Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Bush comes out swinging

From The Washington Times:

SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.


"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

What I want to know is were was this aggressive confrontational George Bush years ago when Democrats in Congress and their propaganda machine (otherwise known as the mainstream media) were smearing him and his party and setting up the crisis which the nation is now facing.

If we had seen this Bush every day for the last five years his poll numbers wouldn't be at 40% and Republicans wouldn't be looking at losses this November.

Bill Clinton got one thing right. In the media age the campaign never ends. What he got wrong was thinking that the ONLY thing was the campaign.


Halloween is one of my favorite holidays. Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are more important, but Halloween is more pure fun. The day was originally a pagan holy day which the Church adopted and transformed. November is the Catholic feast day in which all of the "unknown" saints are honored.

On the day before All Saints' Day villages would hold a pageant in which some of the villagers would dress as demons and "terrorize" the townspeople. Then others dressed as the Saints would arrive and "deliver" the village by chasing away the evil spirits, who would cower and grovel before them. Then they would eat and drink and dance and generally make merry.

This was to reinforce the fact that the power of God was greater than the power of the Devil and that the Saints in Heaven were watching out for them.

This is were the custom of dressing in costume came from. The bit about going door to door asking for treats came from the Celtic pagan belief that on this night the souls of the dead would return to earth and if you didn't leave them an offering to show your respect they would punish you.

I am a Christian, but not a Roman Catholic and my ancestry is Celtic, but I am not a pagan. This means that the day is just a chance to have a good time.

So enjoy!

Of course somebody always has to go too far.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Standing up to the left

Lynn Cheney made her husband and a good many other real Americans proud when she tore Wolf Blitzer a new one on his CNN show the other night. Her performance has inspired a number of people to ask where all the other Lynn Cheney Republicans are.

Here is part of the video:

Compare her behavior to the RNC running away from their excellent Harold Ford commercial like scared little schoolgirls.

Oh by the way, it IS terrorist propaganda. Can anyone imagine Movietone including a film put together by Dr. Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment of Wehrmacht snipers shooting American soldiers in one of their newsreels?


Front Page Magazine has an article about this as well.

The Fire Spreads

From The Brussels Journal:

These past few days, there have been some «small fires» – small indeed – in the Brussels area, but today the fire brigade was lured into an ambush in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek. There were no casualties, but apparently we'll have to see a few dead before it will be possible to reflect seriously on what is really going on in Brussels. The authorities did not want to confirm a connection to the fires in Paris, but did not dare to deny it either.
The ones setting the fires are young Muslim men, although you won't hear that mentioned in the European press.

I am on record here as saying that Europe is lost and I stand by that, however I do see one chance for them that I did not see even a few weeks ago.

There is a chance that the Muslims will overplay their hand and scare the average European citizens badly enough to make them ignore their media, academic and political elites and elect politicians who will actually DO something effective to solve the problem while it still can be solved.

Right now there are three kinds of European politician. One is the average leftist Euro-elite who thinks that everything is just fine, except maybe for the fact that Europe isn't politically correct enough. Another is the sort who has his head about halfway out of the sand (or his ass, if you prefer) and knows that Europe has a problem. However he is still a leftist so he thinks that the problem is to encourage Muslims to assimilate through some kind of government program. The last kind is fully awake and aware of exactly what is going on and is willing to do what must be done, which is to kick out every Middle Eastern or North African Muslim immigrant or child of immigrants who isn't already so assimilated that he couldn't even give you directions to the nearest mosque.

Europe's elites in the media, government and the academy welcome the first kind of politician for he is truly one of them. The second type is viewed with some suspicion. He is suspected of racism for thinking that anything at all is wrong with the immigrant population but he will be tolerated as long as he makes clear that his goal is to make more Muslims even more welcome through government programs. The last kind is greeted with undisguised hatred by the elites. He will be vilfied as a neo-Nazi and his sanity will be questioned. The immigrant community will also be very likely to murder him (or her).

It is very hard for the average citizen to ignore the virtually unanimous verdict of his culture's opinion makers and vote for a canidate who he is assured is a clinically insane Hitler wannabe. A great many Americans have learned that the best way to know which canidate in a political race is the best for the nation is to watch who the newspapers, TV news, Hollywood and college professors like and vote for his opponant. If enough Europeans learn it to Europe has a chance.

I wouldn't bet on it, however.

The Left's big problem

Harry R. Jackson, Jr opens his essay on how the mainstream media has chosen sides and is acting as an arm of the DNC with this bit of analysis of the current political situaiton:

Over the last ten years, I have noticed that the pace of political races has changed. These “mini-wars” are strategically managed, media driven, and extremely well-financed. As the political stakes have risen to enormous proportions, the win-at-all-costs mentality has forced its way into the political arena. Republicans stand to lose the political control they have enjoyed for the last few years. Ironically, though, the party with the most to lose in this election is the democrats. This is a must win election.

If the Democrats do not gain significant traction in this mid-term election, they will be deemed so nationally impotent that no form of political Viagra will help them in 2008.

After all, they do not have a unifying doctrine or theme except for being against the war. Unfortunately for them, their anti-war statements are not backed up with clear plans. Beyond the important issue of how and when we bring our boys home, they don’t have much to say. Democratic solutions to the immigration crisis, the
health care gap, the energy crisis, and America’s long term global competition problem seem to be muddled, ill formed, and without a clear internal party consensus.

He is correct. If we examine history we will see that normally in an election happening in the sixth year of a presidential administration the other party will win an average of 37 seats in the House alone. If the Democrats do not win at least that many it will be a major defeat for them even if they wind up in control of the House.

Of course if they wind up with a 1-5 seat majority in the House they will celebrate and run around doing the Snoopy Dance and claiming that this is the beginning of the end for the Republican Party, but it will be an act.

They know that something is seriously wrong. Republicans have disappointed and angered their base. The Republican president has made a major misstep with his support for amnesty for illegal aliens and a good many conservatives have not regained all the respect that they lost for him over the Harriet Meiers debacle.

These things plus a war which the Mainstream Media has twisted itself into pretzel shapes in order to report as a lost cause should give the Democrats an even bigger seat gain this year than the average. It should be another post-Watergate massacre of Republicans. But it isn't going to be.

As things stand right now the internal polling of both parties show that the Senate remains in Republican hands and the best the Democrats can do in the House is a 3 seat majority, and the trends in the House are going in the direction of Republicans retaining control there as well.

Smart Democrats know that they have lost the nation. The problem is that they can't really do anything about it. The Democrats have no hope of winning without the support of every last one of the special interest groups which make up their coalition. If just 20% of the nations Black people who vote were to switch to the Republican Party the Democrats would have no hope of ever winning the White House and would not even be able to elect enough Senators to sustain a filibuster, and the House -- no way.

The same thing could be said about the Democrat's other constituencies. And to compound the problem for the Dems some of their component groups have interests which conflict with other of their component groups. For example, the NEA (the teacher's union) has a vested interest in keeping the public schools just like they are right now. Black people, on the other hand, want their children to receive good educations. There is a fundamental conflict here and the Democrats are powerless to resolve it because they can not do without either group.

The only way that Democrats have been able to keep both Blacks and the NEA in their tent is by convincing the average Black that a vicious genocidal racism hides just a millimeter below the surface of the American culture and that the only thing standing between them and the re-legalization of slavery are the stalwart heroes of the Democrat Party.

This cannot last. Blacks are casting off the chains of Democrat control and beginning to think for themselves. Black Republicans are running for office and White Republicans are eager to support them. It won't happen overnight. If fact it won't happen in this generation but it will happen.

Democrats know this and are desperate. This is why they are working for amnesty for illegal aliens. This is why they are working to give felons the right to vote. And speaking of this how long will it be before Democrats decide that they aren't happy just letting felons who have served their sentences vote and want to bring voting booths into the prisons?

The clock is ticking for the Jackass. They have a chance to gain control of the House while a Republican president who favors opening our southern border sits in the Oval office and a small group of RINO traitors holds the balance of power in the Senate. If they manage to gain even a tiny majority in the House they will ram open borders legislation down the nation's throat.

At least that's the plan. It might not work for them. The American public is awake to the threat of uncontrolled immigration. Even a Democrat majority in the House might not be enough to overcome the public's objections. Remember the HillaryCare fiasco which handed the Republicans control of the legislature.

The best course of action is not to even give them the chance. So get out and vote.

Another sign that they're afraid

From The Washington Times:

The Democratic National Committee is hiring more black advertisers, pollsters and grass-roots operatives in a revamped effort to increase turnout by black voters on Election Day.

Talk about desperate. Blacks already vote in the 90% range for Democrats.

That chairman Dean is really bringing home the bacon for the Jackass Party.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

If the shoe fits

David Frum identifies the Democrats as The Crybaby Party:

It's in bounds to write a deliberately deceptive voter initiative to try to inscribe embryo-killing research into a state's law.

It's in bounds for a likeable and suffering celebrity to suggest that such research is poised to deliver a cure that will help him - despite the utter absence of evidence for any such claim.

It's in bounds for Democratic politicians to promise (as John Edwards promised in 2004) that if embryo-killing research goes forward, the disabled will rise from their wheelchairs and walk again.

But it's out of bounds for a conservative radio broadcaster to question the honesty of the initiative or the truth of the claims made on its behalf.


But it's out of bounds for Republicans to note in a campaign ad that a Democratic senatorial candidate attended a football party sponsored by Playboy magazine.

That's private - and it's racist to think otherwise.

Got it?

Or is it too complicated?

If so, let me simplify:

Democrats may say what they please and do as they please - Republican speech must be carefully scrutinized for any hint of inappropriateness - and all Republicans be immediately called on to disavow anything anywhere done with less than perfect gentlemanliness & elegance.

Democrats may strike in any way they like - and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.

And it works, because after all: in this game, the ref wears their jersey.

Another sign that they are afraid

From The Washington Post:

The American Civil Liberties Union has dropped a three-year-old lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act, months after Congress rewrote parts of the law.

The ACLU said Friday it is withdrawing the lawsuit because of "improvements to the law."

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, the New York-based associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a written statement.

Translating from liberal-speak into honest English:

In the closing days of an election cycle in which we have seen Democrat hopes for regaining power in the House and Senate go from what looked like a sure thing to what now appears to be a lost cause we do not wish to have one of the most important reasons why people who do not hate the United States can never dare to entrust the government of this country to the left hanging out there in front of the public's eyes.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Deeds, not words

From The Washington Post:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said on Friday he was aware of "speculation" that Iran has started enriching uranium in a second network of centrifuges and said it was unacceptable for Tehran to have a nuclear weapon.

"It says to me that we must double our effort to work with the international community to persuade the Iranians that there is only isolation from the world if they continue working forward on such a program," Bush told reporters during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Sorry Mr. President but as long as they are sitting on a ocean of oil they will not be "isolated" from France or Germany. And as long as they have euros from Old Europe they will not be "isolated" from Russia.

We are going to have to do more than "say" that we don't want them to have nuclear weapons. We are going to have to DO something about it. Either that or shut up and accept it.

The "Daisy" ad

Our friend Patrick of Born Again Redneck didn't know what the LBJ "Daisy" ad was, as he was not in the country at that time.

Here is the ad. The resolution is poor, but you will get the idea:

The message was that Goldwater was an insnae warmonger who would murder all the world's children in a nuclear fireball.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Oh what a tangled Webb we weave. . .

I must confess that when I heard of the flap over what James Webb wrote in some of his novels I had mixed feelings.

On the one hand what an author writes and signs his name to belongs to him. He is responsible for it and must stand behind it. Webb cashed the checks that his publisher sent him, what he is going through now is just another consequence of his work, albeit a much less pleasant one - for him.

On the other hand the real world is full of events of which we disapprove and/or find distasteful. Wars, like the one we fought in Viet Nam are violent, dangerous and stressful things and the soldiers who fight them tend to relieve the stress of combat with alcohol and women when on liberty. Alcohol and women (sometimes - often - girls in their early teens) were available for sale in the towns which surrounded our military bases in South Viet Nam. That is a fact and anyone who wishes to present a soldiers-eye view of the war that ignores that is presenting a sanitized, and therefore inaccurate, view of the way it was.

Another incident from one of Webb's novels which is stirring controversy is a scene where a 13-year-old boy loses his virginity with a 15-year-old girl. Is there anyone out there who thinks that this kind of thing doesn't happen? Are authors to ignore reality because we would prefer that things were different?

There are some legitimate issues being raised. It does seem that Webb's writing betrays a low view of women. After all if an author wrote a number of books in which every last Black character was some kind of criminal it would be fair to ask what he really thought of Black people.

In the final analysis I believe that this all needs to be viewed in the context of the entire political situation in the country today. Jim Geraghty summed up my feelings on NRO in this way:

Yeah, after the campaign Webb has run - all Macaca all the time; Is-Allen-Jewish?; did a guy hear from a guy that a guy heard from a guy that he used the N-word; and "Every Republican Is As Bad As Foley" - it's kind of hard to say this stuff is out of bounds.
In other words the Democrat Party has behaved reprehensibly, not just in this election cycle, but as far back as I can remember. Ever since LBJ nuked Goldwater with the little girl and the daisy the Dems have been working their way down to the bottom of the barrel. During the Senate confirmation hearings over the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork they hit bottom and started digging.

Perhaps a dose of their own medicine will wake them up, that is if they have any vestige of conscience left.

Ok, the title of this post is lame, but it's late and I'm tired. You come up with something better.

Where are the real imperialists when you need them?

From The Jerusalem Post:

Iran claimed Friday that it had successfully expanded its controversial nuclear program by injecting gas into a second network of centrifuges to enrich uranium, a semiofficial news agency reported Friday.

The news came as world powers worked on a draft resolution in the UN Security Council that would impose limited sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to cease enrichment - a process that can produce material for nuclear power reactors, or weapons.

The Iranian Students News Agency quoted an anonymous official on Friday as saying that Iran has begun injecting gas into a second cascade of centrifuges and had obtained successful enrichment results.

The left keeps screaming that America is "imperialistic".

I have a question. What would Queen Victoria have done about this?

Caesar Augustus?

The "racist" ad

Here is the ad that the RNC ran in Tennessee which got all the Democrat panties in a wad. When they realized that the ad was accurate in its characterization of Harold Ford as someone who would support bringing back the death tax, opposed the terrorist wire tapping program, would ban guns and was so politically tone deaf that he attended the Playboy Superbowl Party in Jacksonville and that these things would cause the majority of Tennessee voters to not vote for him they biggest gun in their arsenal.

A charge of racism.

It doesn't matter that you need to have the special DNC issued decoder ring to decipher the racism in the ad. All that does matter is that the charge was made. This caused the RNC and Ford's opponent to run like scared little schoolgirls and hide under the bed.

I am tired of Republicans who cower at the merest hint of disapproval from the mainstream media. The ad was damn funny and did an excellent job of getting across exactly what kind of man Ford is and what he would do if elected.

Ridicule is one of the most effective rhetorical weapons there is. When it is based in truth, as in this case, it can be devastating. There are few things more ridiculous than left liberals. We should not be shy about pointing that out.Top of Form

Say it ain't so Jim

Here is a good parody of the campaign commercial in which actor Michael Fox lies about Jim Talent and cruelly offers false hope to millions of people who suffer from debilitating diseases like Parkinson's.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Paris is burning -- again

Gangs of young Muslim men are running wild in France -- again. They have decided that burning cars is too small time and have graduated to buses -- and hijacking.

From No Pasaran:

The most spectacular incident took place at 1AM between Bagnolet and Montreuil. A gang of 10 pistol wielding hooded youths boarded the bus. One of the assailants placed his gun on the side of the bus driver's head and ordered him to get out of his seat. The gang commandeered the bus, drove it a short distance and torched it in a neighboring suburb. Appropriately enough, the bus was torched at Montreuil's Lenin Square.

Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit are also blogging about this.

Now build the damn thing

From The Washington Post:

WARREN, Mich., Oct. 26 -- President Bush signed a measure Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, an action that conflicts with his own stated vision of immigration reform but one championed by many Republicans facing reelection in November.

Speaking at a White House ceremony before a day of campaigning for GOP candidates in Iowa and Michigan, Bush said the barrier will help the United States plug the porous Southwest border.

"Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and, therefore, illegal immigration has been on the rise," Bush said. "We have a responsibility to address these challenges. We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this
responsibility seriously."

Ok, the legislation has been signed. This is a good first step and everyone should keep in mind that we wouldn't have gotten even this far without Republican control of the House of Representatives.

If it wasn't for the Republicans in the House we would now have amnesty for all the illegals now in the US and we would be seeing the first waves pouring in as part of the "guest worker" program. A program which would allow as many as 60 million ignorant, unskilled peasants to enter the nation as "temporary" workers. However if the "guest worker" program works in the United States like it has worked in every other nation on the surface of the earth who has ever tried it in the entire history of the world the guests will never leave once here.

If you give a damn about the future of this country vote Republican. It's just that simple.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Sincere apologies

Sorry for the light posting today. Blogger has been acting up and real-world workload has been heavy. I should have some pictures to post tomorrow and more over the weekend.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually America’s number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU’s history can easily be looked at, and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion, their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn’t religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.

When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer, like they had for 30 years, the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds, to be erected on private land, simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation ceremony, the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. And of course we are all familiar with the ACLU’s crusade to eliminate the Mt. Soledad war memorial because it is a cross that might offend some atheist.

It has become a tradition for the ACLU to attack Christian nativity scenes every Christmas. They has already started early this year. We have all witnessed the ACLU’s hatred of Ten Commandment displays across the nation. The ACLU sue city council after city council over praying in Jesus’ name. They don’t sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a council meeting. Many times it doesn’t even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick.

If the ACLU were consistent to oppose all religions in its separation of church and state quest it would be one thing, but in all too many cases it is Christianity that is targeted while other religions get a pass. The cases of double standards are numerous. A few blatant examples are how the ACLU fought to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church while fighting for a tax exemption for Wiccans and how they fight against any Christianity being exposed to school children yet are found absent when Islamic indoctrination is going on. In fact, they were involved in creating the rules to allow such indoctrination to take place.

There is no doubt that the ACLU are overzealous in their quest to secularize America and erase its Christian heritage. The good news is that there are organizations out there fighting them, and people standing up to protest against them. Currently they are attacking Lakeview Elementary School for promotion of a Prayer at the Flagpole event, a National Day of Prayer event, the activities of a “Praying Parents” group, teacher-led voluntary classroom prayers, and a Christian theme and overtly religious songs at a Christmas program. The school is not denying these charges but asserting that Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students have “a constitutional right to pray or to read their scriptures at school as well. They did not cave in to the ACLU’s threats but gathered a group of over 600 people to protest the ACLU in a prayer vigil.

The prayer rally, organized by two Mt. Juliet commissioners, drew hundreds, with about 200 stuck in a 1.5-mile traffic jam. The event, which also attracted some local politicians and pastors, took place outside the school recently named in a lawsuit for alleged constitutional violations.
It is encouraging to see people standing up to the ACLU in defense of their rights that they feel are being threatened. However, this will not stop the ACLU from proceeding with its attacks. On the other hand it will ultimately be the power of the people and their desire for freedom that will have to put a stop to the ACLU’s attempts to criminalize Christian free speech through the courts. One effective way to assert this power is to get out and vote for people that oppose the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda.

Every time the ACLU wins a case against these small schools and local governments they are awarded massive money in attorney’s fees through your tax dollars. Often this is used to threaten these cash strapped schools and local governments to surrender before the case even goes before a court. There is current legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, that seeks to put a stop to this extortion. It has already passed the House and will be up for vote soon in the Senate. It is very unlikely it will pass if liberals take control. Put an end to this abuse. Get out and vote for people you know will support this much needed legislation. Cut the ACLU off from the government teat.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Cox & Forkum

The religion of limitless entitlement and perpetual outrage.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

You Tube has it all

How long do you think You Tube will let this one stay up?

Hit Tip: Y. A. C. R. W. B. (Yet Another Conservative Right Wing Blog)

The future's so bright I gotta wear. . .

dark goggles to prevent my eyes from being burned out by the coming atomic fireball.

From The Brussels Journal:

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching the world of yesterday."

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent inhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving
the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent
op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."


Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be red than dead.

See, I'm not the only one warning Europeans who love freedom to get out.

The United States needs to welcome these freedom loving Europeans. Many of them would love to come here. They already speak English and they are already educated and skilled with years of work experience. That the immigration policies of the US favor ignorant Third World peasants who will at best sweep floors and at worst found multi-generational welfare dynasties goes beyond being "a shame" and enters the territory of full-blown psychotic delusion.

Old Europe is dying. On its rubble will be built "Eurabia" the new Islamic caliphate which will be the greatest threat to what is left of the free world since Hitler. The reason that they will represent a greater danger than the old Soviet Union or our contemporary Islamofascists is the historic tendency of Islamic conquerors to borrow cultural elements from their conquered subjects.

For example the "Arabic numbers" which we use today, are not Arab at all. They are Hindu. The Arabs who conquered India assimilated (Borg like) their numbering system and some of the mathematics which the Hindus had worked out. They entered Western Europe after the reconquest of Spain.

Muslims borrow other things as well. For example the excellent artillery with which Mehmet II reduced the walls of Constantinople. The Eurabian Muslims will not be able to sustain the technologically advanced civilization of modern Europe (nor do they wish too) however they will be able to cherry-pick those elements which serve their long term agenda.

For example the French, Germans and Italians between them have the ability to build excellent warships up to and including aircraft carriers. They can build tanks and armored fighting vehicles which rival those built in America. They can produce very good jet fighter aircraft and bombers. And last, but certainly not least, thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems which can deliver them over intercontinental distances.

There is a military tradition in Europe, especially Germany, which, when divested of the hand wringing guilt over their colonial past, has every potential of rising again in the service of the vision of an Islamisized √úbermensch.

All of this augers poorly indeed for Eastern Europe which is just emerging from the devastation of 60 years of communist oppression. These cultures which have the first-hand experience of slavery and are embracing freedom with a passion which should put Americans to shame are depending on membership in the European Union for both their economic futures and as a measure of security against an increasingly totalitarian Russia. Ireland, which is showing signs of becoming the business capital of Europe because of its rejection of much of the anti-business socialism of the continent also has reason to be worried.

When Western Europe, including the UK, falls to the mullahs then Islam's "bloody borders" will be on Eastern Europe's doorstep and Ireland's shores.

Just think of it. A European Union ruled by the religious vision of Iran equipped with nuclear submarines and ICBMs.

Not every entertainer is a moron

Blackfive had this up yesterday:

Seawitch sends this awesome video of Aussie lass Beccy Cole who is singing "Poster Girl" in response to some of her fans who disagree with her supporting the Diggers, the Australian soldiers fighting in The Long War.

Amen to the sentiment and it's a damn fine song too.

Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs

Europe's Muslim problem

There is an editorial in today's Washington Post which begins well, but ends in nonsense. Here is the good part:

A YEAR AGO this week, riots erupted in mostly Muslim suburbs of Paris and other French cities, underlining the alienation of a subculture that makes up 8 percent of the country's population but has suffered from chronic unemployment and discrimination. One year later, that alienation -- and the threat of violence that comes with it -- appears to have worsened, not only in France but across Western Europe. French police are facing what some call a "permanent intifada" in Muslim neighborhoods, with nearly 2,500 incidents of violence against officers recorded in the first six months of the year. Some of these now take the form of planned ambushes: On Sunday a gang of youths emptied a bus of its passengers, set it on fire, and then stoned the firefighters who responded.

In Britain, the London bombings of 2005, which were executed in part by native-born Muslims, have been succeeded by this summer's arrest of another group of native extremists who allegedly plotted to blow up airliners. Two Lebanese residents of Germany were accused of trying to bomb passenger trains. The threat of violence by Muslims angered by perceived insults, whether from the German-born pope or the director of a Mozart opera, has become more frequent.

Europeans are slowly growing more aware that a major part of the global struggle against Islamic extremism must take place in their own countries -- and not just in faraway Afghanistan or Iraq. . .
As I said this is the good part. Muslims in Europe are not only not assimilating very well the problem is getting worse. Young Muslims who were born in European countries to parents who were also born in Europe are less assimilated than their grandparents who were born and raised in North Africa or the Middle East.

European nations import Muslims to do manual labor not to compete with native Europeans in the professions. To that end employment offices in European nations will assist college educated and qualified Muslim professionals find work as grocery baggers, but not physicians, attorneys or college professors. If they want to do that kind of work they are told to go home.

European nations provide little sense of identity to Muslim immigrants and their children. Into this vacuum steps radical Islam. Mosques funded by Saudi Arabia teach radical Whabbi Islam in all its hatred of the West. Some young Muslim men become radicalized and join terrorist cells like the London bombers. Others cherry pick elements from Islamic culture which serve their selfish interests. Theodore Dalrymple writes of young Muslim men in Britain who could not recite an Islamic prayer to save their lives, but practice the brutal domination of women, sometimes including having multiple "wives" and justify it by the Koran and the example of Mohammed.

Now for the stupid part:

. . . But their governments, media and political elites still appear to be a long way from coming to grips with the challenge. Rather than seeking to address the larger alienation of mainstream Muslims, European leaders often appear to do the opposite -- by challenging the culture of Muslims and defending gratuitous insults of Islam.

So by insisting that Muslim men follow the law and not murder their daughters for shaming the family by thoughtlessly allowing themselves to be raped or by defending the right of magazines to publish cartoons are furthering the alienation of Muslims?

I think not. The Koran tells Muslims that the faithful are destined to rule the world. All non-Muslims have an absolute duty before God to either convert, accept dhiminitude or die. There are no other options. Muslims are taught that a nation which has a Muslim community of any size is Muslim property. They are told that they welfare payments and other government benefits which they receive are an acceptable form of the jizra, the head tax which non-Muslims must pay for the privilege of staying alive.

The Islamic religion itself is a primary factor in the alienation of Muslims. As long as Islam is granted a privileged status and its communicants are allowed exemptions from the standards of behavior which other members of society are held to Muslims will be encouraged to see themselves as a -- superior -- class apart.

One recent but hardly isolated example came from Britain's House of Commons leader, Jack Straw, who criticized Muslim women for wearing veils and said he asked those who visited his office to remove them, on the grounds that they impede "communication." It's hard to believe that veils are the biggest obstacle to communication between British politicians and the country's Muslims; and it's even harder to imagine Mr. Straw raising similar objections about Sikh turbans or Orthodox Jewish dress. True, the Labor Party MP was reflecting -- or maybe pandering to -- the concern of many in Britain about the self-segregation of some Muslims. But veils -- which are also under government attack in France and Italy -- are not the cause of that segregation, much less of terrorism. Attacks on Muslim custom by public officials are more likely to reinforce than to ease the community's alienation.

Making them wear the veil is not the worst thing that Islam does to women, but it is the visible symbol of all the degradations which Muslim women are forced to endure. When the Canadian government entertained a stupid proposal a few years back to allow Canadian Muslims to set up sharia courts within the Islamic community to handle the affairs normally dealt with by Canadian family courts the parliament was deluged with letters from Muslim women begging them not to subject them to the tyranny of the mullahs.

Mr. Straw and other European politicians could contribute far more to combating radical Islam if they focused on those who actually foment intolerance among European Muslims -- as well as those in the mainstream community who promote prejudice against Arabs and South Asians and their descendants. Muslims in Europe should be invited to embrace the countries where they live on their own terms. They should be expected to respect laws and freedoms. But politicians would do better to work on dismantling the barriers Muslims face in getting educations and jobs rather than those that distinguish Islam from the secular majority.

True assimilation is not embracing a nation of your own terms. It is adapting yourself to a nation so that it may embrace you on its terms. Muslims, if they are to remain true to their faith, cannot respect the laws and freedoms of the countries where they live. They are commanded by their founding prophet to bend the entire globe to the will of Allah, by persuasion if possible but by force if necessary.

The part about helping Muslims get better educations and jobs would be a good idea, except for the fact that educational opportunities are already widespread in Europe, at taxpayer expense. And as for jobs the welfare states of Europe deny opportunities to everyone. Most of Europe is suffering from chronic double-digit unemployment brought about by confiscatory taxation and labor laws which make hiring new workers a dangerous gamble.

It is highly unlikely that Europe can solve its problems with unassimilated Muslims. To correct the problem would require to do things which they find anathema. Ending their experiment with socialism with the enthusiastic embrace of capitalism. Putting aside their cultural guilt over their colonial past. Reconnecting with their Christian roots. Abandoning their suicidal adherence to milticulturalism and moral relativism and recovering a sense of pride in their own history.

As I said, things which the European elites would find anathema.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006


Ed Laskey has a good essay up on The American Thinker about how the Democrat Party is taking the place of the Ku Klux Klan and the various neo-Nazi organizations as the home of American anti-Semitism.

One of his points is that the Democrats are becoming more "European" in their outlook:

Many of the Democratic elites (John Kerry, among them) spent considerable amounts of time during their formative years overseas or in Ivy League universities. Recall John Kerry’s summers in (where else?) France; or Clinton’s coterie of fellow Oxford graduates. They took deep draughts of the trans-Atlantic ideas that are held in common with European elites. Ivy League universities are clones in many ways of European universities: they often exchange professors from time to time, teach from the same material, and have the same ideological mindset that they inculcate in their students. This commonality has been deepened after college by frequent attendance at international conferences, ceremonies, and cocktail parties. The echo chamber and group think effect has taken hold; in this small universe a common mind-set developed. This process can be called in homage to one of the factors that facilitated the process, the Concorde convergence.

However, the Europeanization of the Democratic Party elites goes beyond this dynamic. In many ways, the coastal cities and the rarified environs that the elite play in are very similar to Europe’s major cities. The brilliant urban theorist Joel Kotkin calls these generally East coast cities Euro-America . He writes,

“Euro-America has always existed in pockets, most particularly among the East coast’s intellectual, cultural and social elites”.
He traces this strengthening trend from the early 1800s to contemporary America. He continues,

“Today the embrace of European values and perspectives also reflects profound economic and social similarities between Euro-America and the continent.”
While they may be losing population and stagnating,

“neither Europe, nor its America simulacra, should be dismissed. Resting on great accomplishments of generations past, they enjoy a near monopoly in major media and top universities”.
Kotkin also noted that these Democratic powerhouses are becoming increasingly estranged from the political and cultural norms of the rest of America. We can call these elite leaders not metrosexuals, as Howard Dean might; instead we can call them trans-Europeans. As Kotkin says, they seek “inspiration from abroad.” (or approval from abroad, as in John Kerry’s “Global Test”)

I can't find anything there to disagree with.

All this brings up an interesting point. Abraham Lincoln told us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". How much longer with the American "house" be able to continue functioning with the internal divisions which are currently ripping it apart?

The other side

A response to the Michael J Fox ad which is airing in Missouri:

The mind of the madmen

From Front Page Magazine:

Sudan has long been a bloody frontier between Islam and Black Africa, haunted for centuries by Arab slave traders. The British Empire signed a convention with Egypt in 1877 to outlaw slavery in Sudan. After the British took control of Egypt in 1883, progress was made freeing slaves there, but London decided to withdraw from Sudan. The British governor of the Sudan, Sir Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who opposed withdrawal, was killed in 1885 when an Islamic messiah claiming to be the "Mahdi" captured Khartoum. Slave traders who had gone into hiding flocked to the Mahdi's standard, eager to see the British withdraw.

According to both Sunni and Shi'ite traditions, the Mahdi will arise shortly before the day of judgment and transform the world into a perfect Islamic society. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have described the Mahdi's appearance: "The black banners will come out of the east, and they will slaughter you in a way that no nation has ever done before."

The Sudanese Mahdi died of natural causes, but was succeeded by his lieutenant, the Khalifa. Popular agitation in England to avenge Gordon led to Gen. Horatio Kitchener's famous victory at Omdurman in 1898. Kitchener's imperial army of 26,000 (only a third of them British, the rest Egyptian and Sudanese) defeated some 50,000 Dervish. The Khalifa fled the battlefield, but was hunted down and killed. Prisoners were paraded in chains, and the Mahdi's tomb demolished, to demonstrate in no uncertain terms who was the stronger power in the region.

Today, Shi'ite Muslim radicals such as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iraq militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr predict the Mahdi's return is imminent. Al-Sadr has even named his militia "The Mahdi Army." The Shi'ites believe the Mahdi is the 12th Imam, who has been hiding for 1,100 years.

Speaking to the UN General Assembly in September 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad called for "the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace." He repeated this call in his 2006 UN address, ending it with the plea "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

Mr. Ahmadinejad believes his task is to hasten the Mahdi's coming. As mayor of Tehran, he worked to prepare the city for this climactic event.

Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis has noted: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers." The Mahdi is coming back to cleanse the world with fire and sword, a process that will be started by his followers before his actual appearance. It is hard to deter people who believe they are on a divine mission.

Iraq is a battlefield in this struggle. The sixth Shia Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said: "Before the appearance of the one who will rise...the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky...It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa [where al-Sadiq is buried]...Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq, from which they shall have no rest." This is a fair description of the campaign of death squads and terror waged by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose loyalty is to the Tehran theocracy.

U.S.-led forces have bloodied the Mahdi Army on several occasions, but in another example of strategic malaise, have not been given the green light to eliminate this threat. On Oct. 20, the Mahdi Army seized control of Amarah, a provincial capital from which the British withdrew in August. And Mr. Ahmadinejad continues to defy the West over his nuclear ambitions, claiming he has not been swayed by UN sanctions on North Korea.

It is difficult in the midst of 21st century materialism for Americans to accept that foreign leaders would act on the basis of such irrational beliefs. Yet, history is filled with such episodes. Fortunately, history is also filled with examples of fanatics defeated by those not intimidated by their violent delusions.

If the Islamofascists win this war a main reason will be the inability of post-modern, post-Christian European and American elites to make themselves believe that a national government could be motivated by religious faith.

Monday, October 23, 2006

What not to do in Iraq

Jed Babbin explains why partitioning Iraq would be a bad idea:

Partitioning Iraq is an approach that could earn an A+ in a graduate course at the Kennedy School of Government, but will get an immediate F in the real world. An independent Kurdistan -- the presumed northern section -- would violate the agreement President Bush made with Turkey before the invasion. The Turks would invade because they believe (with much justification) that an independent Kurdistan would seek to expand into northeastern Turkey. Shia southern Iraq would be swallowed by Iran, and the middle -- Sunni Iraq -- would become part of Syria or a Syrian satellite terrorist state like Lebanon. Even if Iraq's neighbors wouldn't invade or interfere (an assumption that would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous), only Kurdistan could possibly survive as an independent state. The other two would lack either the economic resources necessary to survive or the political unity to function, or both.

It's hard to argue with that. If Iraq existed in a vacuum partitioning would be the best possible answer. People who hate one another and do not wish to live together should not be forced to do so. However Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. It occupies a place in one of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the earth. Destabilizing Turkey would serve no one save Osama bin Laden and Babbin's analysis of where the Shia and Sunni states would wind up rings true as well.

Trying to bring democracy to Iraq was an experiment which always had a better than even chance of failure. But it absolutely had to be tried. We needed to know (the kind of knowing that only can come from experience) if an Islamic country could be successfully brought into the civilized community of 21st Century nations.

If the current crisis in Iraq is not the last push of the "insurgency" throwing all their resources into an all-or-nothing bid to influence the US elections and get the Surrender Party elected. If it is truly a sign that nothing like a secular democratic state can coexist with the Islamic faith then we need to know this.

We need to know it because it means that we will need to reorganize our entire society around the principle of total war. Just as we did in the two World Wars of the 20th Century. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world and if they can't make peace with the modern world then the modern world will have to crush them. Since the US is the only free nation left on the globe with the both the means to fight a real war and the ability to summon the national will to fight a real war the burden will fall on us.

Pick a side

Back during the Vietnam War Ramparts Magazine published an issue with a photograph of a child holding an NLF (Viet Cong) flag on the cover. The caption was, "alienation is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win".

The left liberals who control the Democrat Party are no less alienated today than they were during the Vietnam years. This is why the terrorist "insurgents" in Iraq are pulling out all the stops in their efforts to damage the Bush Administration and ensure a Democrat win next month.

It does not matter to them that they will be unable to sustain the current level of operations for very much longer. It does not matter to them that they are consuming resources, both material and human, at a rate far higher than they can replace.

All that matters to them is that their allies in the American government and news media are poised to take control and hand them the victory that they realize that they can never win on the battlefield. A victory that they believe will signal the end of the American "empire" and the beginning of the world wide Islamic caliphate.

Of course the first people they will shoot when they gain power in the US will be the left liberals who handed them their victory on a silver platter. For you see, no one loves a Judas. Even those who benefit from a traitor's actions despise the traitor.

From their lips. . .

From: NewsMax.com:

Is Fidel Castro dead?

According to Brazil's leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, he is.

But perhaps Lula misspoke.

Last Thursday, Lula expressed disappointment that Castro had not implemented a "democratic opening" in Cuba.

"I am a lover of the Cuban revolution," Lula said in an interview with the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo.

"I only regret that Fidel Castro did not carry out a process of political opening while he was alive," Lula added.

Some reporters have dismissed the statement as a slip of the tongue.

But not everyone is sure.

Since mid-September, Cuban media have not released any pictures or vidoes of the ailing communist dictator.

"I think what he said is that he thinks; he thinks that Fidel is dying," Miami's NBC 6 quoted author and political analyst Carlos Alberto Montaner as saying.

We can only hope.

The UK continues to unravel

From The Scotsman:

ONE of the founding fathers of Scottish devolution is calling for England to be given its own parliament to reflect a "growing sense of national identity".

Canon Kenyon Wright, who chaired the
Constitutional Convention that paved the way for the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, will this week argue that England has the same "claim of right" to its own legislature as Scotland.

Advocates of an English parliament are gearing up to use next year's 300th anniversary of the
Act of Union between England and Scotland to focus public attention on England's constitutional position.

At the House of Lords tomorrow, Canon Wright will address the first meeting of what campaigners hope will become an English Constitutional Convention, closely based on the cross-party body that helped deliver devolution to Scotland.

If the English get their own parliament then what, exactly, will remain of the United Kingdom?

Also, I'm sure that a Scot or Welchman would point out that the English MPs outnumber the combined representatives of Scotland and Whales to the point that the national parliament is an English parliament.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

The true face of Islam

Victor Davis Hanson's website has published a review, by Bruce Thornton, of Ephraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism. A History. It is a long and interesting review. I recommend reading all of it, but here is the part which I found most interesting:

Osama bin Laden must be placed in this long, continuous tradition of Islamic imperialist ambitions sanctified by the faith's universalistic pretensions. His declaration of jihad against a United States, spurred as well by his reading of America's spiritual corruption as evidenced by its ignominious retreat from Somalia in 1993, is not, as Karsh notes, a "novelty": "Declaring a holy war against the infidel has been a standard practice of countless imperial rulers and aspirants since the rise of Islam. Nor does bin Laden's perception of jihad as a predominantly military effort to facilitate the creation of the worldwide Islamic umma differ in any way from traditional Islamic thinking." The difference is that "military effort" now necessarily consists of attacks by terrorists rather than armies. In short, bin Laden has not "highjacked" or "distorted" Islam, as Islamic propagandists and Western apologists for jihad have it, but rather has acted consistently with its traditional beliefs.

I have said this before on this blog. The reason that those who wish to "reform" Islam will have a hard time is that the Islamofascists are accurately interpreting the Koran and faithfully following the example of Mohammed.

This conclusion should be sobering to us all, but particularly to Europeans who have, through a neurotic nexus of spiritual exhaustion, colonial guilt, and multicultural sentimentalism, allowed Muslim immigrants to preach a virulent hatred of the West in schools and mosques frequently subsidized by state welfare payments. The goal of Islamic global triumph "need not necessarily be pursued by the sword; it can be achieved through demographic growth and steady conversion of the local populations."

I believe that this is a big part of the reason that Europe is lost. Sometime between 2035 and 2050 it will have become Eurabia an Islamic caliphate under sharia.

Today's laugh

Patrick at Born Again Redneck posted this picture and it was so good I had to steal it.

Hijinks across the pond

or "How Braveheart became Limpwrist"

From The Scotsman:

The Glasgow city council's publication, "Language Matters: A Guide for Good Practice", contains many pearls of wisdom:

"Sexism continues to disadvantage women both as service users and employees. The use of sexist language, whether spoken or written, reinforces this discrimination," it declares. All staff, it orders, should now stop their sexist ways.

The guide offers a full list of the most shameful examples of sexist-speak. Top of the list are endearments.

"Don't assume it is acceptable to address women by endearments such as 'dear', 'pet' and 'love' when you would not address men in such a way," the guide instructs. "Don't refer to women as 'girls', for example, 'the girls in the office'."

It adds: "The term 'ladies' should only be used in situations where the parallel term 'gentlemen' is used."

All references to a person's gender should be avoided, the guide goes on. "A person's gender is rarely relevant to the job they do, so don't use 'lady' or 'woman' to highlight gender inappropriately, for example 'woman driver', 'lady curator', 'lady councilor', 'woman director'. Similarly don't add 'ess' to the end of job titles
as in 'manageress' or 'stewardess'."

"Some words and phrases such as 'manpower' and 'man the office' exclude or ignore women. Use inclusive terms like 'staff' and 'workers' and 'staff the office'."

With communication dealt with, the guide moves on to terms of address. The old custom of referring to a married couple as Mr and Mrs John Smith is completely barred, the guide declares. "Women have names too!" it exclaims.

Equally, the requirement for women to reveal their marital status through the term 'Mrs' or 'Miss' is condemned. "If the woman does not offer her preferred title, assume Ms", the guide instructs.

The suffix 'man' is completely out. Job titles like storeman and clerkess should be replaced with 'storeperson' and 'clerical officer'.

And then there is the man on the street. "The word 'man' is often used as a general term when it is actually intended to mean 'people'. 'Human beings' or the 'human race' is preferable to 'mankind' and the 'ordinary person' replaces the 'man in the street'."

There is hope for the sane, however:

Despite the aim of lifting women out of the pit of prejudice, some were not impressed. Entrepreneur Michelle Mone said: "Councils and government are making it impossible to run businesses and then they come out with nonsense like this.

These people with their sandals and their flowery dresses - they need to get a life and stop wasting people's time. If someone doesn't like being called 'love' in a workforce then the door is open. Go and work somewhere else."

Richard Cook, director of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, added: "Now that this document is in print as a guide to staff it could be used by more zealous managers looking for an excuse to discipline employees."

A "Campaign Against Political Correctness"! Imagine that, the spirit of Wallace must not be totally dead.

Oh to be in France

From The Brussels Journal:

A quote from French Conservative presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006

I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

There are so many ways one could comment on this.

I'll limit myself to this: In the case of France he may have something of a point. Note this line, "If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life." Since the only place that an average French citizen would have had the chance to learn to use a firearm would have been by serving in the French Army then it is highly likely that any conceivable opponent would be able to "use a weapon more effectively".For those born into and raised in a culture with a single-minded dedication to surrender and appeasement; to all of a sudden be expected to behave like a free human being is, perhaps, a bit much to ask.

The French just need to finally admit openly what the rest of the world (outside of Europe) has known for years. That they are a lesser order of creation than true humanity and get it over with.

Day by Day

Everyone be sure to check out Sunday's Day By Day comic. Click the window to the left or click this link.

Chris Muir has created a brilliant parable on the different attitudes toward the war held by liberals and conservatives.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Is history repeating itself?

From The Washington Post:

Attacks and sectarian fighting have flared beyond Baghdad in recent days -- from Amarah in the south to the Tigris River town of Balad and the northern city of Mosul -- in some cases requiring the urgent intervention of U.S. forces. Sunni insurgents have also been staging bold military displays in cities and towns in the vast western province of Anbar, which a senior U.S. military officer this week described as "an al-Qaeda stronghold."

The eruption of violence around Iraq comes as thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops are tied down in aggressive operations to secure Baghdad, where attacks have nevertheless surged 43 percent since midsummer in a trend that an American general there this week called disheartening."

At least 75 U.S. troops have been killed so far in Iraq this month -- the highest daily rate since January 2005. The United Nations has said that more than 100 Iraqis a day are being killed in raging sectarian violence.

It is not an accident that this is happening during the run-up to an American election.

It is becoming fashionable to compare the current escalation of violence in Iraq to the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. I believe that to be an apt comparison for the following reason:

What Americans came to call the Tet Offensive (because it occurred during the Vietnamese lunar New Year holiday, called "Tet Nguyen Dan") was called the "General Offensive" by the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) insurgents who planed and executed it.

Briefly here is what the Viet Cong planned and what actually happened.

The communist forces believed, because Marxist doctrine told them, that the people of South Viet Nam would rise up and overthrow the capitalist government if only they were shown that it was possible. To that end virtually the entire fighting force of the NLF was mobilized in an operation timed to coincide with the Lunar New Year celebrations.

On the night of January 30-31, 1968 they struck in an attack having two objectives. One, gain control of the major cities and two, to bottle up US forces in their bases so that they would not be able to interfere.

Once American forces were engaged and unable to intervene in the cities the Viet Cong operators began to systematically murder those whom thy considered to be upholding South Vietnamese government rule. Police officers and their families, South Vietnamese military officers and government officials and their families. Even school teachers who were seen as friendly to the government were executed.

This was to demonstrate to the South Vietnamese people that victory over their government and its US allies was possible and inspire them to rise up. With the vast majority of the population in rebellion and the South Vietnamese government destroyed the Americans were expected to have no choice but to withdraw their forces and recognize the new united Viet Nam which would be governed from Hanoi.

It failed miserably. The Viet Cong were forced to face the fact that the people of South Viet Nam did not support them and did not share their goals of reunion with the North under communist control. However this realization came too late to save them. They had committed virtually their entire military force to the operation. They had come out in the open and were engaging the South Vietnamese Army and the US military in a conventional battle which they could not possibly win.

The NLF was for all intents and purposes destroyed by the Tet Offensive. From that point forward the war was fought between the US and South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese Army.

The Tet Offensive could very well have ended the war with a victory for the United States and the South Vietnamese government except for one thing. The news media in the United States took the deliberate and calculated decision to misrepresent the facts of the Tet Offensive and its results to the American people.

The media presented the Tet Offensive to the American people as a massive defeat for American and South Vietnamese forces and proof that the US could not win the war.
Let me say this again. The US news media chose to mount a giant propaganda campaign of disinformation in order to spin a spectacular American victory into a defeat. This was the beginning of the end for US involvement in South Viet Nam. The communist victory in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos – the re-education camps, the killing fields and the Boat People all flowed inevitably from the decision of Walter Cronkite and his friends to lie.

This is the connection to events in Iraq. The “insurgents” in Iraq have learned lessons from history, some valid and some not. The invalid lesson is this that the Red Army’s loss in Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union. It played a part, but it was not the primary reason for the USSR’s collapse.

The valid lessons which the Islamists have learned are that the American news media is an enemy of the American nation and will work to destroy it. Another lesson they have learned from contemporary American events is that the Democrat Party is also an enemy of the American nation and will work against its interests. They have also learned that the American public has a short attention span and will not continue to support a war that does not produce a quick victory with few losses.

Taken together these lessons, both the valid and invalid ones, tell the Islamofascists that if they will commit their forces to a massive assault in Iraq in the period leading up to the November elections that the American news media will do all in its power to magnify their gains and American losses in order to create the impression that the war cannot be won and that continued involvement is a waste. The terrorist forces hope that this will bring Democrats to power in the US legislature because they know that Democrats will withdraw US forces from Iraq allowing them to overthrow the still weak elected government and install a Taliban style theocracy.

This, they believe, will be the beginning of the end for the United States. If American will retreat from Iraq they believe that all they will need to do is apply pressure by dramatically ramping up terrorist attacks against American targets and we will go the way of the USSR.
That this is not true is of no consequence. They believe it and people act on their beliefs. A loss for the US in Iraq will invite one 9/11 type attack after another.

The Islamofascists have likely committed the great majority of their forces to the current operation. If we destroy them, as we certainly will given enough time and support from back home, it will likely end the “insurgency” in Iraq.

Unless the American people panic and elect the Surrender Party next month.

Friday, October 20, 2006

More Fall foliage

Taken from the roof of the Washington Co. courthouse in Johnson City, TN.

As was this.

These next ones are from the North Carolina Welcome Center on the NC/TN state line.

In Western North Carolina it is hard to locate something somewhere without a good view.

I think that's a maple tree. If not Patrick can correct me.

This isn't colorful, but I like the shot.

Finally, have you ever wondered where Christmas trees come from?

This is a Christmas tree farm in Avery County, NC. A large percentage of the nation's Christmas trees are grown in this region. It is also the srubbery capital of the nation.

If you ever have to appease the Knights Who Say Nee you will know where to go.

Cox & Forkum

Heath Shuler, lying sack of garbage

Heath Shuler is running for congress in the 11th congressional district of North Carolina against incumbent Charles Taylor. Taylor has a long record of service representing the people of Western North Carolina and has been a priority target of the NC Democrat machine for years. They have even gerrymandered his district in order to unseat him and failed. This year they have brought in a millionaire carpetbagger from neighboring Tennessee to attempt to unseat him.

Heath Shuler is a former NFL quarterback who has managed to parlay his name recognition and pretty-boy looks into a real estate fortune in the Knoxville, TN area. Shuler is running a highly negative campaign and Taylor is responding in kind.

This is not a problem for me. I realize that politics is a knife fight, in a sewer and that people who play nice lose. I’m OK with that.

What I am not OK with is the fact that Shuler, in his lust for power, is running an ad which goes beyond simply lying and crosses into the “Serpent in the garden” level of falsehood.
I’m talking about Shuler’s attempt to turn Taylor’s support for the national sales tax into a negative. Shuler is running an ad in which he accuses Taylor of wanting to “make everything more expensive in order to give a tax break to the rich and corporations”.

The truth about the national sales tax is this. If enacted it would eliminate all federal taxes except the sales tax. It would do away with the IRS completely. It would send a rebate check every month to every household equal to the amount sales tax that a person living at the poverty level would have paid the previous month multiplied by the number of people living in the household.

That way the poor would pay no federal tax whatsoever. In fact no one would pay federal tax on the amount of money they made up to the poverty level. People would be taxed only on the income they had over the poverty level.

There would be no personal income tax. No corporate income tax. No capital gains tax. No death tax. Every purchase you make has tax payments built into it. Whether you are buying a car, a house, a new Glock, a week’s worth of groceries or paying your rent you are paying the corporate income taxes for every business in the chain of production.

If you buy a new Ford Taurus you are paying Ford’s tax and the tax for the mining companies who dig the iron that makes the steel and the glass companies that make the windshields and the textile companies that make the seat covers and the petrochemical companies that make the plastic that goes into the dashboard and every other thing that Ford buys to build its cars out of.

Get it? Companies do not pay tax. Taxes are a business expense that they pass along to their customers and the end use buyer (the guy who drives the car) winds up paying ALL the taxes.

The national sales tax eliminates ALL those hidden tax payments in favor of one 23% tax added at the cash register. Under the “Taylor Tax”, as Shuler calls it, EVERYBODY who earns above the poverty level pays in proportion to the amount he spends. Since rich people spend more than poor people they pay more.

It literally can not get fairer than that.

And did I mention that there would be no IRS?

Sounds too good to be true doesn’t it? Yet Shuler is attempting to turn this into a negative!

That 2 point whatever “earthquake” we had the other day. . . That was my head exploding when I heard the Shuler ad.

The national sales tax is right up there equal with effective border control and winning the war as a GOOD THING and lying sack of garbage Shuler is trying to poison the well by painting it as some kind of give away to the plutocrats.

Listen up Shuler, you great steaming pile of weasel feces, the national sales tax is bigger than you and your piss ant political career. It is bigger than Congressman Taylor. It is bigger than Republican or Democrat. So lay the frak off of it! You want to lie about Taylor so you can slime your way into the House because you heard somewhere that it was easy for a congressman to get laid in DC go right ahead. Taylor’s a big boy and can give as good as he gets, but keep your grubby mitts off the best idea anyone has had in this country since Pat Henry said, “give me liberty or give me death”.

For more information click the Fair Tax Fans button on my sidebar.

The MSM's latest voter suppression effort

Here is the latest mainstream media attempt to demoralize Republicans and affect the outcome of next month's elections.

From The Washington Post:

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to
keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election.

Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability.

Makes it sound like a done deal that we're getting out of Iraq, right? Which "senior Republican" do they use for a source?

One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections.

That's right. Olympia J. Snowe. One of the small number of liberal RINOs in the Senate who, as Ann Coulter said about her fellow RINO Lincoln Chaffee, are too stupid to realize that they are Democrats.

What might someone who might actually be in the loop on the Administration's Iraq plans have to say about this?

White House officials describe the current turmoil over Iraq policy in Washington as an expected byproduct of the upsurge in violence. Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey."

Bush has been adamant that the United States will not withdraw its troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself.

So let's see. A left-wing RINO who only is only about one half step from being a declared enemy of the President says one thing about what the Bush Administration is planning and the President and his official spokesmen say the opposite and the press chooses to believe. . .

I have to admit that part of this has me torn. I have believed from the very first that the best solution to the Iraq problem was to divide the country into three states, Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd. The only reason that this was not considered was the objections of Turkey. The Turkish government feared that their own captive and oppressed Kurdish population, which lives in the part of Turkey which is adjacent to the Kurdish part of Iraq, would want to join the new Kurdistan.

Malcolm X once observed that if you could remove every last trace of racism from American society that most White people would still prefer to associate mainly with other White people and most Black people would still prefer to associate mainly with other Black people. Because it is a human trait to prefer the company of others whom we consider to be "our own kind". There is nothing wrong with this, it is not evil and it is nothing to be ashamed of.

The fact is that most of the violence in Africa stems from the fact that the borders of the nations were drawn in an arbitrary way by the European colonial powers and cut across tribal boundaries, forcing different tribes to share the same nationality.

Even though the three state option would be the best solution for Iraq it probably will not happen because of the Turkish problem. Anything which destabilizes Turkey would probably lead to a Turkish civil war which would certainly lead to a new Islamist government taking power. Instead of Turkey being a nation which is, on balance, more good than bad (if only slightly) we would end up with another Taliban-style regime. This time in a larger, much more wealthy nation located on the very edge of Europe.

When all factors are considered the best Iraq policy continues to be "stay the course", even if that isn't what people want to hear.

At the end of the day I would still rather have the Islamofascists who are determined to fight the Americans fighting our soldiers on Middle Eastern soil (and being slaughtered by them in the thousands) than fighting our civilians on US soil (and slaughtering them by the thousands).