barack was in favor of the ban and agreed it was constitutional, but yesterday came out on the side of judges, and stated that the measure "went too far." Watch.
Interviewer: "In November you had mentioned that the D.C. handgun law was constitutional; now you're embracing the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision striking down that law?"
Obama: "I uh, that's not what I said uh, back in November."
No, that's not what you said back in November. It's what you said 4 months ago in February, back when you were sprinting to the left of Hillary in an effort to sweep the primaries. Wasn't it you who told us not to tell you that "words don't matter?"
Ever heard of Claude Castonguay? Claude fathered the single-payer system in Quebec that locked out all private insurance. This is the same system that U.S. advocates of nationalized health care love to cite as a romantic Socialist success story.
Better not plan the honeymoon just yet, as the architect of this plan (now a proponent of private insurance) is admitting that the system is in ruins. And no, he wasn't bought out by "health care lobbyists."
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
This comes as no surprise. Nationalizing something like health care limits the available resources, which drives down the quality and the quantity of services. There is no competition and no incentive for investment, only a weighty regulation scheme. These are problems no government can spend (ahem, tax) its way out of.
What does Claude suggest? He is urging "for the legalization of private health insurance." What an idea! Because all medical facilities are owned by the government, he is recommending the space be leased to private physicians and care-giving companies to increase the amount of services available to Canadians. Remember Hillary's sob story about the woman "forced" to give birth in a subway tunnel? How about this anecdote:
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form.
Today, Canadians whose needs can't be addressed in a timely manner are actually crossing the border and spending their own money, or that of Canada's tax-payers, on doctors in America - you know, the country that has the one of the worst health care systems in the world? Got anything to say on the subject, Mr. Moore?
According to the article, "Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as 'broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.'"
I present to you this graph of waiting times for basic surgical procedures in Ontario, with data from the Canada Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care:
(Click for full-size)
The article also mentions that Americans are "desperately unhappy" with their system of health care, and quotes Barack Obama on the issue of a single-payer system similar to Canada's:
Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."
You want nationalized health care? Go to Cuba. Just don't come limping back to Uncle Sam when your new doctor is too busy playing dominos on the hood of a '62 Chevy to perform your MRI.
Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, gave an interview on Lebanese television in which he stated that it is permissible to "marry a girl at the age of one, if sex is postponed." He further justifies this by stating that, "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow; he took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine." Watch.
So Muhammad was a pedophile? Good to know! You should understand that the young mind of a Saudi male needs the companionship and intellectual stimulation that only a one-year-old can bring to the table. And if you don't think having sex with a nine-year-old is rape, you should...well, you should move to Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, citing "evolving standards of decency," our own Supreme Court has just ruled that we are not allowed to execute someone who rapes a child. The ruling stemmed from a 2003 case in which a man was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. What was the Supreme Court's justification? That executing someone found guilty of child rape would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, constituting "cruel and unusual punishment."
So I guess having the perpetrator raped is out of the question? Two of the most liberal judges the court has ever seen, Souter and Ginsberg, based their decision on "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Could a "maturing society" be one that isn't full of child rapists?
Justice Alito wrote that the 5 judges ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."
In a 5-4 vote, the liberals on the Supreme Court, rather than acting as protectors of the nation's children, have thrown them to the wolves. Muhammad would have loved it here.
Heinz aired an ad in the UK that has been pulled after viewer complaints over a scene which shows two men kissing. What is absurd about this ad is that it's not as if the fact that the couple is gay is innocuous or secondary to the content of the ad. The entire punchline is "Look, gay people!" It's low-brow hilarity in its most absurd form.
The ad features children calling a grown man "Mum," which is apparently the first clue that Heinz mayonnaise is the most delicious mayo you'll ever have. After making some sandwiches for the kids, the ad culminates with the two men kissing, creating a commercial I wouldn't exactly call "mayo-centric." Watch.
It's as if Heinz sums up the premise as, "Get it? They're gay! Buy mayonnaise."
This isn't about gay people being on TV or in commercials, which is an entirely separate issue. Despite what Ann Coulter would have you believe, that isn't a huge outrage. Unlike my friends on the Left, I actually value freedom and would never lead a torch-wielding mob to Heinz HQ and demand the ad be removed from the air.
It's more about the apparent notion that being gay is now a fashionable novelty and a hilarious punchline. The content doesn't offend me, because I'm not gay, but if I were, I would be left wondering why my very sexuality was enough to sell mayonnaise.
Yesterday, Representative James Fagan (a criminal defense attorney) had some choice words for the Massachusetts State House. He railed against a piece of legislation known as "Jessica's Law," which would impose a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for raping a child under the age of 12, because after all, who hasn't been in that pickle at least once? Watch.
Q: What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start.
If you haven't seen an outstanding gallery of America-loathers, 9/11 Truthers, wide-open Marxists, and just good old hopeless Leftists, you haven't been perusing the blogs on my.barackobama.com. The blogs are on the official Barack Obama site, and moderators determine which blogs can stay and which are deleted. Now that bloggers and certain media entities have found this treasure trove of tragically ignorant Obama supporters, the campaign is rapidly obliterating the site's most outrageous blogs, such as this winner:
Because of this, some of these links may no longer work, but here are some of the blogs that have been allowed to remain:
"I take issue with him being a christian, because christianity breeds hatred and racism and all other manner of ill-will toward other human beings, but I’m not gonna fault him for it...I just don’t have any trust or faith in anyone who calls themselves a christian-they are some of the most hateful and vicious, cruel and spiteful ravenous greediest wolves on the planet, and with rare exception."
"GODDAMN (this) AMERICA! GODDAMN GEORGE BUSH'S AMERICA! GODDAMN THIS FASCIST "AMERICA"! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT FIGHTS WARS FOR OIL FOR ELITE WEALTH ACCUMULATION! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT DOESNT GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THEIR POOR OR THEIR MINORITIES! F*** YOU PRESIDENT BUSH! F*** this "Christian" movement. You think Jesus would be interested in any of this BULLS***?""They are as much terrorists for committing 9/11 as this administration is for lieing their way into the Iraq war."
"Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level."
"We, the USA, have apparently sunk to a new LOW. The news out of Iraq, is that the CIA has initiiated a policy. The remains of any and all suicide bombers in the Middle East or in the West Bank are fed to pigs!!!! This is outrageous !! Call you Congressman and protest, this make Abu Ghraib look like a misdemeanor and not the grevious problem that it presented." Barack Obama :: Change We Can Believe In | Donald Spicer’s Blog: 9/11
"The majority of Americans feel that 9/11 was an inside job. These suspicions are furthered by the edited 9/11 commission report, which only raised more questions which were left unanswered. Each time the government releases a far-fetched explanation to these questions, it merely raises suspicions."
And of course this wonderful charm, a post from "Socialists for Obama" (wink wink), implying that Israeli intelligence was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks:
And on and on it goes. You probably know one of the more ludicrously irrational Leftists. They are prone to conspiracy theories (especially those involving Jews), they think Christians are "greedy wolves" (but somehow Christians are the ones full of hate), and they apparently think the U.S. military goes around kicking puppies and lynching Iraqi children.
If you do know one of these people, you have probably witnessed that, apart from being terrible spellers, they flock to Barack Obama with unprecedented ease.
Well, you gotta hand it to them. I was predicting something in the range of 24-48 hours, but Palestinians managed to go an entire five days without attempting to murder civilians. Way to go!
Militants in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip fired at least two rockets into southern Israel on Tuesday, breaching a five-day-old ceasefire after Israeli troops killed two Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
The Egyptian-brokered truce, which took effect last Thursday, calls on Hamas to prevent cross-border rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, which it seized by force a year ago.
The deal, under which Israel agreed to halt its own attacks in the Gaza Strip and to ease its economic blockade of the impoverished coastal enclave, does not apply to the West Bank.
An Israeli police spokesman said one of the makeshift rockets fired from the Gaza Strip hit a house in the border town of Sderot, causing damage but no casualties. The second rocket fell in an open area.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Israeli army confirmed that Palestinians fired a mortar shell into Israel from Gaza overnight in the first reported violation by militants of the ceasefire.
I'm surprised Reuters didn't say it was poor Palestinian children playing with toy rockets, which suddenly became filled with ball bearings, and mysteriously crashed into an Israeli house. Why is it that "militants" fire rockets, but when Israel bombs them in return, they are suddenly "Palestinians" again?
Hamas has claimed that it still maintains the cease-fire, because the origin of the rockets was Islamic Jihad. So, if you and I are neighbors, and we sign a truce, and then your brother who is also my neighbor throws a grenade through my kitchen window, the truce isn't broken?
Lucy has pulled the football away from Charlie Brown for the 1,000th time. It's easy to call off peace when you don't want peace, but rather dead Jews.
During a speech in Florida, Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans would launch racial attacks against him in an effort to "make you afraid of me." His exact words were: "They're gonna try to make you afraid of me. They're gonna say, you know what? Hes uh...he's young and inexperienced, and uh...he's got a funny name. Did I mention he's black?" I've obtained a video, but you'll have to excuse Wolf Blitzer and his CNN cohorts. Watch.
Did Barack Obama forget when Jeremiah-gate exploded, and McCain refused to comment on Barack's pastor or the church? When everyone in the media couldn't say enough about how controversial the reverend was (and is), McCain said nothing. By hitting the mute button, he looked foolish in the eyes of conservatives and those outraged by Wright's anti-American statements. But in doing so, he refused to give Obama any ammunition.
Obama also must be forgetting that it was a Hillary Clinton staffer who sent the photo of him in African/Muslim garb to the Drudge Report, and that Clinton herself could only give a tepid repudiation of the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor. Barack is essentially saying that Republicans are racist, and that his "blackness" is the only reason people are afraid of him.
And that's another thing: How has he determined that he is black? He could just as much say that he's white, couldn't he? After all, he mother was white, and he was raised by white people with "Kansas values." So when did White + Black = Black?
If he was smart, he would use his own mixed racial identity as an analogy to the ways he will transcend the lines of race and culture - the cornerstone of his position on racial issues. He would say, "I'm not black, and I'm not white. I'm an example of why the question of white or black is an irrelevant one. Don't look at my skin color. Don't try to put me into a category or assign me a group identity. I'm a person like each and every one of you."
But of course, attending an America-damning Afro-centric church for 20 years kind of negates that strategy (and his entire premise of racial transcendence). If Obama has proof that the Republican Party and/or the McCain campaign plans racial attacks on him, then let the messiah show us. But if he doesn't, then Obama is guilty of his own race-baiting (the accusation he is throwing at Republicans) and should apologize.
So you know, not to alarm you or anything, but Israel sort of...carried out a full-scale dress rehearsal for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Though Israel is refusing to confirm or deny the nature of the exercise, anyone with a brain knows they're running out of patience.
This news comes roughly a week after an interview with former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz, in which he said: "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack...attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."
From International Herald Tribune/New York Times:
Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
"They [Israel] rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they're ready," the Pentagon official said. "They're not taking any options off the table."
Meanwhile, after having already declared a victory in the nuclear standoff and implying that Western powers had "failed to break Iran's will," Iran promised to retaliate with a "strong blow." Believe them. If America or Israel attacks Iran to take out their nuclear facilities, the problem of terrorism will actually become an every day issue. Israel will incur a shower of rockets and missiles from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Any "cease-fire" will immediately be nullified. Suicide bombings will once again be a daily occurrence, even in America, where known terror cells would be awakened. From the Jerusalem Post:
"Given this mentality, if you make a hostile look at the Islamic Iran, you will witness such a united roar by our nation that it will definitely make you regret any vicious move forever," [Khatami] added.
On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "the nuclear issue has ended from our point of view."
You should also note that Russia is warning Israel against an attack on Iran. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the money Russia stands to make from building Iran's reactors and the sales of surface-to-air missiles, which could be used against an Israeli attack.
Iran learned from Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Saddam had a single site, which was above ground and poorly defended. Iran has (almost to its own detriment) spread out and compartmentalized its nuclear program in such a way that it is increasingly difficult to significantly set it back, let alone destroy it completely.
The Islamic Republic has two teams working with little to no communication. While one is focused on uranium enrichment and the nuclear fuel cycle, the other aims (in secret) to perfect weapons development and delivery systems. This has caused Iran to "reinvent the wheel" on occasion, with one team working on technology already mastered in another part of the country.
They have also broken up the various facets of their nuclear program and scattered them across the country. A heavy water plant here, a reactor there, a uranium processing facility here, an enriching facility over there, etc. Even research facilities are embedded in population centers, which acts to deter an attack through fear of inflicting civilian casualties - something Israel will be accused of anyway.
Iran has been paying attention, that's for sure, and Israel isn't going to watch the world's largest sponsor of terror and the West's ultimate existential nemesis stroll into the nuclear club. America isn't ready for that either, and even if Israel acts alone, the U.S. will be providing its stamp of approval. At the very least, we will have to permit the Israeli Air Force to fly through Iraqi air space on their way to Iran. The IAF will also be using American-made aircraft, further sending the message that America was complicit in the attack.
Americans must realize that whether we like it or not, America and Israel are in this together. This isn't our doing, it's Iran's doing. We are the "big Satan," they are the "little Satan," and once the little Satan is destroyed, we're next. This isn't coming from Bush's terror-alert department, it's coming from the mouth of the throwback Islamists.
Iran's motivations are not humanitarian, and do not stem from the need for civilian nuclear power (an energy source for which they have no need). No nation pursuing a transparent energy program builds nuclear facilities hundreds of meters below the Earth, or buries them in the sides of mountains. Their genocidal, messianic, apocalyptic motivations are a fusion of the religious and the political - and with Islam, religion and politics go hand in hand.
But don't take it from me, take it from Ayatollah Khomeini, who uttered one of the great truths of our time when he said, "Islam is politics, or it is nothing."
Barack Obama has released his first campaign ad of the general election, and it is as generic as anything I've ever seen. It mentions nothing about his policies, and if you didn't know better, you might think you were listening to a conservative throwing around phrases like "accountability" and "strong families."
Do all politicians rent out the same faux living room set to film their commercials? If you ask me, it's pretty sad when a guy running for president has to sell the electorate on the idea that he actually loves his country. Watch.
So let me get this straight. The first Democrat ad is about "self-reliance" and "working hard without making excuses," and the first Republican ad is about "standing up to the President" on the issue of global warming? Have we slipped into a parallel universe?
"It will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love"...and want to change. I don't even want to know what goes up (or down) Chris Matthews' leg after watching this gem. Yes, this is the country I love: the country my buddy Bill Ayers bombed, the country my pastor blamed for inventing AIDS, and the country my wife says is "just downright mean."
He doesn't love America as much as he loves what he wants America to be.
Obama aides and campaign volunteers told two hijab-sporting Muslim women that they were not permitted to sit in "visible seats" near the podium because "Obama should not be photographed with Muslims wearing head scarves." Change! The story is everywhere, and it's probably only a matter of time before the campaign blames this on right-wingers, but here's the dirt from Detroit:
One of two Muslim women who were denied visible seats behind Barack Obama’s stage at Joe Louis Arena on Monday because they wore head scarves said they deserve a personal apology from Obama and close-up seats at a future campaign rally.
Hebba Aref, 25, and her friend, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, received apologies from the campaign Tuesday after they complained that they were not allowed to sit near the podium when campaign volunteers learned that they wear the traditional Muslim head garb called a hijab.
Aref said one aide told her friends that because of a sensitive political environment, Obama should not be photographed with Muslims wearing head scarves.
This is the man who claims to bring unity to the United States. The man who will transcend the lines of race and religion! I'm sure the next batch of noise from his campaign will be along the lines of, "Well with the extreme right-wing racist hate radio out there, anything that remotely smells of Islam suddenly means Obama is a Muslim, and we won't give them any opportunity to spread these lies about our messiah! Err, candidate!"
It doesn't mean Obama is a Muslim. No one is claiming that. It means Obama's campaign workers (and arguably Obama himself) see the world through the lens of racial identity.
With just one day to go before the "cease-fire" (which is nothing more than an opportunity to re-arm without fear of an Israeli attack), Hamas thought it appropriate to send another day's worth of rockets into Israel:
Despite the formal announcements from Jerusalem, Gaza and Cairo announcing the ceasefire agreement will go into effect at 6:00 am on Thursday, it was the routine of incessant attacks Israel's South awoke to on Wednesday. In the most recent attack a house in Sderot was hit directly, and ten residents suffered from shock. A woman lightly injured her leg while running for cover.
The Air Force (IAF) attacked two different rocket-launching cells in the northern Gaza Strip, which Palestinian sources said were responsible for the rocket barrage. The IDF stated that in both cases hits were identified.
With less than 24 hours to go before the ceasefire, Palestinian terror groups opened fire at Israelis on the border and launched at least 29 Qassam rockets and ten mortar shells towards the western Negev. Seven rockets were fired within the space of 15 minutes and landed in open spaces south of Ashkelon and in the Sderot area.
Before the announcement of the cease-fire, the Israeli Air Force also decided to bomb a car in the southern Gaza Strip. Inside this car were five members of the Army of Islam, the group responsible for the abduction of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit and BBC reporter Alan Johnson. Good riddance.
How many hours should we give Hamas until they violate the so-called "cease-fire?" As long as it takes them to truck in as many Iranian-made weapons as possible.
Everyone has been following the tragic flooding in Iowa, in which 83 of the state's 99 counties were declared "disaster areas" and 9 rivers were at or above historic flood levels. Today, two levees in Western Illinois were breached by the same floodwaters that inundated Iowa in the last week. While my heart goes out to every family and community affected by this catastrophe, I do have some questions.
Where is Hollywood? Where is Kanye West? Shouldn't he be holding a telethon asking for donations to help the people of Iowa, claiming that George Bush doesn't care about rural white people?
Where is the drive-by media, and why haven't they been demanding to know why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Why haven't they demanded to know where the FEMA trucks are? Come to think of it, where is the hysterical 24/7 coverage?
Why hasn't Spike Lee come forward to say that the government destroyed the levees that failed in Des Moines? And where is Sean Penn? Where is Oprah? And for the love of God, where are the Dixie Chicks?
When will we hear the governor of Iowa or the mayor of Des Moines say they want to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's "the way God wants it?"
And finally, the question I would most like to have answered: Why is it that, after a couple of weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?
Take a look at Dick Cheney's (then Secretary of Defense) thoughts on invading Baghdad after the end of the Gulf War. You'll find the tune he sings quite dissonant. Watch.
This man has had the same glasses for two decades, but it seems his views on Iraq have changed along the way. After Iraq's infrastructure was decimated by the long and bloody Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, followed by a relatively swift defeat of Saddam after Operation Desert Storm, George H. W. Bush shared many of Dick's ideas. Even though the elder Bush had referred to Hussein as "Hitler revisited," he chose to leave the tyrant in charge of a crumbling nation of 21.5 million war-weary citizens.
While this seems illogical, Bush sensibly explained:
Trying to eliminate Hussein would have incurred human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
A few comments that also deserve some attention (besides W's bumbling speech at the end) come from Democratic leaders in the years and months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Watch.
You must understand something. The issue wasn't whether George W. Bush "lied" to "get us into" a war, and he must have been a damn good liar to be able to "hoodwink" all those Democrats, huh? The reasons for overthrowing Saddam were numerous, and I don't know anyone who would still want him in power. But that wasn't the issue either.
The real issue, as the first Bush noted over 15 years ago, was whether a plan for invasion and occupation with no exit strategy in a decaying country in the most volatile region on the planet would result in a very long and very costly conflict.
In 1994, Bush was absolutely correct about the dangers posed by an invasion of Baghdad. He apparently forgot to forward that memo to his son. By 2003, while Hussein's troubling activity was increasing, so were the conditions for making an occupation unlikely to succeed. But as much of a mistake as it might have been, and whatever the motivations of today's Democratic leaders, withdrawal (read: defeat) is not an "exit strategy."
Abdullah Al-Shabnan, the director of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia, has been arrested for failing to report the sexual abuse of a child and attempting to "eliminate any traces of the report." If you are still unfamiliar with this radical school, you can either read theseposts, or peruse the official report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, in which the commission expresses "concern about the promotion of religious intolerance and religion-based violence."
Al-Shabnan was arrested on June 9th, with pretty much zero coverage from the national media. Patrick Poole at PJM detailed the events following a raid on the school by state authorities:
According to a local news report [video] on June 3, the female student reported her claims to her teachers, and a report on the matter was drawn up by the teachers and the school’s principal and submitted to administrators. But when the allegations reached the desk of school director Abdullah Al-Shabnan, he didn’t believe the girl and failed to report the sex abuse claims to law enforcement within the 72 hours required by state law.
Apparently tipped off on a cover-up, law enforcement authorities raided the school on May 23 to seize computers and look for evidence after Al-Shabnan ordered the original report deleted from school computers.
Just three days before the raid, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to renew the academy’s lease of county property, ignoring multiple reports of the school’s promotion of violence and hatred.
Luckily, the locals are having none of it, reportedly protesting outside the school with signs that read "Saudi hate is not an American value" and "Islamic sharia teaches violence and hate." If you ask me, every student taught with those textbooks is suffering a form of child abuse.
In case you've been living in a well (perhaps alongside the twelfth Imam), today Iran further confirmed that it will never give up its nuclear ambitions and that "suspension of [uranium] enrichment is not on the agenda."
You should note that the leaders of Iran are apocalyptic zealots with a messianic dream of genocide and a new Islamic world - a "world without America and Zionism." If you don't understand this by now, you should probably stop reading and pick the bong back up. From Reuters:
Iran said on Tuesday uranium enrichment was its "red line" and would continue, despite an enhanced offer of incentives from big powers to stop activity the West fears could yield nuclear bombs.
"We have repeatedly said that enrichment is our red line and we should enjoy this technology. The work will be continued," deputy foreign minister Alireza Sheikhattar told reporters, according to the state news agency IRNA.
The incentives package offers Iran the chance to develop a civilian nuclear program with light water reactors — seen as harder to divert into bomb-making than the technology Tehran is now developing — and legally binding fuel supply guarantees.
"We will give our answer as soon as possible. But we do not know exactly when it will be," the Iranian official said. "It will be a discussable response. We might accept some elements of the proposal and reject some others," he said. "But suspension of enrichment is not on the agenda."
The mullahs are buying time, as they have been for the last four years. This is exactly like every other "We need some time to think this over" statement they have offered up in the past. Meanwhile, we are practically allowing them to hold the world hostage by offering them package after package of incentives, all of which are rejected because they depend on the suspension of uranium and/or the removal of portions of the nuclear fuel cycle from Iranian soil.
Every day the United Nations' hamsters spin their wheels is another day the centrifuges at Natanz do the same; another day closer to an Iranian bomb.
These fresh "incentives" include trade and economic benefits, the chance to develop civilian nuclear power with light water reactors, and guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel. It also mentions "the possibility of Iran buying civil aircraft from the West," which is good, because when Iranian airliners aren't being shot down, they are dangerously old and plagued with safety concerns.
All of these demands, offers, and negotiations have been going on for years, but apparently Captain Change thinks that because Bush hasn't chosen to engage in "direct presidential diplomacy" with the likes of Ahmadinejad, there's still a chance Iran can be bargained with.
It is as if he thinks that by repackaging these stipulations and adding the presidential seal, a fresh new smile, and a firm handshake, the Hitler of our time will give up his atomic ambitions. Allow me to reprise some of the words from the man Obama will ask to play nice:
"Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?"
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine...by God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."
The question isn't "if" this will end violently - it's "when." We shouldn't forget that the Persians invented the game of chess, and have been carefully calculating each sequential move to lead a crippled superpower into a checkmate.
Feast your stoned eyes on footage from this year's Bonnaroo festival. A word of advice to these "musicians" - when you're dealing with people on this many drugs, it's probably a good idea to include a date and time. Watch.
There are actually volunteers who stand outside of polling places for weeks after the election to tell every twenty-something with a hemp shirt and a soul patch that they "totally spaced on the date."
Since any good news from Iraq is apparently not newsworthy in this country, I have to read an article from the Iraqi news organization Aswat al-Iraq to find out that President Bush is withdrawing 30,000 troops from Iraq by July of this year:
U.S. President George Bush on Monday announced the withdrawal of 30,000 troops by July, highlighting that any further withdrawal of the troops will depend on the security conditions in the country.
“This strategy aims at handing Iraqis more responsibilities,” Bush said. For his part, Brown denied any impact of the political argument on his government’s stance.
“There is a work to do in Iraq and we will continue our work,” Brown added, stressing that he would not outline any time table for British forces withdrawal. He highlighted that his forces realized more progress in Iraq as well as the Iraqi forces.
Will this be uncomfortable for Democrats? With the media clamoring for the return of troops from Iraq, why is this not a major news story? This isn't 30,000 Americans home by the end of the year, this is by the end of next month. I guess they think most Americans will be too wrapped up in deciding how to spend their stimulus checks to be bothered reading an Arab paper.
As for Nero (ahem...Bush), will he even have the stones to hold a press conference announcing this?
Congressman Paul Kanjorski may be getting some interesting mail in the coming days. Footage from a town hall meeting has surfaced showing the Pennsylvania representative admitting that the Democrats "stretched the facts" in regard to their ability to end the Iraq war if elected in 2006. Watch.
Here's the quote:
"We didn't say it, but we implied it, that if we [Democrats] won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody who was a good student of government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up."
In other words, we knew we couldn't stop the war just by winning back the Congress, but we realized that the biggest issue to voters was "Bush Lied, People Died." Hence, we ran on a phony "end-the-war" platform, because after all, you people were just dumb enough to believe us. Amazing.
What did we learn today, boys and girls? Politicians will lie in order to attain power! Face it - as much as you love the wrinkly shoe salesman or the eloquent dreamboat from Chicago, they're cut from the same cloth.
I've unearthed a video from 2004 in which, remarkably, Obama says he "never said that troops should be withdrawn." He goes on to say "I don't think that we should have an artificial deadline when to do that." Watch.
Given that the situation in Iraq is better now than it was in 2004, it's amazing to note how a Presidential campaign can work transformative wonders on a politician. This can only mean that in 2004, withdrawing was a bad idea, but now that the war has already been lost (his only possible conjecture), it is now the only option. I thought this war should end because "it should have never been authorized and should have never been waged?" He is a hollow man, drifting in the breeze of public opinion.
According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 88% of Americans "strongly guard their right to free speech, but only a slight majority (53%) "say the United States should refrain from banning so-called 'hate speech.'" The article continues:
"Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, which is loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories."
In other words, 28% of Americans think that free speech is fine, but that the government should restrict that speech to protect the feelings of others. Inciting and provoking violence is one thing, but "provoking racial hatred?" That's exactly what French actress Brigitte Bardot was recently convicted of in Europe, where liberty takes a back seat to equality. For saying the following, Bardot was fined $23,000:
"I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population [Muslim immigrants] which is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing their ways."
Last week, the New York Times noted that America is now the exception to the free speech rule. In an article titled "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech," America is compared to Canada, where hate speech laws have already taken hold, and where an article written by Mark Steyn which appeared in Maclean's Magazine has violated a "hate speech law." The magazine was published with the headline "Why the Future Belongs to Islam."
The Canadian Islamic Congress is arguing that the magazine should be "forbidden from publishing such things, forced to rebut the original article and compensate Muslims for hurting their 'dignity, feelings and self-respect.'" And how should they be "compensated?" A donation to the terror-backing CAIR? Just a check with their names on it and a written apology? Should Steyn and other authors be sentenced to jail?
Luckily, there is still some hope. According to the survey, "Asked specifically about the Canadian and Bardot cases, 75% say U.S. law should not be changed to outlaw comments like the ones at issue."
Sadly, that means 25% are either in favor of limiting speech or are undecided. We are creeping into a universe in which freedom is no longer valued. Americans don't want to be free. Oh sure, they want to be free to choose who will win American Idol, what kind of cell phone to purchase, and where to go for Summer vacation. But speech, property, defense, taxation, savings, retirement, health? These are things for the government to worry about.
"State Department officials said Thursday they have no plans to close a Saudi-financed Islamic school in Northern Virginia that has failed to eliminate violent and intolerant language in textbooks."
In case you were MIA last week, there is a private Saudi-backed Islamic school teaching hatred of Jews and the merits of killing adulterers, apostates, and non-Muslims. The State Department has been having "discussions" with the government of Saudi Arabia, and after being told that the schools would "revise the textbooks by the 2008 school year," they don't plan to take "additional action."
In other words, the school will remain open, and more Saudi-sponsored throwback extremism will remain inside our borders. According to the new article, here are some of the peaceful and tolerant messages found in the textbooks:
A passage in a 12th-grade Koranic interpretation textbook that states it is permissible for a Muslim to kill those who have left the faith, an adulterer or someone who has murdered a Muslim intentionally: "He (praised is He) prohibits killing the soul that God has forbidden (to kill) unless for just cause." The commission said the text defines "just cause" as "unbelief after belief, adultery and killing an inviolable believer intentionally."
A social sciences track that states, "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims). He was 'Abd Allah b. Saba' (from the Jews of Yemen)."
An excerpt in first-grade textbooks telling teachers to explain "that all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews, Christians and all others."
So, what future awaits alumni of the Islamic Saudi Academy? According to this article, in 2002, Mohammed Osman Idris and Mohammed El-Yacubi were denied entry to Israel over "concerns about their ties to a potential suicide bombing." They were both graduates of this esteemed Islamic institution. Then there is the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the 1999 valedictorian. It only took 6 years for the school's top student to be indicted on charges of providing material support to terrorists. He is currently serving a 30 year prison sentence "after being convicted on charges that included plotting to assassinate President Bush." Oh, did I mention he joined al-Qaeda?
According to a document from the US Department of Justice, Abu Ali joined a "clandestine al-Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia." The document continues, "The defendant [Ali] discussed plans for assassinating President of the United States George W. Bush with a member of the al-Qaeda cell."
Just keep bringing in that Saudi money...keep bringing in that Saudi hate. Any legitimate government would not permit this to happen, but we don't have a legitimate government. We have politically correct quizzlings who preach "tolerance" while their neighbors preach "death to adulterers."
George Bush attests that the United States is currently engaged in a "war on terror." Not declaring war on radical Islam itself has potentially been the biggest mistake of the entire endeavor, as our enemy is not a terrorist tactic, but rather a religiously-inflamed ideology bent on the destruction of our nation and its nonbelievers. However, there are many, many reasons which lead me to think Bush seems hellbent on sinking this ship, having effectively left no one at the helm.
Bin Laden owes Bush quite a lot.
Or perhaps he is simply as much of a dupe as Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were in the last quarter century during their exchanges with the Muslim world in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Serbia, and Kosovo. Here are eight ways in which the Texan is screwing us over:
1. By turning a blind eye to the Southern border, he has allowed the single largest alien invasion to occur on his watch, which has not only resulted in well over twelve million known illegal immigrants crippling our prisons, hospitals, and schools, but numerous "undocumented" aliens who are not exactly planning on cozying up to lady liberty.
2. He has thrown the country into one of the most poorly planned wars in our history, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans, in order to sedate a violent country that was set back centuries after the devastation and corruption following the Gulf War, and to prop up a replacement government that has more and more friendly ties to Iran every day. The mistakes in this war have been true blunders, and they have been numerous.
3. After failing to secure the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and allowing swarms of al-Qaeda personnel to simply "slip out the back door," he neglected to apply pressure to President Pervez Musharraf to allow the CIA to interrogate Pakistani nuclear scientists who worked with al-Qaeda, including the father of the so called "Islamic bomb," Abdul Qadeer Khan.
4. Due to his pesky lack of a Congressional Declaration of War, he is content (along with John McCain and, as of yesterday, the Supreme Court) with terrorist prisoners being treated like incarcerated paperboys from Queens. Captured by Uncle Sam? No worries, they'll let you borrow their Constitution.
5. He has twiddled his green thumbs while the poppy fields of Afghanistan remain in full bloom under the noses of U.S. forces, providing millions of dollars in funding from the heroin trade for al-Qaeda to buy weapons and train terrorists.
6. He has completely ignored al-Qaeda cells in the following countries - Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Surinam, Venezuela - and in doing so allowed them to create a network of drug, human, and weapons trafficking which is infiltrating our country through our border with Mexico...all for the cause of cheap labor and liberal voters.
7. He opposes the use of classified intelligence evidence or "secret documentation," and has stated, "Arab Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that."
8. He has raised a petroleum-slicked umbrella to protect the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia from any scrutiny or consequences for their sponsoring of terror and radical Islamic schools. American lives and energy independence apparently aren't worth sacrificing a relationship with the Saudi royal family that has seen over $1 billion reach individuals and businesses closely connected to the Bush family.
Can you think of a Presidential candidate you would trust with these grave issues? I don't see one anywhere.
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is the latest to have been swept up in the divinely messianic fever that is Obama's campaign for President. This man is being heralded as the second coming, the man who will slow the "rise of the oceans," and Jackson makes no small case for the biblical significance of our friend Barry:
"What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
We will now rise now to read from the book of Obamelech, chapter 61 verse 4:
And G-d said to him, "Go forth throughout the nation and build up your base, and if you shall fill it with all the Marxists and all the useful fools of the land, be they darkened or light, corpulent or emaciated, with the promises of good will and fortune and the disintegration of sorrow in the hearts of men, if you shall affirm your covenant to bring forth the heavens upon the Earth, you shall know the light of the savior within is brightly burning."
Of course that was written by yours truly, but honestly - what the hell is wrong with these people? Oh, and if you think the "heavens upon the Earth" part is a bit over the top, Obama himself has claimed, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Look at the rest of his sermon (err...I mean, speech) from last week in Minnesota:
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment...when we began to provide care for the sick and give jobs to the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
After all, if he doesn't slow the rise of the oceans, he may never be able to walk on them. For clarity's sake, have you ever wondered why secular socialists are so intent on attempting to create heavenly utopias on Earth? Because despite the horrible things that occur when you chase Marx's impossible dream, they don't believe there will eventually be one after they die.
The official Barack Obama site has been discovered to be built apparently entirely by amateurs, and many of the site's directories are left completely open. With Obama launching his much touted "Fight the Smears" site, devoted entirely to quelling unpatriotic rumors of his affinity for Marxists, terrorists, and racists, the same group of hacks must have been involved.
On its first day online, FightTheSmears.com has been hacked, probably by those evil oil companies, or potentially Karl Rove. You wouldn't sabotage Jesus' web site would you? Then, why that of our new messiah?
Do you remember the incident recently in which a Che flag was found in an Obama campaign office? Well, it doesn't seem to be too rare a phenomenon. This picture surfaced a few months back and was dismissed by Obama as illegitimate; not a noteworthy story in the least:
If you need a refresher on the monster that was Fidel Castro's pal Che Guevara, read this post from February. What's the worst part about the next photo? It isn't some useful idiot in an Obama campaign office. It's an Ohio judge. Meet James Burge:
Oh, for the sake of clarity, the man currently being catapulted into the white house is juxtaposed with a man responsible for murdering thousands. Thanks!
Have I not warned you of Saudi money (essentially your money) flowing back into this country to fund radical schools that teach hatred of nonbelievers? Finally the Associated Press is taking notice. A report has surfaced on their web site, with the watered down headline "Troubling Passages in Texts at Va. School."
The article states that the textbooks teach students that "it is permissable for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam," that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people," and that "Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed 'polytheists.'"
The Islamic Saudi Academy (whose name should have immediately triggered alarm bells) teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two separate Virginia campuses, and "receives much of its funding from the Saudi government." The same Saudi government we have been cozy with for much of the last century (that is, ever since oil was discovered there).
The article continues: "The academy has come under scrutiny from critics who allege that it fosters an intolerant brand of Islam similar to that taught in the conservative Saudi kingdom...The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a panel formed by Congress, last year recommended that the school be closed amid concerns that it promotes violence and too closely mimics the conservative Saudi educational system."
Can I ask why we are permitting the doors of this school to remain open, when a non-Muslim can't even obtain residency in Saudi Arabia, much less practice his or her religion without persecution? If you are unfortunate enough to die in Saudi Arabia, you are prohibited from even being buried there; they will ship your lifeless non-believing corpse back to the States.
"A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims)."
MSNBC decided to join the party and is currently conducting a poll which asks, "Should an Islamic school be allowed to lease county property while using textbooks that teach intolerance?" First, the word isn't "intolerance," it's murder. Second, an alarming 12% of useful idiots (or perhaps simply the entire population of Berkeley, California) have replied, "Yes. One way to teach tolerance is to show tolerance." Aw, I feel better already.
It's suprisingly easy to show tolerance when you're throat has been cut.
I know John McCain is supposedly the earmark's worst nightmare, but he just doesn't sell me on the whole "limited government conservative" package. I have yet to hear him acknowledge that we have the largest and most intrusive government (and taxation system) we have ever had in our history, and that just limiting its expansion is not enough.
I know John McCain is supposedly the earmark's worst nightmare, but he just doesn't sell me on the whole "limited government conservative" package. I have yet to hear him acknowledge that we have the largest and most intrusive government (and taxation system) we have ever had in our history, and that just limiting its expansion is not enough.
